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

, a nobleman of Venice, who died in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was very useful to his country; served it as a commander more than once; and was, in 1510, the means of reconciling that republic and pope Julius II. though he had the misfortune to he carried off by a violent fever at Rome in 1513, before the treaty was concluded between them. He was also a man of learning; and published a translation of “Alexander Aphrodiseus de Anima.” His letters are likewise well written; which made Erasmus say of him, that he was capable of any literary exertion, if his mind had not been dissipated by other employments. Pierius Valerianus has placed him in the list of unfortunate learned men, for which he gives three reasons: first, because his domestics obeyed him ill; secondly, because he did not live to see the happiness, which would arise to his country from the conclusion of his treaty; thirdly, because a great many books, which he had written to immortalize kis name, remained unpublished. We have not much reason, hovever, for thinking that any of these misfortunes gave him much uneasiness. An ingenious reply is, we know not upon what authority, attributed to him, when ambassador from Venice to pope Julius II. who asked him for the title of the claims of his republic to the sovereignty of the Adriatic. “Your holiness will find the concession of the Adriatic,” said he to the pontiff, “at the back of the original record of Constantine’s donation to pope Sylvester, of the city of Rome and the other territories of the church.” A bold answer, when we consider how dangerous it was to dispute the authenticity of this writ of donation, insomuch that, in 1478, several persons were condemned to the flames at Strasburg for expressing their doubts of it.

, bishop of Casae Nigrae in Numidia, is regarded by some as the author of the sect of the Donatists, which took its rise in the year 311, from the following circumstance. Cecilianus having been chosen to succeed Mensurius in the episcopal chair of Carthage, the election was contested by a powerful party, headed by a lady named Lucilla, and two priests, Brotus and Celestius, who had themselves been candidates for the disputed see. They caused Majorinus to be elected, under pretence that the ordination of Cecilianus was null, as having, according to them, been performed by Felix, bishop of Aptonga, whom they accused of being a traditor; that is, of having delivered to the pagans the sacred books and vessels during the persecution, and was therefore unfit to bestow consecration. The African bishops were divided, and Donatus headed the partisans of Majorinus. In the mean time, the affair being brought before the emperor, he referred the judgment to three bishops of Gaul, Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles, r conjointly with the pope Miltiades. These prelates, in a council held at Rome in 313, composed of fifteen Italian bishops, in which Cecilianus and Donatus appeared, each with ten bishops of their party, decided in favour of Cecilianus; but the division soon being renewed, the Donatists were again condemned by the council of Aries in 3)4; and lastly by an edict of Constantine, of the month of November 316. Donatus, who was returned to Africa, there received the sentence of deposition and of excommunication pronounced against him by pope Miltiades.

From the dates of some of Donne’s letters, it appears that he was at Paris with sir Robert Drury in 1612, and one is dated from the Spa in the same year, but at what time he returned is not certain. After his return, however, his friends became more seriously anxious to fix him in some honourable and lucrative employment at court. Before this period he had become known to king James, and was one of those learned persons with whom that sovereign delighted to converse at his table. On one of those occasions, about 1610, the conversation turned on a question respecting the obligation on Roman Catholics to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and Donne appeared to so much advantage in the dispute, that his majesty requested he would commit his sentiments to writing, and bring them to him. Donne readily complied, and presented the king with the treatise, published in that year, under the title of “Pseudo-Martyr.” This obtained him much reputation, and the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of M. A. which he had previouslyreceived from Cambridge. The “Pseudo-Martyr,” contains very strong arguments against the pope’s supremacy, and has been highly praised by his biographers. Warburton, however, speaks of it in less favourable terms. It must be confessed that the author has not availed himself of the writings of the judicious Hooker, and that in this, as well as in all his prose writings, are many of those farfetched conceits, which, however agreeable to the taste of the age, have placed him at the head of a class of Very indifferent poets.

Dr. Donne’s reputation as a poet, was higher in his own time than it has been since. Dryden fixed his character with his usual judgment; as “the greatest wit, though not the best poet of our nation.” He says afterwards , that “he affects the metaphysics, not only in his satires, but in his amorous verses, where Nature only should reign, and perplexes the minds of the fair sex with nice speculations of philosophy, when he should engage their hearts, and entertain them with the softnesses of love.” Dryden has also pronounced that if his satires were to be translated into numbers, they would yet be wanting in dignity of expression. From comparing the originals and translations in Pope’s works, the reader will probably think that Pope has made them so much his own, as to throw very little lighten Donne’s powers. He every where elevates the expression, and in very few instances retains a whole line. Pope, in his classification of poets, places Donne at the head of a school, that school from which Dr. Johnson has given so many remarkable specimens of absurdity, in his life of Covyley, and which, following Dryden, he terms the metaphysical school. Gray, in the sketch which he sent to Mr. Warton, considers it as a third Italian school, full of conceit, begun in queen Elizabeth’s reign, continued under James and Charles I. by Donne, Crashaw, Cleiveland, carried to its height by CowJey, and ending perhaps in Sprat. Donne’s numbers, if they may be so called, are certainly the most rugged and uncouth of any of our poets. He appears either to have had no ear, or to have been utterly regardless of harmony. Yet Spenser preceded him, and Drummond, the first polished versifier, was his contemporary; but it must be allowed that before Drummond appeared, Donne had relinquished his pursuit of the Muses, nor would it be just to include the whole of his poetry under the general censure which has been usually passed. Dr. Warton seems to think that if he had taken pains, he might not have proved so inferior to his contemporaries; but what inducement could he have to take pains, as he published nothing, and seems not desirous of public fame? He was certainly not ignorant or unskilled in the higher attributes of style, for he wrote elegantly in Latin, and displays considerable taste in some of his smaller pieces and epigrams. At what time he wrote his poems has not been ascertained; but of a few the dates may be recovered by the corresponding events of his life. Ben Jonson affirmed that he wrote all his best pieces before he was twenty-five years of age. His satires, in which there are some strokes levelled at the reformation, must have been written very early, as he was but a young man when he renounced the errors of popery. His poems were first published in 4to, 1633, and 12mo, 1635, 1651, 1669, and 1719. His son was the editor of the early editions.

, a noble Genoese, the greatest mariner of his age, was born in 1468, at Oneille, a small town on the coast of Genoa, of which Ceva Doria, his father, was joint lord. He adopted the military profession, and distinguished himself for several years in the service of different princes of Italy. On his return to his native country, he was twice employed in Corsica, where he fought against the rebels with so much success, that the whole island was reduced to the obedience of the republic. In consequence of the reputation for valour and prudence which Doria had acquired, he was appointed, about 1513, captain-general of the gallies of Genoa; and it is to be remarked, that he was upwards of forty-four years of age when he took up the profession of a maritime warrior. The African pirates, who at that time infested the Mediterranean, gave him the first opportunities for acquiring fame. He pursued them with unremitted ardour, and in a short time enriched himself with so many captures, that the produce, joined to the assistance of his friends, enabled him to purchase four gallics. The revolutions that soon happened in the government of Genoa, determined Doria to enter into the service of Francis I.; but after that prince was taken prisoner at Pavia, he became dissatisfied with the ministry of France, and yielding to the solicitations of Clement VII. he attached himself to that pontiff, who made him his admiral. Rome being taken by the constable of Bourbon, in 1527, the pope was no longer able to continue Doria in his pay, and persuaded him to go back into the service of France, the sovereign of which, Francis I. received him with open arms, and appointed him general of his gallies, with a salary of 36,000 crowns, to which he afterwards added the title of admiral of the seas of the Levant. Doria was then proprietor of eight well-armed gallies. It was to him that the French were indebted for the reduction of Genoa, from whence the Adorni were expelled that same year, 1527. The year following, Philippino Doria, his nephew and his lieutenant, whom he had dispatched with eight gallies to the coasts of the kingdom of Naples, in order to favour the operations of the French army there, commanded by Lautrec, gained a complete victory over the naval armament of the emperor at Capo-d'Orso, near the gulf of Salerno. The imperial fleet being now destroyed, Naples, besieged by Lautrec, could no longer receive succours by sea, and was on the point of surrendering, which would infallibly have brought on the conquest of the whole kingdom, when suddenly Doria abandoned France to serve the emperor. This defection frustrated the enterprise against Naples, and effected the total failure of the French affairs in Italy. As to the motives that led him to this sudden change, it should seem as if the ministers of Francis I. jealous of the influence of this foreigner, who besides treated them with the haughtiness of a republican, and the bluntness of a sailor, had endeavoured to ruin him in the king’s opinion, and had partly succeeded in their attempt. Doria, soured and angry, only waited for a pretext to give vent to his indignation, which his enemies soon gave him. They persuaded the king to appropriate to himself the town of Savona, belonging to the Genoese; to enlarge the port, and make it a rival of the metropolis. In vain did Doria make remonstrances to him in behalf of the republic, to turn him from his purpose; they were not only ill received, but were misinterpreted; and he was represented to the king as a man that openly resisted his will. Nor did they stop here; they persuaded the king to arrest him; and twelve gallies, under the command of Barbezieux, received orders to go first to Genoa to take possession of his person, and then to proceed to Naples to seize upon his gallies, commanded by Philippino his nephew. But Doria, having foreseen the blow, had retired to Lerica, in the gulph of La Spezia, whence he dispatched a brigantine to his nephew, with orders to join him without delay, and thought himself authorised to act in this manner, because the term of his engagement to the king was just expired. From this moment Doria made it his chief business to conclude his agreement with the emperor, who had been soliciting it for a long time. It will not appear surprizing that Francis T. now sought by all means in his power to regain Doria; but neither the most magnificent promises, nor even the mediation of pope Clement VII. could induce him to alter his resolution. What must, however, reflect still greater honour on the memory of Doria, was his refusal, on this occasion, of the sovereignty of Genoa, which was offered him by the emperor. Preferring the title of restorer to that of master, he stipulated that Genoa should remain free under the imperial protection, provided she should succeed in throwing off the yoke of the French. He thought nothing now was wanting to his glory, but to be the deliverer of his country; and the failure of the expedition against Naples emboldened him the same year, 1528, to hazard the attempt. Accordingly, presenting himself before Genoa with 13 gallies, and about 500 men, he made himself master of it in one night, without shedding a drop of blood. This expedition procured him the

adjudged him by a decree of the senate. The same decree contained an order for a statue to be erected to him, and a palace to be bought for him out of the public money. A new government was then formed at Genoa, by his advice, which is the government that subsisted until the late revolutions in Europe; so that he was not only the deliverer, but likewise the legislator of his country. Doria met with all the advantages he could desire from his attachment to the emperor, who gave him his entire confidence, and created him general of the sea, with a plenary and absolute authority. He was then owner of twelve gallies, which by his treaty were to be engaged in the service of the emperor; and that number was now augmented to twenty-two. Doria continued to signalize himself by several maritime expeditions, and rendered the most important services to the emperor. He took from the Turks, in 1532, the towns of Coron and of Patras, on the coast of Greece. The conquest of Tunis, and of the fort of Goulette, where Charles V. resolved to act in person, in 1535, was principally owing to the valour and good conduct of Doria; but it was against his advice and reiterated remonstrances, that the emperor in 1541 set on foot the unfortunate expedition to Algiers, where he lost a part of his fleet, and a great number of soldiers, and cost Doria eleven of his gallies. Nor was he more favoured by fortune in the affair of Prevezzo, in 1539. Being, with the imperial fleet, in conjunction with that of the Venetians and the gallies of the pope, in presence of the Turkish army, commanded by Barbarossa, and far inferior to his, he avoided the engagement under various pretences, and let slip the opportunity of a certain victory. For this he has been blamed by several historians. Some have even pretended (and, at that time, says Brantome, it was the common report), that there was a secret agreement between Barbarossa and him, by which it was settled, that decisive opportunities should be mutually avoided, in order to prolong the war which rendered their services necessary, and furnished them the means of enriching themselves. The African corsairs had never a more formidable enemy to contend with than Doria; the amount of the prizes taken from them, by himself or his lieutenants, was immense. The famous Dragut, among others, was captured by Jeaniietino Doria, with nine of his vessels. The zeal and the services of this great man were rewarded by Charles V. with the order of the golden fleece, the investiture of the principality of Melphes, and the marquisate of Tursi, in the kingdom of Naples, to him and his heirs for ever; together with the dignity of grand chancellor of that kingdom. It was not till about 1556, at the age of near ninety, that he relinquished the care of his gallies, and the command of them in person. Then, sinking under the weight of years, Philip II. king of Spain permittee] him to coustitute John Andrew Doria, his nephew, his lieutenant. He terminated his long and glorious career on the 25th of November, 1560, at the age of ninety-three, without offspring, though he had been married. He was very far from leaving so much property as might have been presumed, from the great and frequent opportunities he had of amassing wealth, which is accounted for by the excess of his magnificence, and the little attention be paid to affairs of ceconomy. Few men, without leaving a private station, have ever played so great a part on the stage of the world, as Doria: at home in Genoa, honoured by his fellow citizens as the deliverer and the tutelar genius of his country; abroad, with his gallies alone, holding, as it were, the rank of a maritime power. Few men have, even in the course of a long life, enjoyed a more uninterrupted course of prosperity. Twice was his ruin plotted; once in 1547, by the conspiracy of John Lewis de Fiesco, aimed principally at him; but the enterprise failed by the death of its leader, at the very moment of its execution; the second time, not long after, by that of Julius Cibo, which was detected, and cost the author of it his head. These two conspiracies had no other effect than to give still greater accessions of authority and fame to this great man, in Genoa, and through all Italy. He is accused by some authors of having been too cruel at times, in support of which they cite this instance: the marquis de Marignan, who took Porto Hercole in 1555, having taken prisoner Ottoboni de Fiesco, brother of Lewis, and an accomplice in his conspiracy, delivered him over to Doria, to revenge on him as he pleased the death of Jeannetino Doria, who had been slain in that conspiracy. Andrew, fired with rage, ordered Fiesco to be sewn up in a sack, and thrown into the sea. Those who have written on the side of Doria, have prudently passed over in silence this action, as unworthy of him. Another anecdote is told, more favourable, and characteristic. One of his pilots, who was frequently importuning him, coming up to him one day, told him he had three words to say to him. “I grant it,” returned Doria; “but remember, that if thou speak more, I will have thee hanged.” The pilot, without being disconcerted, replied: “money or dismission.” Andrew Doria, being satisfied with this reply, ordered him to be paid his arrears, and retained him in his service.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

Dr. Douglas collected, at a great expence, all the editions of Horace which had been published from 1476 to 1739. Dr. Harwood, who mentions this circumstance in his View of the Greek and Roman classics, which, however, had been previously mentioned by Pope, observes that this one author thus multiplied, must have constituted a very considerable library. A very accurate catalogue of those different editions is prefixed to the first volume of Watson’s Horace.

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

When he was upwards of fifty years of age, he commenced prophet. He had his first vision in the night of Feb. 23, 1638, and the second in the night of Jan. 23, 1643. The first vision promised him in general great armies from the north and east, which should crush the house of Austria; the second declared particularly, that Ragotski, prince of Transylvania, should command the army from the east, and ordered Drabicins to inform his brethren, that < was about to restore them to their own country, and to revenge the injuries done to his people and that they should prepare themselves for this deliverance by fasting and prayer. He received orders to write down what been revealed to him and to begin in the manner of the ancient prophets, “The word of the Lord came unto me.” His visions, however, were not much regarded at first. These two were followed by many others in the same year, 1643; and there was one, which ordered, that he should open the whole affair to Comenius, who was then at Elbing, in Prussia. One of his visions, in 1644, assured him that the imperial troops should not destroy the refugees. They committed great ravages upon the territories of Kagotski, plundered the town of Leidnitz, and besieged the castle. Drabicius shut himself up there, and did not depend so entirely upon the divine assurances as to think human means unnecessary. He even set his hand to the works: “he would not only be present,” says Comenius, who blames him for it, “but also fire one of the cannon himself; whereas, it would have been more proper for him to have been in a corner, and to have applied himself to prayer. But the imprudent zeal of this new Peter, presuming to defend the Lord with the material sword, was chastised by the Lord himself, who permitted part of the flame to recoil upon his face, and to hurt one of his eyes.” The imperialists raised the siege; but soon after besieged the place again, and took it. The refugees were plundered, and Drabicius fell into the hands of the imperialists. This did not prevent him from going to Ragotski, and telling him, Aug. 1645, that God commanded him to destroy the house of Austria and the pope; and that, “if he refused to attack that nest of vipers, he would draw down upon his family a general ruin.” The prince already knew that Drabicius had assumed the character of a prophet for Drabicius, according to the repeated orders which he had received in his ecstacies, had sent him a copy of his revelations, which Ragotski threw into the fire. The death of that prince, in Oct. 16 7, plunged Drabicius into extreme sorrow; who was in the utmost fear lest his revelation should vanish into smoke, and himself be exposed to ridicule. But he had one ecstatic consolation, which re-animated him; and that was, that God would send him Comenius, to whom he should communicate his writings. Comenius having business in Hungary, in 1650, saw Drabicius there, and his prophecies; and made such reflections as he thought proper, upon the vision’s having for three years before promised Drabicius that he should have Comenius for a coadjutor. Sigismond Ragotski, being urged by Drabicius to make war against the emperor, and by his mother to continue in peace with him, was somewhat perplexed. Drabicius denounced against him the judgments of the Almighty, in case of peace; and his mother threatened him with her curse in case of war. In this dilemma he recommended himself to the prayers of Drabicius and Comenius, and kept himself quiet till his death. In 1654 Drabicius was restored to his ministry, and his visions p esemed themselves more frequently than ever; ordering from lime to time that they should be communicated to his coadjutqr Comenius, that be might publish them to all nations and languages, and particularly to the Turks and Tartars. Comenius found himself embarrassed between the fear of God, and that of men; he was apprehensive that by not printing the revelations of Drabicins he should disobey God, and that by printing them he should expose himself to the ridicule and censure of men. He took a middle way; he resolved to print them, and not to distribute the copies; and upon this account he entitled the book “Lux in Tenebris.” But his resolution did not continue long; it gave way to two remarkable events, which were taken for a grand crisis, and the unravelling of the mystery. One of these events was the irruption of George Ragotski into Poland; the other, the death of the emperor Ferdinand III., but both events far from answering the predictions, served only to confound them. Ragotski perished in his descent upon Poland; and Leopold, king of Hungary, was elected emperor in the room of his father Ferdinand III. by which election the house of Austria was almost restored to its former grandeur, and the protestants in Hungary absolutely ruined. Drabicius was the greatest sufferer by this; for the court of Vienna, being informed that he was the person who sounded the trumpet against the house of Austria, sought means to punish him, and, as it is said, succeeded in it. What became of him, we cannot learn; some say that he was burnt for an impostor and false prophet; others, that he died in Turkey, whither he had fled for refuge; but neither of these accounts is certain.

“These to you are our commands, Send no help to th' Netherlands Of the treasure took by Drake, Restitution you must make: And those abbies build anew, Which your father overthrew: If for any peace you hope, In all points restore the pope.”

, in low Dutch Dridoens, was born at Turnhout in Brabant, studied at Louvain, and took there the degree of doctor of divinity in August 1512. Hadrian Florent, who was afterwards pope Hadrian VI. performed the ceremony of promoting him to that degree; and having observed that his scholar had applied himself too much to human learning, he put him in mind of the distinction which ought to be made between the mistress-science, and those which are her hand-maids. After this advice Driedo directed his chief application to the study of divinity. He became professor of that science in the university of Louvain, and was also curate of St. James, and canon of St. Peter in that city. He opposed Lutlieranism with great vigour; but if we judge of him by a letter of Erasmus, his zeal was moderate. He died at Louvain in 1535, though those who have published his epitaph, have represented it as affirming that he died August 4, 1555. His works were published in 4 vols. 4to and folio, by Gravius, at Louvain. They relate to the disputes between the Roman catholics and protestants and the principal titles are, “De gratia & libero arbitrio” “De concordia liberi arbitrii & proedestinationis” “De captivitate &. redemptione generis humani” “De Jibertate Christiana;” “De Scripturis &. dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis.”

In 1695, while employed on his translation of Virgil, begun in 1694, he published a translation, in prose, of Dr. Fresnoy’s “Art of Painting;” the second edition of which, corrected and enlarged, was afterwards published in 1716. It is dedicated to the earl of Burlington by Richard Graham, esq. who observes in the dedication, that some liberties have been taken with this excellent translation, of which he gives the following account: “The misfortune that attended Mr. Dryden in that undertaking was, that, for want of a competent knowledge in painting, he suffered himself to be misled by an unskilful guide. Monsieur de Piles told him, that his French version was made at the request of the author himself; and altered by him, till it was wholly to his mind. This Mr. Dryden taking upon content, thought there was nothing more incumbent upon him than to put it into the best English he could, and accordingly performed his part here, as in every thing else, with accuracy. But it being manifest that the French translator has frequently mistaken the sense of his author, and very often also not set it in the most advantageous light; to do justice to M. du Fresnoy, Mr. Jervas, a very good critic in the language, as well as in the subject of the poem, has been prevailed upon to correct what he found amiss; and his amendments are every-where distinguished uith proper marks.” Dryden tells us, in the preface to the “Art of Painting,” that, when he undertook this work, he was already engaged in the translation of Virgil, “from whom,” says he, “I only borrowed two months.” This translation was published in 1697, and has passed through numerous editions in various forms. The pastorals are dedicated to lord Clifford; and Dryden tells his lordship, that “what he now offers him, is the wretched remainder of a sickly age, worn out with study, and oppressed with fortune, without other support than the constancy and patience of a Christian;” and he adds, “that he began this work in his great climacteric.” The Life of Virgil, which follows this dedication, the two prefaces to the Pastorals and Georgics, and all the arguments in prose to the whole translation, were given him by friends; the preface to the Georgics, in particular, by Addison. The translation of the Georgics is dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield; and that of the ^neis to the earl of Mulgrave. This latter dedication contains the author’s thoughts on epic poetry, particularly that of Virgil. It is generally allowed that his translation of Virgil is excellent. Pope, speaking of Dryden’s translation of some parts of Homer, says, “Had he translated the whole work, I would no more have attempted Homer after him, than Virgil; his version of whom, notwithstanding some human errors, is the most noble and spirited translation I know in any language.” In the same year he published his celebrated ode of “Alexander’s Feast,” which is commonly said to have been finished in one night; but, according to Mr. Malone, occupied him for some weeks.

Dr. Johnson conceived, that no description of Dryden’s person had been transmitted to us but, on the contrary, there are few English poets, of whose external appearance more particulars have been recorded. We have not indeed any original whole-length portrait of him, such as that very curious delineation of Pope, with which we have been lately gratified, whence a more perfect notion of that poet’s external appearance may be obtained than from all the friendly drawings of Richardson; yet from various descriptions of Dryden’s person that have come down to us, a very adequate idea of it may be formed. He was certainly a short, fat, florid man, “corpore quadrato,” as lord Hailes some years ago observed to Mr. Malone, “a description which ^neas Sylvius applied to James the First of Scotland” The same gentleman remarked, that that at one time he wore his hair in large quantity, and that it inclined to gray, even before his misfortunes; a circumstance which, he said, he had learned from a portrait of Dry den, painted by Kneller, formerly in the possession of the late Mr. James West. But perhaps his lordship here is not quite accurate. By “before his misfortunes” was meant before the Revolution; but the portrait in question was probably painted at a later period. From other documents, however, it appears that he became gray before he was deprived of the laurel. In Riley’s portrait, painted in 1683, he wears a very large wig: so also in that by Closterman, done at a late period. By Tom Brown he is always called “little Bayes,” and by Rochester, when he quarrelled with, and wished to depreciate him, he was nick-named “poet Squab.” The earliest portrait of Dryden hitherto discovered is that in the picture gallery, Oxford, but the painter is not known. It is engraved in Mr. Malone’s Life.

Pope had a high opinion of Dryden. His verses upon his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day are too well known to need transcribing. In a letter to Wycherley, he says, “It was certainly a great satisfaction to me, to see and converse with a man, whom in his writings I had so long known with pleasure; but it was a very high addition to it, to hear you at our very first meeting doing justice to your dead friend Mr. Dryden. I was not so happy as to know him: Frrgtlium tantum vidi. Had I been born early enough, I must have known and loved him; for I have been assured, not only by yourself, but by Mr. Congreve and sir William Trumball, that his personal qualities were as amiable as his poetical, notwithstanding the many libellous misrepresentations of them; against which, the former of these gentlemen has told me he will one day vindicate him.” But what Congreve and Pope have said of Dryden, is rather in the way of panegyric, than an exact character of him. Others have spoken of him more moderately, and yet have probably done him no injustice. Thus Felton observes, th^.t “he at once gave the best rules, and broke them in spite of his own knowledge, and the Rehearsal. His prefaces are many of them admirable upon dramatic writings: he had some peculiar notions, which he maintains with great address; but his judgment in disputed points is of less weight and value, because the inconstancy of his temper did run into his thoughts, and mixed with the conduct of his writings, as well as his life.” Voltaire styles him “a writer whose genius was too exuberant, and not accompanied with judgment enough; and tells us, that if he had writ only a tenth part of the works he left behind him, his character would have been conspicuous in every part; but his groat fault is, his having endeavoured to be universal.” Dryden has made no scruple to disparage himself, where he thought he had not excelled. Thus, in his dedication of his Aurengzebe to the earl of Mulgrave, speaking of his writing for the stage, “I never thought myself,” says he, “very fit for an employment where many of my predecessors have excelled me in all kinds; and some of my contemporaries, even in my own partial judgment, have outdone me in comedy. Some little hopes I have yet remaining (and those too, considering my abilities, may be vain), that I may make the world some part of amends for many ill plays, by an heroic poem,” of which, however, he did not execute any part. Upon the whole, Mr. Malone appears to have examined and delineated his character as a man, with most truth and precision; and as a poet it is impossible to refer to any thing equal to that masterly criticism given by Dr. Johnson in his life of our poet.

Of Dryden’s sons, Charles, the eldest, was born at Charlton, Wiltshire, and educated at Westminster-schoolj and King’s-college, Cambridge, of which he was admitted a member,' in June 1683. In the following year he wrdte some Latin verses addressed to lord Roscommon, which were prefixed to that nobleman’s “Essay on Translated Verse:” and in 1685 contributed a Latin poem to the Cambridge Collection of Verses published on the death of Charles II. In Dryden’s “Second MisceUany” published in the same year, we find another Latin poem by him, descriptive of lord Arlington’s gardens. He also translated the seventh satire in his father’s Juvenal. About 1692 he went to Italy, and was so well recommended to pope Innocent XII. that he was appointed chamberlain to his household. While at Rome, he wrote a poem in English, “On the happiness of a retired life,” published in 1694, in his father’s “Fourth Miscellany.” He is supposed to have returned to England about 1698, and after the death of his father, administered to his effects, which probably did little more than pay his debts. In the following year Mr. George Granville having altered Shakspeare’s “Merchant of Venice” to a drama, which he entitled “The Jew of Venice,” he gave the profits of that piece to Charles Dryden; and two representations of it were performed for his benefit, a proof that his circumStances were far from good. A few years afterwards, unfortunately attempting to swim across the Thames, near Datchet, he was drowned, and was buried at Windsor, August 20, 1704.

, our author’s second son, was born probably in 1667 or 1663, and educated at Westminsterschool, from which he was elected to Oxford, but instead of being matriculated of Christ-church, was placed by his father, now become a Roman catholic, under the private tuition of Obadiah Walker, master of University college, a concealed papist. It is supposed that he went to Rome about the end of 1692, and obtained some office under his brother in the pope’s household. Previously to his leaving England, he translated the fourteenth satire for his father’s Juvenal, and while at Rome, wrote a comedy, “The Husband his own Cuckold,” which was acted in London, and published with a preface by his father. He made a tour in Sicily and Malta, of which his account, after remaining many years in manuscript, was published in 1776, in an 8vo pamphlet. Soon after his return to Rome from this excursion, in 1701, he is said to have died there of a fever.

, Dryden’s third son, was born May 2, 1669, and educated at the Charter-house, and, like his brothers, went to Rome, where he became a captain of the pope’s guards. He succeeded to the title of baronet, by the death of sir John Dryden, and died on the 4th of December, 1710.

In 1733 the queen made him one of the yeomen of the guards, from which situation, by a singular, and, we think, absurd transition, he was admitted into orders, and preferred to the living of Byfleet in Surrey. The only qualification for this office which his biographers mention, is a small knowledge of Latin, not enough surely to justify such an abuse of church patronage. Before this he was appointed keeper of the queen’s select library at Richmond, called Merlin’s Cave, where he had apartments, which were continued to his daughter after his decease. Here and at Byfleet he continued for many years to make poems and sermons, and was much followed by the people as a preacher; till, falling at length into a low-spirited melancholy way, he flung himself into the Thames from a bridge near Reading, or, as some say, into a trout stream, which is near Reading, and was drowned. This unhappy accident, for he was perfectly lunatic, befell him some time in March or April, 1756. In the preface to his poems he makes his acknowledgments to some gentleman who “first took notice of him in the midst of poverty and labour.” What those gentlemen did was highly generous and praise-worthy, and it was but gratitude in Stephen to acknowledge it yet it is more than probable, that if he had been suffered to pass the remainder of his lite, after he had spent so much of it, in poverty and labour, he had lived and died more happily. It was thought that his melancholy proceeded from a notion that he had not been sufficiently provided for, and if so, his injudicious patrons must have flattered him into a very false estimate of his merit. Warton says that Spence, who wrote Duck’s life and published his poems, was the means of his obtaining the living of Byfleet; and such was the taste of the courtiers of queen Caroline, that they actually wished to set up this poor versifier as a rival to Pope. But although, to use Warburton’s sarcastic language, “queen Caroline, who moderated, as a sovereign, between the two great philosophers, Clarke and Leibnitz, in the most sublime points in metaphysics and natural philosophy, chose this man for her favourite poet,” it was beneath such a man as Spence to persuade poor Duck that he merited the higher rewards of genius. Few men, if we may judge from his works, had ever less pretensions.

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

His genius prompting him to great exploits, and having a particular turn to navigation and discoveries, he projected a voyage into the South-seas, in hopes of acquiring the same fame thereby, as his friend the famous Thomas Cavendish of Trimley, esq. whose sister he had married: but, after much pains taken, and money spent, the government thought it not safe for him to proceed. Afterwards, however, he performed a voyage, setting out Nov. 1594, and returning May 1595; an account of which, written by himseh, is published in Hackluyt’s collection of voyages. At the end of Elizabeth’s reign, having buried his wife, he married Alice, the daughter of sir Thomas Leigh. He then began to entertain hopes of reviving the honours of his family; and in 1605 commenced a suit, with a view of proving the legitimacy of his birth. But no sooner had the countess dowager notice of this, than she procured au information to be filed against him and some others for a conspiracy; which was such a blow to all his hopes, that, obtaining a licence to travel for three years, which was easily granted him, he quitted the kingdom: leaving behind him lady Alice Dudley his wife, and four daughters. He had not been long abroad, before he was commanded back, for assuming in foreign countries the title of earl of Warwick; but refusing to obey that summons, his estate was seized, and vested in the crown, during his natural life, upon the statute of fugitives. The place which sir Robert Dudley chose for his retreat abroad, was Florence; where he was very kindly received by Cosmo II. great duke of Tuscany; and, in process of time, made great chamberlain to his serene highness’s consort, the archduchess Magdalen of Austria, sister to the emperor Ferdinand II. with whom he was a great favourite. He discovered in that court those great abilities for which he had been so much admired in England: he contrived several methods of improving shipping, introduced new manufactures, excited the merchants to extend their foreign commerce; and, by other services of still greater importance, obtained so high a reputation, that, at the desire of the archduchess, the emperor, by letters-patent dated at Vienna March 9, 1620, created him a duke of the holy Roman empire. Upon this, he assumed his grandfather’s title of Northumberland; and, ten years after, got himself enrolled by pope Urban VIII. among the Roman nobility. Under the reign of the grand duke Ferdinand II. he became still more famous, on account of that great project which he formed, of draining a vast tract of morass between Pisa and the sea: for by this he raised Leghorn, from a mean and pitiful place into a large and beautiful town; and having engaged his serene highness to declare it a free port, he, by his influence, drew many English merchants to settle and set up houses there. In consideration of his services, and for the support of his dignity, the grand duke bestowed upon him a handsome pension; which, however, went but a little way in his expences: for he affected magnificence in all things, built a noble palace for himself and his family at Florence, and much adorned the castle of Carbello, three miles from that capital, which the grand duke gave him for a country retreat, and where he died Sept. 1639.

When he went abroad, he left his wife and four daughters at home, and prevailed upon a young lady, at that time esteemed one of the finest women in England, to bear him company in the habit of a page. This lady was Mrs. Elizabeth Southwell, the daughter of sir Robert Southwell, of Woodrising in Norfolk whom he afterwards married bv virtue of a dispensation from the pope. In excuse for this gross immorality, we are told that the lady’s conduct was afterwards without exception; that she lived in honour and esteem, and had all the respect paid her that her title of a duchess could demand, and that sir Robert loved her most tenderly to the last, and caused a noble monument to be erected to her memory in the church of St. Pancrace at Florence, where her body lies buried, and he by her. He had by this lady a son Charles, who assumed the title of earl of Warwick, and four daughters, all honourably married in that country. It is very probable, that this marriage might prove a great bar to his return to England; and might be also a motive to the passing so extraordinary a law as that was, by which lady Alice Dudley was enabled to dispose of her jointure during his life.

was born of noble parents at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, in the year 925. Under the patronage of his uncle Aldhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, he was instructed in the literature and accomplishments of those times, and in consequence of his recommendation invited by king Athelstan to court, who bestowed on him lands near Glastonbury, where he is said to have spent some years in retirement. Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, appointed him abbot of the celebrated monastery which he began to rebuild in that place in the year 042, and by the munificence of the king, who gave him a new charter in the year 944, he was enabled to restore it to its former lustre. Among other legendary stories reported of St. Dunstan we are told that he had been represented to the king as a man of licentious manners; and dreading the ruin of his fortune by suspicions of this nature, he determined to repair past indiscretions by exchanging the extreme of superstition for that of licentiousness. Accordingly he secluded himself altogether from the world; and he framed a cell so small that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and here he employed himself perpetually in devotion or manual labour. In this retreat his mind was probably somewhat deranged; and he indulged chimeras which, believed by himself and announced to the credulous multitude, established a character of sanctity among the people. He is said to have fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations; till Dunstan, provoked hy his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he put his head into the cell, and he held him there till the malignant spirit made the whole neighbourhood resound with his bellowings. The people credited and extolled this notable exploit, and it ensured to Dunstan such a degree of reputation, that he appeared again in the world, and Edred, who had succeeded to the crown, made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most important affairs of government. He was also placed at the head of the treasury; and being possessed of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprizes. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, Dunstan imported into England a new order of monks, the Benedictines, who, by changing the state of ecclesiastical affairs, excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions. Finding also that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a parti zan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavoured to render it universal in the kingdom. This conduct, however, incurred the resentment of the secular clergy; and these exasperated the indignation of many courtiers, which had been already excited by the haughty and over-bearing demeanour which Dunstan assumed. Upon the death of Edred, who had supported his prime-minister and favourite in all his measures, and the subsequent succession of Edwy, Dunstan was accused of malversation in his office, and banished the kingdom. But, on the death of Edwy, and the succession of Edgar, Dunstan was recalled and promoted first to the see of Worcester, then to that of London and about the year 959, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For this last advancement it was requisite to obtain the sanction of the pope; and for this purpose Dunstan was sent to Rome, where he soon obtained the object of his wishes, and the appointment of legate in England, with very extensive authority. Upon his return to England, so absolute was his influence over the king, he was enabled to give to the Romish see an authority and jurisdiction, of which the English clergy had been before in a considerable degree independent. In order the more effectually and completely to accomplish this object, the secular clergy were excluded from their livings, and disgraced; and the monks were appointed to supply their places. The scandalous lives of the secular clergy furnished one plea for this measure, and it was not altogether groundless; but the principal motive was that of rendering the papal power absolute in the English church; for, at this period, the English clergy had not yielded implicit submission to the pretended successors of St. Peter, as they refused to comply with the decrees of the popes, which enjoined celibacy on the clergy. Dunstan was active and persevering, and supported by the authority of the crown, he conquered the struggles which the country had long maintained against papal dominion, and gave to the monks an influence, the baneful effects of which were experienced in England until the era of the reformation. Hence Dunstan has been highly extolled by the monks and partizans of the Romish church; and his character has been celebrated in a variety of ways, and particularly by the miracles which have been wrought either by himself or by others in his favour. During the whole reign of Edgar, Dunstan maintained his interest at court; and upon his death, in the year 975, his influence served to raise his son Edward to the throne, in opposition to Ethelred. Whilst Edward was in his minority, Dunstan ruled with absolute sway, both in the church and state, but on the murder of the king, in the year 979, and after the accession of Ethelred, his credit and influence declined; and the contempt with which his threatenings of divine vengeance were regarded by the king, are said to have mortified him to such a degree, that on his return to his archbishopric, he died of grief and vexation, May 19, 988. A volume of his works was published at Doway, in 1626. His ambition has given him a considerable place in ecclesiastical and civil history; and he appears to have been a man of extraordinary talents. Dr. Burney, in his history, notices his skill in music, and his biographers also inform us that he was a master of drawing, engraved and took impressions from gold, silver, brass, and iron, and that he even practised something like printing. Gervase’s words are, “literas formare,” which however, we think, means no more than that he cut letters on metal.

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

, son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, was advocate general, and afterwards appointed first president of the parliament by Henry III. in 1581, at the time when the fury of the league was at its height. Duranti opposed it with all his might; but was unable to restrain the factious either by threats or caresses. After having many times narrowly escaped death, once, as he was endeavouring to appease a tumult, one of the rebels killed him by a musket ball, on the 10th of February, 1589. While Duranti with uplifted hands was imploring heaven for his assassins, the people stabbed him in a thousand places, and dragged him by the feet to the place of execution. As there was no gibbet prepared, they tied his feet to the pillory, and nailed behind him the picture of king Henry III., accompanying their cruelties with every brutal insult to his lifeless remains. Such was his recompense for the pains he had taken the foregoing year to preserve Toulouse from the plague. To this piece of service may be added the foundation of the college of FEsquille, magnificently constructed by his orders; the establishment of two brotherhoods, the one to portion off poor girls, and the other for the relief of prisoners; and, many other acts of liberality to several young men of promising hopes, &c. The church of Rome too was no less obliged to him for his book “De ritibus ecclesioe,” which was thought so excellent by pope Sixtus V. that he had it printed at Rome, in 1591, folio. It has been falsely attributed to Peter Danes. The life of Duranti was published by Martel, in his Memoirs. The day after his death, Duranti was secretly buried at the convent of the Cordeliers; on which occasion he had no other cerecloth than the picture representing Henry III. that had been hung up with his body to the prllory. His heirs raised a monument to him, when the troubles were appeased.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

, a German historian and antiquary, was born at Duingen in the duchy of Brunswick, Sept. 7, 1674. Alter studying for some time at Brunswick and Helmstadt, where he made very distinguished progress in the belles lettres and history, he became secretary to the count de Flemming in Poland; and there became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, by whose interest he was appointed professor of history at Helmstadt. After Leibnitz’s death, he was appointed professor at Hanover, where he published some of his works. Although this place was lucrative, he here contracted debts, and his creditors having laid hold of a part of his salary to liquidate some of these, he privately quitted Hanover in 1723, where he left his family, and the following year embraced the religion of popery at Cologne. He then passed some time in the monastery of Corvey in Westphalia; and the Jesuits being very proud of their convert, sent him advantageous offers to settle at Vienna, Passau, or Wurtzbourg. He chose the latter, and was appointed the bishop’s counsel, historiographer, and keeper of the archives and library, and the emperor afterwards granted him letters of nobility. Pope Innocent XIII. seems also to have been delighted with his conversion, although his embarrassed circumstances appear to have been the chief cause of it. He died in the month of February 1730; and whatever may be thought of his religious principles, no doubt can be entertained of his extensive learning and knowledge of history. He wrote, 1. “Historia studii etymologici linguae Germanicas,” Hanover, 1711, 8vo. 2. “De usu et pr&stantia studii etymologici linguae Gerjnanicse.” 3. “Corpus historicum medii aevi,” Leipsic, 1723, 2 vols. fol. a work on which the abbé Lenglet bestows high praise, as very curious and well -digested. 4. “Origines Habsburgo-Austriacae,” Leipsic, 1721, folio. 5. “Leges Francorum et Hipuariorum,” &c. ibid. 1730, fol. 6. “Historia genealogica principumSaxonite superioris, necnon origines Aulialtiiue et Sabaudicae,” ibid. 1722, fol. 7. “Caihechesis theotisca monachi Weissenburgensis, interpretatione illustrate.” 8. “Leibnitzii collectanea etymologica.” 9. “Brevis ad historian! Germanise introductio.” 10. “Programma de antiquissimo Helmstadiistatu,” Helmstadt, 1709. 11. “De diplomate Caroh magui pro scholis Osnaburgensibus Grsecis et Latinis.” 12. “Animadversiones historical et criticae in Joannis Frederic! Schannati dicecesim et hierarchiam Fuldeusem.” 13. “Annales Franciae orientalis et episcopatus Wurceburgensis,” 2 vols. 1731. 14. “De origine Germanorum,” Gottingen, 1750, 4to. He wrote also some numUtnatical tracts, &c.

, a learned divine, and professor in the university of Ingoldstadt, was born in Suabia, in 1483. He is memorable for promoting the reformation by the weakness of the opposition he gave to Luther, Melancthon, Carolostadius, and other leading protestants in> Germany; and for his disputes and writings against them in defence of his own communion, all which terminated in, his defeat, and in exciting a spirit of inquiry and discussion which eminently advanced the reformation. In 1518 he disputed with Luther at Leipsic, about the supremacy of the pope, penance, purgatory, and indulgences, before George duke of Saxony; at which time even the Lutherans were ready to grant that he acquitted himself as well as a man could do in the support of such a cause, and were not a little pleased that they were able to answer itg greatest supporter. He disputed the year after, against Carolostadius, on the subject of free will. He appeared at the diet of Augsburg in 1538, where he argued against the protestant confession; and in 1541 he disputed for three days with Melancthon and other divines at Worms, concerning the continuance of original sin after baptism. This conference, by the emperor’s command, was adjourned to Ratisbon; where he dissented again from Pfiug and Cropper, with reference to the articles of union. He was the most conspicuous orator in all the public disputes which the Roman catholics had with the Lutherans and Zwinglians. He wrote a great many polemical tracts; and, among the rest, a Manual of Controversies, in which he discourses upon most of the heads contested between the papists and protestants. This book was printed at Ingoldstadt, in 1535. He wrote another tract against the articles proposed at the conference at Ratisbon, printed at Paris in 1543. He composed likewise two discourses upon the sacrifice of the mass; some other controversial pieces an exposition upon the prophet Haggai; and several homilies. Upon the whole, he was a person of uncommon parts, uncommon learning, and uncommon zeal; and to his perseverance in the cause of popery, the reformers were greatly indebted. He died at Ingoldstadr, in 1543, aged sixty years.

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

Many authors have preserved accounts of this prince’s writings. Cardan talks much of his parts and learning. Holland affirms that he not only wrote notes from the lectures or sermons he heard, but composed a comedy, entitled “The Whore of Babylon,” in Latin. It is more certain, howevar, that he wrote “The Sum of a conference with the Lord Admiral,” which, in his own hand, is extant among the Ashmolean Mss.; “A method for the proceedings in the council,” in the Cottonian library; and “King Edward VIth’s own arguments against the pope’s supremacy, &c.” translated out of the original, written with the king’s own hand in French, and still preserved. To which are added some remarks upon his life and reign, in vindication of his memory from Dr. Heylin’s severe and unjust censure, Lond. 1682. He drew himself the rough draught of a sumptuary law, which is preserved by Strype; and an account of a progress he made, which he sent to one of his particular favourites, called Barnahy Fiupatrick, then in France. The same author has given some specimens of his Latin epistles and orations, and an account of two books written by him; the first before he was twelve years of age, called “L'Encontre les Abus du Monde,” a tract of thirty-seven leaves in French, against the abuses of popery; it is dedicated to the protector, his uncle; is corrected by his French tutor, and attested by him to be of the king’s own composition. An original copy of this tract is noiv in the British Museum. The other, preserved in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, is, “A Translation into French of several passages of Scripture, which forbid idolatry, or worshipping of false gods.” Tanner giresa list of Edward’s letters that are extant; and there is a large folio ms. in the British Museum, containing his exercises in Greek, Latin, and English, with his signature to each of them, as king of England. Cardan says that at die age of fifteen, our prince had learned seven languages, and was perfect in English, French, and Latin. Cardan adds, " he spoke Latin with as much readiness and elegance as myself. He was a pretty good logician; he understood natural philosophy and music, and played upon the lute. The good and the learned had formed the highest expectations of him, from the sweetness of his disposition, and the excellence of his talents. He had begun to favour learning before he was a great scholar himself, and to be acquainted with it before he could make use of it. Alas! how prophetically did he once repeat to me,

In 1759, a younger, and the only brother of his good uncle, came to England, and settling in London, took him to reside with him, in a high and elegant style of life. He was a representative in parliament for Abingdon, and afterward for his native town. This gentleman, in the latter end of the same year, sent him to Jamaica; which proved the happiest and most fortunate change in his life, as his uncle, to the most enlarged and enlightened mind, added the sweetest temper, and the most generous disposition. His tenderness toward Mr. Edwards was excessive, and he in return regarded him with more than filial affection and veneration. Observing his passion for books, and thinking favourably of his capacity, his uncle engaged a clergyman, a Mr. Teale, to reside in his family, chiefly to supply by his instructions Mr. Edwards’s deficiency in the learned languages. Mr. Teale had been master of a free grammar school, and beside being a most accomplished scholar, possessed an exquisite taste for poetry, of which the reader will be convinced by referring to the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1771, the beautiful copy of verses, there first published, called “The Compliment of the Day,” being of his composition. Mr. Edwards, however, according to his own account, did not make any great progress in the languages under his tuition. He acquired “small Latin, and less Greek;” and never found it easy to read the Roman poets in their own language. Not having been grounded in the Latin grammar at an early period of life, he found the study of it insupportably disgusting, after he had acquired a taste for the beauties of fine writing. Poetry, however, was their chief amusement; for Mr. Teale, as well as himself, preferred the charms of Dryden and Pope, to the dull drudgery of poring over syntax and prosody. They preferred belles lettres; and laughed away many an hour over the plays of Moliere, and wrote verses on local and temporary subjects, which thev sometimes published in the Colonial newspapers. Yet the Latin classics were not altogether neglected; Mr. Teale delighted to point out to his pupil the beauties of Horace, and would frequently impose on him the task of translating an ode into English verse, which, with his assistance in construing the words, he sometimes accomplished.

, a critic and poetical writer, was born in 1691), in or near the city of London, and was a younger son of Edwards, esq. a gentleman in the profession of the law. His grandfather had been of the same profession. The principal part of his grammatical education he is said to have received at a private school, and never was a member of either of the universities. At a proper age he was entered of Lincoln’s Inn and, in due time, was called to the bar but, having a considerable hesitation in his speech, he was discouraged from engaging much in the practice of the law. Although he never appears to have fallen into that dissipation which is sometimes chargeable upon young gentlemen of the inns of court, it may be conjectured, from his subsequent publications, that he applied himself more assiduously to the cultivation of the belles lettres than to the severer studies belonging to his profession. Shakspeare, in particular, was the object of his warmest admiration and most sedulous attention; and to this circumstance Mr. Edwards is principally indebted for his literary reputation. His first appearance from the press was in a pamphlet published, in 1744, and entitled “A Letter to the author of a late Epistolary Dedication, addressed to Mr. Warburton.” This was the beginning of our author’s attack upon that famous writer; which was followed, in 1747, by “A Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shakspeare,” a performance so well received, that two impressions of it were printed in the same year. A third edition of it appeared in 1748, under the title of “The Canons of Criticism, and a Glossary, being a Supplement to Mr. Warburton’s edition of Shaky speare. Collected from the notes in that celebrated work, and proper to be bound up with it. By the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn;” which title the book has ever since retained. The expression of “the other gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn,” refers to a previous controversy of Warburton’s, upon a different topic, with another member of that society. Mr. Warburton, in the preface to his edition of Shakspeare, declares that it had been once his design to give the reader a body of canons for literary criticism, drawn out in form, together with a glossary; but that he had laid aside his purpose, as these uses might be well supplied by what he had occasionally said upon the subject in the course of his remarks. This idea Mr. Edwards humourously took up, and from the notes and corrections of Warburton’s Shakspeare, has framed a set of canons ridiculously absurd, each of which is confirmed and illustrated by examples taken from the edition in question; and it cannot be denied that Mr. Edwards has perfectly succeeded in his attempt, and that through the whole of his work he has displayed his wit, his learning, and his intimate acquaintance with Shakspeare; but such an attack upon Warburton, though conducted with pleasantry rather than ill-nature, was too formidable to avoid exciting resentment. Accordingly, Warburton introduced Mr. Edwards into the next edition of Pope’s “Dunciad” in a note under the following lines in the fourth book of that work:

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

Robert Egglesfield appears to have been highly esteemed by his rojal master and mistress, Edward III. and queen Philippa, and to have shared in their intimacy and confidence. In 1332, the king bestowed on him the rectory of Burgh, in the person of Adam de Egglesfield, his proxy, and probably relation and he was ordained priest at Carlisle in the Lent following. This church was appropriated to the college by pope Clement VI, in 1344. Egglesfield employed his whole interest at court in promoting religion and learning, giving all he had to the public, and that in his life-time, when he could best secure those advantages which he was anxious to bestow on posterity.

, bishop of Rome, was a native of Nicopolis, and flourished in the second century. He was first a deacon of the church, and about the year 177 was elected bishop of Rome. Soon after his elevation, letters were addressed to him by the martyrs of Lyons, then shut up in prison, on the subject of the peculiar tenets of Montanus and his followers; the object of which was to recommend healing and temperate measures in the treatment of that sect. During the episcopate of Eleutherius, the church is said to have enjoyed much peace, notwithstanding the parties which rose up, and which zealously contended for the truth. Among these were persons headed by Florinus and filastus, both presbyters, who maintained that God was the author of evil as well as good, for which they were degraded and excommunicated. Eleutherius died in the year 192, and deserves credit for some liberal additions which be made to the pontifical code; of these, one enacted that a man should not abstain from any sort of meat that was commonly eaten; and the other, that sentence should not be pronounced against any one accused of crimes, unless he were present to make his defence. According to Bede, but the circumstance appears doubtful, it was at this period that an embassy was sent by Lucius, king of Britain, to Rome, to request the pope to send over proper persons to explain to him and his people the nature of the Christian faith.

, bishop of Pavia in Italy, and an eminent writer, was descended from an illustrious family in Gaul, and horn in Italy about the year 473. Losing an aunt, who had brought him up, at sixteen years of age, he was reduced to very necessitous circumstances, but retrieved his affairs by marrying a young lady of great fortune and quality. He enjoyed for some time all the pleasures and advantages which his wealth could procure him; but afterwards resolved upon a more strict course of life. He entered into orders, with the consent of his lady, who likewise betook herself to a religious life. He was ordained deacon by Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, with whom he lived in the most inviolable friendship. His application to divinity did not divert him from prosecuting, at his leisure hours, poetry and oratory, in which he had distinguished himself from his youth; and his writings gained him very great reputation. Upon the death of Epiphanius, he appears to have been elected one of the deacons of the Roman church; and in the year 603, having presented to the synod of Rome an apology for the council there, which had absolved pope Symmachus the year before, it was ordered to be inserted among the acts of the synod. He was advanced to the bishopric of Pavia about the year 511, and appointed to negociate an union between the eastern and western churches; for which purpose he took two journeys into the east, the former in the year 515, with Fortunatus, bishop of Catanaea; the latter in the year 517, with Peregrinus, bishop of Misenum. Though he did not succeed in these negotiations, he shewed his prudence and resolution in the management of them. For the emperor Anastasius, having in vain used his utmost efforts to deceive or corrupt him, after other instances of ill treatment, ordered him to be put on board an old ship; and, forbidding him to land in any part of Greece, exposed him to manifest danger, yet he arrived safe in Italy; and, returning to Padua, died there, not long after, in the year 521. His works consist of, 1. “Epistolarum ad diversos libri IX.” 2. “Panegyricus Theodorico regi Ostrogothorum dictus.” 3. “Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo Palmari.” 4. “Vita B. Epiphanii episcopi Ticinensis.” 5. “Vita B. Antonii monachi Lirinensis” 6. “Eucharisticon de Vita sua ad Elpidium.” 7. “Parasnesis didascalica ad Ambrosium & Beatum.” 8. “Proeceptum de Cellulanis Episcoporum.” 9. “Petitorium, quo absolutus est Gerontius.” 10. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis I.” 11. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis II.” 12. “Dietiones sacrae VI.” 13. “Dictiones scholastics VII.” 14. “Controversioe X.” 15. “Dictiones Ethicae V.” 16. “Poeinata, seu Carminum Liber I.” 17. “Epigrammata, seu Carminum Liber II.” They" were all published by Andrew Scottus at Tournay, 1610, 8vo; and by James Sirrnond at Paris, 1611, 8vo, with notes, explaining the names and titles of the persons mentioned by Ennodius, and containing a great many observations very useful tot illustrating the history of that age. Ennodius’s works are likewise printed with emendations and illustrations, at the end of the first volume of father Sirmond’s works, published at Paris in 1626[?]; and, from that edition, at Venice, 1729, folio. Dupiu observes, that there is a considerable warmth and liveliness of imagination in the writings of Ennodius but that his style is obscure, and his manner of reasoning far from exact.

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

, one of the most illustrious of the revivers of learning, was born at Rotterdam, October 28, 1467. His father Gerard, who was of Tergou, in that neighbourhood, fell in love with Margaret, the daughter of one Peter, a physician of Sevenbergen; and after promises of marriage, as Erasmus himself suggests, connected himself with her, though the nuptial ceremonies were not performed. From this intercourse Gerard had a son, whom Erasmus calls Anthony, in a letter to Lambert Grunnius, secretary to pope Julius II. and whose death, in another letter he tells us, he bore better than he did the death of his friend Frobenius. About two years after, Margaret proved with child again; and then Gerard’s father and brethren (for he was the youngest of ten children) beginning to be uneasy at this attachment, resolved to make him an ecclesiastic. Gerard, aware of this, secretly withdrew into Italy, and went to Rome; he left, however, a letter behind him, in which he bade his relations a final farewell; and assured them that they should never see his face more while they continued in those resolutions. At Rome he maintained himself decently by transcribing ancient authors, which, printing being not yet commonly used, was no unprofitable employment. In the mean time, Margaret, far advanced in her pregnancy, was conveyed to Rotterdam to lie in, privately; and was there delivered of Erasmus. He took his name from this city, and always called himself Roterodamus, though, as Dr. Jortin, the writer of his life, intimates, he should rather have said Roterodamius, or Roterodamensis. The city, however, was not in the least offended at the inaccuracy, but made proper returns of gratitude to a name by which she was so much ennobled; and perpetuated her acknowledgments by inscriptions, and medals, and by a statue erected and placed at first near the principal church, but afterwards removed to a Station on one of the bridges. Gerard’s relations, long ignorant what was become of him, at last discovered that he was at Rome and now resolved to attempt by stratagem what they could not effect by solicitation and importunity. They sent him word, therefore, that his beloved Margaret was dead; and he lamented the supposed misfortune with such extremity of grief, as to determine to leave the world, and become a priest. And even when upon his return to Tergou, which happened soon after, he found Margaret alive, he adhered to his ecclesiastical engagements; and though he always retained the tenderest affection for her, never more lived with her in any other manner than what was allowable by the laws of his profession. She also observed on her part the strictest celibacy ever after. During the absence of his father, Erasmus was under the care and management of his grandmother, Gerard’s mother, Catharine. He was called Gerard, after his father, and afterwards took the name of Desiderius, which in Latin, and the surname of Erasmus, which in Greek, signify much the same as Gerard among the Hollanders, that is, “amabilis,” or amiable. Afterwards he was sensible that he should in grammatical propriety have called himself Erasmius, and in fact, he gave this name to his godson, Joannes Erasmius Frobenius. As soon as Gerard was settled in his own country again, he applied himself with all imaginable care to the education of Erasmus, whom he was determined to bring up to letters, though in low repute at that time, because he discovered in him early a very uncommon capacity. There prevails indeed a notion in Holland, that Erasmus was at first of so heavy and sl9w an understanding, that it was many years before they could make him learn any thing; and this, they think, appears from a passage in the life written by himself, where he says, that “in his first years he made but little progress in those unpleasant studies, for which he was not born; in literis ill is inamoenis, quibus non natus erat.” When he was nine years old, he was sent to Dav enter, in Guelderland, at that time one of the best schools in the Netherlands, and the most free from the barbarism of the age; and here his parts very soon shone 'out. He apprehended in an instant whatever was taught him, and retained it so perfectly, that he infinitely surpassed all his companions. Rhenanus tells us that Zinthius, one of the best masters in the college of Daventer, was so well satisfied with Erasmus’s progress, and so thoroughly convinced of his great abilities, as to have foretold what afterwards came to pa>s, that “he would some time prove the envy and wonder of all Germany.” His memory is said to have b~?en so prodigious, that he was able to repeat all Terence and Horace by heart. We must nojt forget to observe, that pope Adrian VI. was his schoolfellow, and ever after his friend, and the encourager of his studies.

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

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

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

He left Italy soon after his pupil, without understanding the language of that country, which made his journey less advantageous as well as pleasant to him. It is said that when he was at Venice, he met Bernard Ocricularius of Florence, who had written Latin history in the manner of Sallust Erasmus desired a conversation with him, and addressed him in Latin: but the Florentine obstinately refused to speak any thingexcept Italian; which Erasmus not understanding, they separated without edification on either part. Why Erasmus should not understand Italian, it is. not difficult to conceive; but it is somewhat singular that he should be ignorant of French, which was in a great measure the case, though he had spent so much time in that country. In his way from Italy to England, he passed first to Curia, then to Constance, and so through the Martian forest by Brisgau to Strasburgh, and from thence by the Rhine to Holland; whence, after making some little stay at Antwerp and Louvain, he took shipping for England. Some of his friends and patrons, whom he visited as he came along, made him great offers, and wished him to settle among them; but his heart was at this time entirely fixed upon spending the remainder of his days in England, not only upon account of his former connections and friendships, which were very dear to him, bxit the great hopes that had lately been held out to him, of ample preferment, provided he would settle there. Henry VII. died in April 1509; and Henry VIII. his son and successor, was Erasmus’s professed friend and patron, and had for some time held a correspondence with him by letters. That prince was no sooner upon the throne, than Montjoy wrote to Erasmus to hasten him into England, promising him great things on the part of the king, and of Warham archbishop of Canterbury, though indeed he had no particular commission to that end from either the one or the other. More, and some other friends, wrote him also letters to the same purpose. But he had no sooner arrived in the beginning of 1510, than he perceived that liis expectations had been raised too high, and began secretly to wish that he had not quitted Rome. However, he took no notice of the disappointment, but pursued his studies with his usual assiduity. At his arrival in England he lodged with More; and while he was there, to divert himself and his friend, he wrote, within the compass of a week, “Encomium Moriæ,” or “The praise of Folly,” a copy of which was sent to France, and printed there, but with abundance of faults; yet it became so popular, that in a few months it went through seven editions. The general design of this ludicrous piece is to shew, that there are fools in all stations, and more particularly to expose the errors and follies of the court of Rome, not sparing the pope himself; so that he was never after regarded as a true son of that church. It was highly acceptable to persons of quality, but as highly offensive to dissolute monks, who disapproved especially of the Commentary which Lystrius wrote upon it, and which is printed with it, because it unveiled several things from whose obscurity they drew much profit. Soon after he came to England he published a translation of the Hecuba of Euripides into Latin verse; and, adding some poems to it, dedicated it to archbishop Warham. The prelate received the dedication courteously, yet made the poet only a small present. As he was returning from Lambeth, his friend Grocyn, who had accompanied him, asked, “what present he had received” Erasmus replied, laughing, “A very considerable sum” which Grocyn would not believe. Having told him what it was, Grocyn observed, that the prelate was rich and generous enough to have made him a much handsomer present; but certainly suspected that he had presented to him a book already dedicated elsewhere. Erasmus asked, “how such a suspicion could enter his head” “Because,” said Grocyn, “such hungry scholars as you, who stroll about the world, and dedicate books to noblemen, are apt to be guilty of such tricks.”

In the beginning of 1514 Erasmus was in Flanders. His friend Montjoy was then governor of Ham, in Picardy, where he passed some days, and then went to Germany. While he was here, he seems to have written “The Abridgment of his Life,” in which he says, that he would have spent the rest of his days in England if the promises made to him had been performed; but, being invited to come to Brabant, to the tourt of Charles archduke of Austria, he accepted the offer, and was made counsellor to that prince. Afterwards he went to Basil, where he carried his New Testament, his Epistles of St. Jerome, with notes, and some other works, to print them in that city. At this time he contracted an acquaintance with several learned men, as Beatus Rhenanus, Gerbelius, CEcolampadius, Amberbach, and also with the celebrated printer John Frobenius, for whom he ever after professed the utmost esteem. He returned to the Low Countries, and there was nominated by Charles of Austria to a vacant bishopric- in Sicily; but the right of patronage happened to belong to the pope. Erasmus laughed when he heard of this preferment, and certainly was very unfit for such a station; though the Sicilians, being, as he says, merry fellows, might possibly have liked such a bishop. He would not settle at Louvain for many reasons,' particularly because of the divines there, for whom he had much contempt.

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

About 1520, a clamour was raised against Erasmus in England, although he had many friends there; and, among them, even persons of the first quality, and the king himself. He gives a remarkable instance of this in the behaviour of one Standish, who had been a monk, and was bishop of St. Asaph; and whom Erasmus sometimes calls, by way of derision, “Episcopum a sancto asino.” Standish had censured Erasmus, in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s, for translating the beginning of St. John’s gospel, “In principle erat sermo,” and not “verbum.” He also accused Erasmus of heresy before the king and queen but this charge was repelled by two learned friends, who are supposed to have been Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, and sir Thomas More. This year, Jerome Aleander, the pope’s nuncio, solicited the emperor, and Frederic elector of Saxony, to punish Luther. Frederic was then at Cologn, and Erasmus came there, and was consulted by him upon this occasion. Erasmus replied, ludicrously at first, saying, “Luther has committed two unpardonable crimes: he touched the pope upon the crown, and the monks upon the belly.” He then told the elector seriously, that “Luther had justly censured many abuses and errors, and that the welfare of the church required a reformation of them; that Luther’s doctrine was right in the main, but that it had not been delivered by him with a proper temper, and with due moderation.” The pope’s agents, finding Erasmus thus obstinately bent to favour, at least not to condemn and write against Luther, as they often solicited him to do, endeavoured to win him over by the offer of bishoprics or abbeys. “I know,” says he, “that a bishopric is at my service, if I would but write against Luther: but Luther is a man of too great abilities for me to encounter; and, to say the truth, I learn more from one page of his, than from all the volumes of Thomas Aquinas.”

Still we find Erasmus taking all opportunies of declaring his firm resolution to adhere to the see of Rome. “What connections,” says he, “have I with Luther, or what recompense to expect from him, that I should join with him to oppose the church of Rome, which 1 take to be a true part of the catholic church J, who should be loth to resist the bishop of my diocese” As for the monks, they would have been glad to have seen him a deserter, and lodged in the enemy’s quarters, because he would have much less incommoded them as a Lutheran than as a catholic; but he was determined not to stir. His wish was to seek a middle way, with a view of putting an end to these contests; but, above all, to keep himself from being looked upon as a party on either side. Thus, there is a remarkable letter of his, written to Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, in 1521, wherein he complains equally of the violence of Luther, and of the rage of the Dominicans; as also of the malice of Aieander, who ascribed to him some writings of Luther, of which he had not even heard. Some affirmed, that Erasmus had written a treatise called “The Captivity of Babylon,” although Luther openly acknowledged it for his own: others said, that Luther had taken many of his sentiments from Erasmus. “I see now,” says he, “that the Germans are resolved at all adventures to engage me in the cause of Luther, whether I will or not. In this they have acted foolishly, and have taken the most effectual method to alienate me from them and their party. Wherein could I have assisted Luther, if I had declared myself for him, and shared the danger along with him Only thus far, that, instead of one man, two would have perished. I cannot conceive what he means by writing with such a spirit: one thing I know too well, that he has brought a great odium upon the lovers of literature. It is true, that he hath given us many wholesome doctrines, and many good counsels; and I wish he had not defeated the effect of them by his intolerable faults. But, if he had written, every thing in the most unexceptionable manner, I had no inclination to die for the sake of truth. Every man has not the courage requisite to make a martyr; and I am afraid that, if I were put to the trial, I should imitate St. Peter.” In this Erasmus betrays his genuine character, and it is plain that it was not truth, nor the desire of propagating it, but self-preservation only, which influenced his conduct throughout this affair. He certainly approved of Luther’s principal doctrines, and inwardly wished he might carry his point; but, as he could not imagine that probable, he chose to adhere outwardly to the stronger party. “I follow,” says he, “the decisions of the pope and the emperor, when they are right, which is acting religiously: I submit to them, when they are wrong, which is acting prudently: and I think it is lawful for good men to behave themselves thus, when there is no hope of obtaining any more.” From this principle of policy, he extolled the book of Henry VIII. against Luther, even before he had seen it; and he began now to throw out hints, that he would one day enter the lists with the great reformer, yet, when his friend and patron Montjoy exhorted him, the same year, to write against Luther, he replied, “Nothing is more easy than to call Luther a blockhead nothing is less easy than to prove him one at least, so it seems to me.” Upon the whole, he was exceedingly perplexed how to behave to Luther; and frequently appears inconsistent, because he thought himself obliged to disclaim before men what in his heart he approved and even revered.

In 1519 a collection of Erasmus’s letters was published, which gave him, as he pretends, much vexation. As he had spoken freely in them on many important points, he could not avoid giving offence. The monks especially, as enemies to literature, exclaimed violently against them; and when the Lutheran contentions broke out, these letters were still more censured than before, and accused of favouring Lutheranism, at a time when, as he says, it was neither safe to speak, nor to keep silence. He adds, that he would have suppressed those letters, but that Froben would not consent: but in this, says Jortin, he could hardly speak seriously, since Froben was too much his friend to print them without his consent. In 1522 he published the works of St. Hilary. “Erasmus,” says Du Pin, “when he published his editions of the fathers, joined to them prefaces and notes full of critical discernment: and, though he may sometimes be too bold in rejecting some of their works as spurious, yet it must be confessed, that he has opened and shewed the way to all who have followed him.” He had lately published also at Basil his celebrated “Colloquies,” which he dedicated to John Erasmus Froben, son to John Froben, and his godson. He drew up these “Colloquies,” partly that young persons might have a book to teach them the Latin tongue, and religion and morals at the same time; and partly, to cure the bigotted world, if he could, of that superstitious devotion which the monks so industriously propagated. The liveliest strokes in them are aimed at the monks and their religion; on which account they had no sooner appeared, than a most outrageous clamour was raised against them. He was accused of laughing at indulgences, auricular confession, eating fish upon fast-days, &c. and it is certain he did not talk of these matters with much respect. The faculty of theology at Paris passed a general censure, in 1526, upon the Colloquies of Erasmus, as upon a work in which “the fasts and abstinences of the church are slighted, the suffrages of the holy virgin and of the saints are derided, virginity is set below matrimony, Christians are discouraged from monkery, and grammatical is preferred to theological erudition; and therefore decreed, that the perusal of that wicked book be forbidden to all, more especially to young people, and that it be entirely suppressed, if possible.” In 1537, pope Paul III. chose a select number of cardinals and prelates, to consider about reforming the church; who, among other things, proposed, that young people should not be permitted to learn Erasmus’s Colloquies. A provincial council also, held at Cologn in 1549, condemned these Colloquies, as not fit to be read in schools. Yet they must be allowed to contain a treasure of wit and good sense, and though they were intended as only a schoolbook, are not unworthy the perusal of the most advanced in knowledge. Colineus reprinted them at Paris in 1527; and, by artfully giving out that they were prohibited, sold, it is said, above tbur-and-twenty thousand of one impression.

Adrian VI. having succeeded Leo in the see of Rome, Erasmus dedicated to him an edition of a Commentary of Arnobius upon the Psalms; and added to it an epistle, in which he congratulates this new pope, and entreats him not to pay any regard to the calumnies spread against his humble servant, without first giving him a hearing. Adrian returned him an elegant and artful letter of thanks, exhorting him strongly to write against Luther, and inviting him to Rome. Erasmus wrote a second time, and offered to communicate to Adrian his opinion upon the fittest methods to suppress Lutheranism; for he entertained some hopes that his old friend and school-fellow might possibly do some good. Adrian sent him word that he should be glad to have his opinion upon this affair; and invited him a second time to Rome. Erasmus excused himself from the journey, on account of his bad health, and other impediments; but certainly did not repose such confidence in Adrian, as to trust himself in his hands. He tells his holiness, that he had neither the talents nor the authority requisite for answering Luther with any prospect of success. He then proceeded to the advice he had promised: and, 1. He disapproves of all violent and cruel methods, and wishes that some condescension were shewed to the Lutherans. 2. He thinks that the causes of the evil should be investigated, and suitable remedies applied; that an amnesty should ensue, and a general pardon of all that was past; and that then the princes and magistrates should take care to prevent innovations for the future. 3. He thinks it needful to restrain the liberty of the press. 4. He would have the pope to give the world hopes, that some faults should be amended, which could be no longer justified. 5. He would have him assemble persons of integrity and abilities, and of all nations. Here Erasmus breaks off in the middle of a sentence, intending to say more at another time, if the pope were willing to hear it. But he had already said too much. Adrian utterly disliked his advice and Erasmus’s enemies took this opportunity of plotting his ruin but the death of the pope soon after, put a stop to their contrivances. Yet as the monks reported in all places that Erasmus was a Lutheran, he took much pains by his letters to undeceive the public, and satisfy his friends. With this view he wrote, in 1523, to Henry VIII. and to the pope’s legate in England. Cuthbert Tonstall sent him a letter, and exhorted him to answer Luther; and, unable any longer to withstand the importunate solicitations of the Romanists, he sent word to the king that he was drawing up a piece against Luther. This was his “Diatribe cle libero arbitrio,” which was published the following year. But this gave no satisfaction at all to the Romanists; and, although he could have proved Luther erroneous in his notion of free-will, this had nothing to do with the dispute between Luther and the pope, and the Romanists therefore thought themselves Tery little obliged to him.

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

Another of his works was upon the subject of the eucharist, in answer to a famous book of Paschasius Radbertus, concerning the body and blood of Christ. Upon this head, Erigena had the good sense to oppose the doctrine of transubstantiation. While our author was employed in these discussions, an incident occurred, which drew upon him the displeasure of the Roman pontiff. Michael Balbus, the Greek emperor, had sent, in the year 824, a copy of the works of Dionysius, the philosopher, to the emperor Lewis the pious, as a most acceptable present. In France these treatises were esteemed to be an invaluable treasure; and therefore Charles the bald, who could not read Greek, was earnestly desirous of perusing them in a Latin translation. This desire was undoubtedly increased by an opinion which at that time universally prevailed, though without any proof, that Dionysius the Areopagite, or St. Denys, was the first Christian teacher, or apostle, in France. At the request of Charles, Scotus undertook the task of translating the works in question, the titles of which were, “On the celestial Monarchy;” “On the ecclesiastical Hierarchy;” “On divine Names;” and, “On mystic Theology.” These books were received with great eagerness by the western churches; but the translation having been made without the license of the sovereign pontiff, and containing many things contrary to the received faith of the church of Rome, the pope, Nicholas the first, was highly displeased, and wrote a threatening letter to the French king, requiring that Scotus should be banished from the university of Paris, and sent to Rome. Charles had too much affection and respect for our author to obey the pope’s order; but Erigena thought it advisable, for his safety, to retire from, Paris. According to some writers, it was upon this occasion that he returned to England. It was the translation of the works of the pretended Dionysius which revived the knowledge of Alexandrian Platonism in the west, and laid the foundation of the mystical system of theology, which afterwards so generally prevailed. Hence it was, that philosophical enthusiasm, born in the east, nourished by Plato, educated in Alexandria, matured in Asia, and adopted into the Greek church, found its way into the western church, and there produced innumerable mischiefs.

, great grandson of the foregoing, and inheritor of the literary industry of his ancestor, was born at Lisbon in 1673. He bore arms with distinguished merit; and obtained in 1735 the title of camp-master general and counsellor at war. He died in 1743, in the seventieth year of his age, member of the academy of Lisbon, of that of the arcades of Rome, and of the royal society of London, to which last he was admitted in 1738, and was then director of the royal academy of history in Portugal. He did not put on the airs of a man of quality among the learned, but was easy, “polite, and communicative. Pope Benedict XIII. honoured him with a brevet; the king of France made him a present of the catalogue of his library, and 21 Volumes of engravings, The academy of St. Petersburg addressed its memoirs to him; several writers of France, England, Italy, &c. paid him the compliment of their works. His ancestors had left him a select and numerous library, which he augmented with 15,Ooo volumes and 1000 manuscripts. He marked his literary career by upwards of a hundred different publications. The most known of them are, 1.” Memoirs on the value of the Coins of Portugal, from the commencement of the monarchy,“1738, 4to. 2.” Reflections on academical studies.“3.” Fifty-eight Parallels of illustrious men, and twelve of illustrious women.“4.” The Henriade, an Heroic Poem, with observations on the rules to be observed in Epic Poetry," 1741, 4to. Among his manuscripts were found a quantity of essays on the number 22, on occasion of the 22 sorts of Roman coins presented to the king, and dug up at Lisbon the 22d of October 1711, on which day that prince completed his 22d year; and from these accidental circumstances, he proves the number 22 to be the most perfect of all. Such puerilities are sometimes found in otherwise judicious heads.

, an eminent canonist, was born at Louvain in 1646, “and after taking his degree of doctor of laws in 1675, filled a chair in the college of pope Adrian VI. with great success. Being fond of retirement and study, he is only known to the world by his writings. Having lost his sight in the sixty-fifth year of his age, by a cataract, which was removed two years afterwards, he neither lost any thing of his vivacity nor his application. His sentiments on the Formulary, and on the frull Unigenitus, and the kind of approbation which he gave to the consecration of Steenoven, archbishop of Utrecht, brought on him much unmerited persecution, chiefly from the envy of individuals. What they made him suffer, however, forced him to retire to Maestricht, and then to Amersfort, where he died, Oct. 2, 1728, at the age of eighty-three. Van Espen is doubtless one of the most learned canonists of his times. His principal work, still consulted, is his” Jus ecclesiasticum universum,“in which the most important points of ecclesiastical discipline are circumstantially discussed with profound knowledge of. the subject. At Paris, under the imprint of Louvain, was published, in 1753, a collection of all the works of Van Espen, in 4 vols. folio. This edition, which is enriched with the observations of Gibert on the” Jus ecclesiasticum," and the notes of father Barre, a canoiv-regular of St. Genevieve, contains every particular of importance in ethics, the canon, and even the civil law, and since that time a supplementary volume was published by Gabriel de Bellegarde.

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

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

, sister of Francois Annibal d'Estr<Ses, was endowed from her birth with all the gifts and graces of nature. Henry IV. who saw her for the first time in 1591, at the chateau de Coeuvres, where she lived with her father, was so smitten with her figure and wit, that he resolved to take her to be his favourite mistress. In order to obtain an interview, he disguised himself one day like a countryman, passed through the enemy’s guards, and pursued his way at the imminent hazard of his life. Gabrielle, who was fond of the duke de Bellegard, the master of the horse, hesitated at first to comply with the ardent affection of the king; but the elevation of her father and of her brother, the sincere attachment of Henry, his affable and obliging manners, at length prevailed on her. In order that he might visit her more freely, Henry made her marry Nicholas d'Amerval, lord of Liancourt, with whom she never cohabited. Henry loved her to so violent a degree, that though he was married, he was determined to make her his wife. It was in this view that Gabrielle engaged her fond lover to take up the Roman catholic religion, to enable him to obtain from the pope a bull to dissolve his marriage with Marguerite de Valois, and united her utmost efforts with those of Henry IV. to remove the obstacles that prevented their union; but these schemes were defeated by her sudden death, April 10, 1599. It is pretended that she was poisoned by the rich financier Zamet: she died, however, in dreadful convulsions, and on the day following her death, her face was so disfigured, that it was impossible to be known. Of all the mistresses of Henry, he was most attached to this woman, whom he made duchess of Beaufort, and at her death put on, mourning, as if she had been a princess of the blood, yet she had not so entire a sway over his heart as to alienate him from his ministers that were not agreeable to her; much less to make him dismiss them. She took occasion to say to him one day on the subject of Sully, with whom she was displeased: “I had rather die, than live under the shame of seeing a footman upheld against me, who bear the title of mistress.” “Pardieu, madame,” said Henry, “this is too much; and I plainly perceive that you have been put upon this frolic as an attempt to make me turn away a servant whom I cannot do without. But I will not comply; and, that you may set your heart at rest, and not shew your peevish airs against my will, I declare to you, that if I were reduced to the necessity of parting with one or the other, I could better do without ten mistresses like you than one servant like him.” During one of the festivities that Henry occasionally gave to Gabrielle, dispatches were brought him that the Spaniards had taken possession of Amiens. “This stroke is from heaven,” said he, “I have been long enough acting the king of France it is time to shew myself king of Navarre;” and then turning to d'Estrees, who, like him, was dressed out for the occasion, and who had burst into tears, he said to her: “My mistress, we must quit our arms and mount on horseback, to engage in another sort of war.” The same day he got together some troops; and, laying aside the lover, assumed the hero, and marched towards Amiens. Henry IV. had three children by her; Cirsar duke of Vendome, Alexander, and Henrietta, who married the marquis d'Elbauf.

, king of Kent, and the first Christian king among the Anglo-Saxons, succeeded to the throne about the year 560. He began his reign, in order to revive the reputation of his family, by making war upon the king of Wessex, by whom he was twice defeated, though he was afterwards triumphant, and acquired the complete ascendancy over Wessex and the other states, except Northumberland, and reduced them to the condition of his tributaries or dependants. In the reign of Ethelbert, Christianity was introduced into England. The king had married Bertha, daughter of the king of Paris, who, being a Christian, had stipulated for the free exercise of her religion, and had carried over in her train a French bishop. So exemplary in every respect were her life and conduct, that she inspired the king and his court with a high respect for her person, and for the religion by which she appeared to be influenced. The pope, taking advantage of this circumstance, sent a mission of forty monks, at the head of whom was Augustin, to preach the gospel in the island. They landed in Kent, in the year 597, and were well and hospitably received by Ethelbert, who assigned them habitations in the isle of Thanet. A conference was held, and the king took time to consider of the new doctrines propounded to him; and in the mean while gave them full liberty to preach to his subjects. Numbers were converted, and at length the king submitted to a public baptism. (See Augustine). Christianity proved the means of promoting knowledge and civilization in this -island; and the king, with the consent of his states, enacted a body of laws, which was the first written code promulgated by the northern conquerors. Ethelbert died in the year 616, and left his crown, after a reign of fifty years, to his son Edbald.

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

, an English poet, descended from a good family in Ireland, was son of Dr. Eusden, rector of Spotsworth in Yorkshire, and was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge; after which he went into orders, and was for some time chaplain to Richard lord Willoughby de Broke. His first patron was the celebrated lord Halifax, whose poem “On the Battle of the Boyne,” Eusden translated into Latin. He was also esteemed by the duke of Newcastle, on whose marriage with lady Henrietta Godolphin he wrote an Epithalamium, for which, upon the death of Rowe, he was by his grace (who was then lord chamberlain, and considered the verses as an elegant compliment) preferred in 1718 to the laureatship. He had several enemies; and, among others, Pope, who put him into his Dunciad; though we do not know what provocation he gave to any of them, unless by being raised to the dignity of the laurel. Cooke, in his “Battle of the Poets,” speaks thus of him:

, one of the most celebrated anatomists of the sixteenth century, was a native of San Severino, a village in Italy. He was educated at Rome, where he first conceived a bias in favour of medicine, and especially of anatomy, and cultivated the latter with such success, that he was appointed to the professor’s chair in that college. His life probably passed in the quiet pursuit of his studies and exercise of his profession, as no other events are on record concerning him. He died at Home in 1574. Eustachius was the author of several works, the greater part of which are lost. His treatise “De Controversiis Anatomicorum,” which was one of the most considerable of his productions, is much regretted. His opuscula which remain appeared under the following titles, “Opuscula Anatomica, nempe de Renum structura, officio, et administratione de auditus organo ossium examen de mom capitis de vena quae azygos dicitur, et de alia, quae in flexn brachii communem profundam producit de dentibus,” Venet. 1563, and again in 1674, with the notes of Pinus. An edition was also published at Leyden, in 1707, under the superintendance of Boerhaave. He has the merit of several discoveries in anatomy; being the tirst who described the renal capsules, the thoracic duct, and the passage leading from the throat to the internal ear, which is still called from him the Eustachian tube. A series of figures engraved on copper were mentioned in his “Opuscula” as nearly finished; but they were not discovered until 1714, when they were published at Rome by Lancisi, physician to pope Clement XL in one volume, folio. These plates were again published, but not well printed, at Geneva in 1717. The edition of Rome in 1728 is excellent; but the one published at the same city in 1740, by Petrioli, is less valuable. The same work was twice published at Leyden, under the direction of Albinus, viz. in 1744 and 1762. Eustachius edited the lexicon of Erotran at Venice in 1666, under the title of “Erotiani, Graeci scriptoris vetustissimi, vocum, quae apud Hippocratem sunt, collectio, cum annotatiombus Eustachii,” in quarto.

, originally a monk of the fifth century, and for his piety elected abbot of the convent near Constantinople to which he belonged, is said to have lived to an advanced age before he distinguished himself by any peculiar opinions. Then, through a violent desire to oppose the Nestorian heresy, which was supposed to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, he became the leader of a new heresy, by absorbing the human nature of Christ entirely in the divine, and maintaining that the human body of Christ was only apparent. His doctrines were first noticed in a council assembled at Constantinople by Fluvianus, in the year 448, where they were condemned, and himself deposed from his dignity of abbot. Eutyches, however, had interest enough with the emperor Theodosius to procure another council at Ephesus, in the year 449, in which the former acts were reversed, Flavian and other bishops who had opposed Eutyches deposed, and every thing carried with such violence, that this council is generally named woJoj xwrrpun), the convention of robbers. A third council was necessary to settle these differences; and pope Leo the First, (called St. Leo, or Leo the Great) prevailed on Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to cull one at Chalcedon, which met in the year 451, and was reckoned the fourth recumenical or general council. Six hundred and thirty bishops were present. Here Kutyches was condemned, though absent, and the following doctrine laid down in opposition to his heresy: “That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.” Yet even after this decision, violent disputes and divisions subsisted for a considerable time. It is uncertain what became of Eutyches after the council of Ephesus; Leo certainly applied ta Marcian and to Pulcheria to have him deposed; but whether he succeeded or not, is unknown. Two supplications to Theodosius, one confession, and a fragment of another by Eutyches, are still extant.

, though a man of genius, the friend of the first poets of the times, and applauded by them, is now hardly known. He was a man of remarkable wit and vivacity, and many of his repartees were long remembered and repeated at Oxford. He is generally styled Dr. Evans the epigrammatist, and was one of the Oxford wits enumerated in the following distich (wretchedly imitated in the Additions to Pope, vol. I. p. 163).

He is likewise mentioned in the Dunciad, book ii. ver. 116, in company with Dr. Young and dean Swift, as one of the authors whose works had been claimed by James More Smith. Dr. Evans was of St. John’s college, Oxford, and took the degree of M. A. March 23, 1699; that of B. D. April 26, 1705, and D. D. May 16, 1711. He was bursar to his college; vicar of St. Gyles’s, Oxford; and appears to have been intimate with Mr. Pope, to whom there are two letters by him in print, in one of which the initial letter W. (intended for his Christian name) is by mistake put instead of that by which he used to sign himself. The time of his death we have not been able to ascertain. A good specimen of his poems may be seen in Nichols’s Select Collection; particularly “The Apparition, occasioned by the publication of Tindal’s Rights of the Christian Church,” an admirable satire on that infidel. “Vertumnus, an epistle to Mr. Jacob Bobart, 1713,” and some of his best epigrams.

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

The fame of this discovery soon spread over Flanders and into Italy; and when he grew old, but not till then, he imparted his secret to several painters, both Flemish and Italian. And it must be confessed the art of painting is very highly indebted to him for this foundation of the wonderful success with which succeeding ages have profited by this very useful discovery. As a painter he possessed very good talents, considering the early period of the art. He copied his heads generally from rtature; his figures are seldom well composed or drawn. But his power of producing richness of positive colours is surprising, and their durability no less so. He paid great attention evidently to nature, but saw her in an inferior style. He la-> boured his pictures very highly, particularly in the ornaments, which he bestowed with a lavish hand, but with alf the Gothic taste of the time and country in which he lived. In the gallery of the Louvre is a picture of the “Divine Being,” as he chose to call it, represented by an aged man with a long beard, crowned with the pope’s tiara, seated in a chair with golden circles of Latin inscriptions round his head, but without the least dignity of character, or evident action or intention. It is the very bathos of the art. At the earl of Pembroke’s, at Wilton house, is a small picture which does him more credit. -It represents the nativity of our Saviour, with the adoration of the shepherds, and the composition consists of four figures, besides the Saviour and four angels, and has in the back ground the anomaly of the angels at the sa.me time appearing to the shepherds. It is in oil, and the colours are most of them very pure, except those of the flesh. The garment of Joseph is very rich, being glazed thick with red lake, which is as fresh as if it were new. Almost all the draperies are Sg glazed with different colours, and are still very clear, except the virgin’s, which, instead of maintaining its blue colour, is become a blackish green. There is a want of harmony in the work, but it is more the effect of bad arrangement of the colours than the tones of them. The glory surrounding the heads of the virgin and child is of gold. We have been the more particular in stating these circumstances of this picture, because our readers will naturally be curious to know how far the original inventor of oil painting succeeded in his process, and they will see by this account that he went very far indeed, in what relates to the perfection of the vehicle he used, which, if he had happily been able to employ as well as he understood, the world would not have seen many better painters. He lived to practise his discovery for thirty-one years, dying in 1441, at the advanced age of seventy-one. Although in the preceding sketch we have principally followed the first authority in our references^ it must not remain unnoticed that the learned antiquary, Mr. Raspe, has proved, in the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds beyond all contradiction, that the art of painting in oil was invented and practised many ages betbre Van Eyck was born.

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

Upon the death of Alexander, Fabretti retired from business, and devoted himself entirely to his favourite amusement. He went to search antiquities in the country about Home, without any other companion than his horse, and without any regard to the heat or inclemency of the weather. As he always made use of the same horse, his friends gave that animal, by way of jest, the name of Marco Polo, the famous traveller; and said, that this horse used to discover ancient monuments by the smell, and to stop of himself immediately when he came to any ruins of an old building. Fabretti was so well pleased with the name given to his horse, that he used it to write a letter to one of his friends in an ironical strain, yet full of learning, upon the study of antiquity: but this letter was never printed. Innocent XII. obliged him to quit his retirement, and made him keeper of the archives of the castle of St. Angelo; a post, which is never given but to men of the most approved integrity, since he who enjoys that place is master of all the secrets of the pope’s temporal estate. All these different employments never interrupted his researches into antiquity; and he collected enough to adorn his paternal house at Urbino, as well as that which he had built at Rome after the death of Alexander VIII. Neither could old age divert him from his studies, nor hinder him from labouring at the edition of his works, which he printed at his own house. He died Jan. 7, 1700. He was a member of the academy of the Assorditi at Urbino, and the Arcadi at Rome.

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

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

After this Fabroni appears to have employed himself in preparing his valuable lives of the eminent Italian literati of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the first volume of which he published at Rome in 1766, 8vo, and, as he informs us, soon had to encounter an host of Aristarchus’s. In 1767, a vacancy occurring of the office of prior of the church of St. Lorenzo at Florence, he was appointed to that preferment by the duke Peter Leopold, and here he remained for two years, during which he went on with his great work. At the end of this period, he obtained leave to return to Rome, and as he had considerable expectations from pope Ganganelli (Clement XIV.) would have probably attached himself to him, had he not thought that it would appear ungrateful to his patron the duke Peter Leopold, if he served any other master; but gratitude does not seem to have been his only motive, and he hints that implicit reliance' was not always to be placed in Ganganelli’s promises.

At Pisa, in 1771, he began a literary journal which extended to 102 parts or volumes; in this he had the occasional assistance of other writers, but often entire volumes were from his pen. At length the grand duke, who always had a high regard for Fabroni, furnished him liberally with the means of visiting the principal cities of Europe. ing this tour he informs us that he was introduced to, and lived familiarly with the most eminent characters in France, with D'Alembert, Conclorcet, La Lande, La Harpe, Mirabeau, Condilliac, Rousseau, Diderot, &c. and laments that he found them the great leaders of impiety. He then came to England, where he resided about four months, and became acquainted with Waring, Maskelyne, Priestley, and Dr. Franklin, who once invited him to go to America, which, he informs us, he foolishly refused. With what he found in England he appears to be little pleased, and could not be brought to think the universities of Oxford and Cambridge equal, for the instruction of youth, to those of Italy. In short he professes to relish neither English diet, manners, or climate; but perhaps our readers may dispute his taste, when at the same time he gives the preference to the manners, &c. of France. In 1773 he returned to Tuscany, and was desired by the grand duke to draw up a scheme of instruction for his sons, with which he insinuates that the duke was less pleased at last than at first, and adds that this change of opinion might arise from the malevolent whispers of literary rivals. He now went on to prosecute various literary undertakings, particularly his “Vitas Italorum,” and the life of pope Leo, &c. The greater part were completed before 1800, when the memoirs of his life written by himself end, and when his health began to be much affected by attacks of the gout. In 1801 he? desisted from his accustomed literary employments, and retired to a Carthusian monastery near Pisa, where he passed his time in meditation. Among other subjects, he reflected with regret on any expressions used in his works which might have given offence, and seemed to set more value on two small works he wrote of the pious kind at this time, than on all his past labours. When the incursions of the French army had put an end to the studies of the youth at Pisa, Fabroni removed to St. Cerbo, a solitary spot near Lucca, and resided for a short time with some Franciscans, but returned to Pisa, where an asthmatic disorder put an end to his life Sept. 22, 1803. He left the bulk of his property, amounting to about 1500 scudi, to the poor, or to public charitable institutions; and all the classics in his library, consisting of the best editions, to his nephew, Raphael Fabroni.

, bishop of Hermianum in Asia, is noticed by ecclesiastic writers as having been present at the council of Constantinople, held by pope Vigilius in the year 547, where he was a strenuous defender of the writings called The Three Chapters,“which the council of Chalcedon had pronounced orthodox. The works so named were, 1. The writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 2. The books which Theodoret of Cyrus wrote, against the twelve anathemas published by Cyril against the Nestorians. 3. The letter which Ibas of Edessa had written to Maris, a Persian, concerning the council of Ephesus, and the condemnation of Nestorius. The question of condemning these writings, had been raised by Theodore bishop of Csesarea, for the sake of weakening the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and crushing the Nestorians. The emperor Justinian listened to this prelate, published an edict against The Three Chapters in the year 544, and in the council of Constantinople above-mentioned, forced the pope Vigilius to accede to the same sentence. Vigilius, agitated between the contending parties, changed his opinion and conduct four times; but Facundus remained firm, and was banished for his perseverance. He wrote twelve books on the subject, addressed to Justinian, which are still extant, and one against Mutianus, but^in fatft^ against Vigilius; both published with notes, by P. Sirmond, in 1629. There is also an” Epistola Catholics fidei pro defensione trium capitulorum," added to the edition of 1675. His style is animated, but he is frequently deficient in moderation.

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

Faerno died in the prime of life, at Rome, Nov. 17,1561. Plow much might have been expected from his talents and habits of study, had he lived longer, ntay appear from, what he left: 1. “Terentii Comcediae,” Florence, 15.65, 2 vols. 8vo, a valuable and rare edition. There is no ancient editor to whom Terence is more indebted than to Faerno; who, by a judicious collation of ancient manuscripts and editions, especially the one belonging to Bembus (examined by Politian, and unknown to all preceding editors), has restored the true reading of his author 4n many important passages. Faerno’s edition became the basis of almost every subsequent one, and Dr. Bentley bad such an opinion of his notes that he reprinted them entire in his edition. 2. “Ciceronis Orationes Philippicae,” Rome, 1563, 8vo, very highly praised by Graevius. 3. “Centum Fabulae ex antiquis Autoribus delectae, et carminibus explicate,” Rome, 1564, 4to, with prints, from which it is said that the subjects for the fountains at Versailles were taken. There is another edition of London, 1743, 4to, very beautiful, but not so much valued as the former. It is said that this work was occasioned by a wish expressed by the pope that he would make a collection of the best of Esop’s fables, and those of other ancient authors, and put them into Latin verse for the instruction of the young. 4. “Censura emendationum Livianarum Sigonii.” Among the collections of Latin poetry written by Italian scholars are some attributed to Faerno, as “In Lutheranos, sectam Germanicam” “Ad Homobonum Hoffredum” a Physician of Cremona; “In Maledicum,” &c.

, a celebrated canonist of the seventeenth century, was regarded at Rome as an orator, and every cause which he took in hand as successful. He was for about fifteen years secretary to several popes, all of whom entertained a high respect for his talents, and frequently consulted him. He became blind at the age of forty-four, which misfortune does not appear to have interfered with his professional labours, for it was after this that he composed his celebrated " Commentary on the Decretals/' in 3 vols. folio, which extended his fame throughout all Europe. It was dedicated to pope Alexander VII. by whose order he had engaged in the undertaking, and was printed at Rome in 1661, and five times reprinted. The best edition is that of Venice, 1697, in which the entire text of the Decretals is given. Fagnani continued deprived of his sight, but in full possession of his mental faculties until his death in 1678, as it is supposed, in the eightieth year of his age. His memory appears to have been uncommon, and the stores of learning he had laid up before he was deprived of his sight he could bring forth with promptitude and accuracy, even to a quotation from the poets whom he studied in his youth.

, a historian of Benevento, of the twelfth century, was notary and secretary to pope Innocent II. and was also a judge or magistrate of Benevento. He wrote a curious chronicle of events strikingly told, but in a bad style, which happened from 1102 to 1140. Mirseus says that Falco’s readers are as much impressed as if they had been present at what he relates. This chronicle was first printed by Ant. Caraccioli, a priest of the order of regular clerks, along with three other chroniclers, under the title “Antiqui chronologi quatuor,” Naples, 1626, 4to. It has since been reprinted in Muratori’s and other collections.

, a celebrated professor of astronomy and natural history at Padua, was born in 1650, of a noble family, at Tripani in Sicily. He entered the third order of St. Francis; taught mathematics at Messina, and theology at Rome, where he had taken a doctor’s’ degree in the college della Sapienza. Francis II. duke of Modena made him professor of philosophy and geometry in his capital; but he gave up that situation to go to Venice, where he quitted the Franciscan habit in 1693, by permission of the pope, and took that of a secular priest. He was afterwards appointed professor of astronomy and physic in the university of Padua, and died at Naples, from a second attack of an apoplexy, January 2, 1718. Fardella had a lively genius and fertile imagination, but became 50 absent, by a habit of profound thought, that he sometimes appeared to have lost his senses. He left sereral works on literature, philosophy, and mathematics; some in Latin, others in Italian. The principal are, “Universae Philosophise Systema,” Venice, 16iU, 12mo; “Universae Usualis Mathematics Theoria,” 12mo; “Animoe humanae Natura ab Augustino detecta,” 1698, folio; several works in favour of Descartes’s philosophy, &c.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

, distinguished by translating some capital authors, was born (as is presumed) at Bonteshall in Derbyshire, where his father, of the same names, was rector. He was bred first at Chesterfield school under Mr. William Burrow, a celebrated master, and afterwards removed to Eton. He was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge; and matriculated Dec. 17, 1730. In 1734 he took his degree of B. A, and in 1738 that of M. A. In 1762 he was presented by Dr. James Yorke, dean of Lincoln, to the rectory of Carsington in Derbyshire; but did not enjoy it long, as he died March 25, 1763, His publications were, 1. “The life of Pope Sixtus V. translated from the Italian of Gregorio Leti, with a preface, prolegomena, notes, and appendix, 1754,” folio. 2. “Davila’s History of France,” 1757, 2 vols. 4to. 3. “A translation of the works of Machiavel, illustrated with annotations, dissertations, and several new plans on the art of war,” 1761, 2 vols. 4to: reprinted in 1775, 4 vols. 8vo. 4. “A short history of the Israelites, from the French of the -abbe” de Fleury,“1756, 8vo, has been attributed to him, but it was his only by the kindness of Mr. Thomas Bedford (son of Hilkiah), who gave him the translation, in hopes that he might raise some money by it, as he was then poor. None indeed of his works appear to have been profitable* although his translation of Maehiavel, which he literally” hawked round the town/' nowsells at a very high price. On one occasion Dr. Addenbroke, dean of Lichfield, recommended him to translate Spelman’s Life of Alfred from the Latin into English, and Farneworth was about to have begun, when Dr. Pegge luckily informed him that the Life of Alfred was originally written in English, and thence translated into Latin. Mr. Farneworth is supposed to have been the author of a ludicrous and pleasant account of Powell, the fire-eater, in Gent. Mag. 1755, signed Philopyrphagus Asliburniensis. He was at that time curate to the rev. John Fitzherbert, vicar of Ashbourne.

The success of Farquhar’s comedies is said, in general, far to have exceeded his own expectations; and of his merits as a writer, various opinions have been entertained. It may be allowed, however, that he was usually happy in the choice of his subjects, and adorned them with a great variety of characters and incidents that his style is pure and unaffected his wit natural and flowing and his plots generally well contrived. Licentiousness has been justly objectecl to his comedies, which was the vice of the times. Pope used to call him a farce-writer; but his productions were so pleasing, that many years ago his works had gone through eight editions; and to this day his comedies keep their rank upon the stage.

, an English Jesuit, was born in 1554, at Foston in Leicestershire, and entered a student in Merton college, in 1568, under the tuition of John Potts, whom Wood calls a noted philosopher. In 1570, Potts, who was a concealed papist, being detected, conducted his young pupil, whose parents were of that persuasion, to the Jesuits’ college at Louvain. In this seminary he continued till he had taken a bachelor of arts degree, and then went to Paris. From thence he travelled to Munich in Bavaria, where duke William allowed him a handsome salary to prosecute his studies, and Ivhere he took the degree of M. A. In 1575 he proceeded to Rome, and became a member of the English Jesuits’ college, of which he was soon after appointed divinityreader. He was much distinguished and favoured by several princes, and particularly by pope Gregory XIII. who, as a token of his affection and confidence, gave him a seal which empowered him to grant a pass to any of his countrymen travelling through the catholic dominions. In 1581 he was appointed president of the Jesuits’ college at Posna in Poland, in which country he spent the remainder of his life. He died at Ulna, in the province of Lithuania, Feb. 18, 1591, much regretted by his fraternity, amongst whom he had the character of a prudent, learned, and ^pious divine. His works are: 1. “.De Christi in terris ecclesia,” Posna, 1584, 4to. 2. “Contra Antonium Sadeelem Calv:­nistam, libri III.” 3. “Theses de variis fidei eontroversiis,” Posna, 1584, 1590. 4. “Doctrina catholica de Sanctorum Invocatione, &c.” ibid. 1584, 8vo. 5. “Apologia Libri sui de Invocatione, &c. contra Danielem Tossanum,” Colon. 1589, 8vo. 6. “Coenae Lutherana? et Calvinistee oppu<rnatio,” Posna, 1586, 4to. 7. “Apologia Thesium de CcBUtt Lutherana, &o.” ibid. 1590, 4to. 8. “Oratio de causis Haeresis, &c.” 9. “Tractatus de Controversiis inter ordinem Eccles. et Secularem in Polonia,” 1592, 4to.

As an original poet, much cannot be said in his favour. His powers were confined to occasional slight and encomiastic verses, such as may be produced witbout great effort, and are supposed to answer every purpose when they have pleased those to whom they were addressed. The epithalamic ode may perhaps rank higher, if we could forget an obvious endeavour to imitate Dryden and Pope. In the elegy on the death of Dobbin, and one or two other pieces, there is a considerable portion of humour, which is a more legitimate proof of genius than one species of poets are disposed to allow. His principal defects are want of judgment and taste. These, however, are less discoverable in his translations, and it was probably a consciousness of limited powers which inclined him so much to translation. In this he every where displays a critical knowledge of his author, while his versification is smooth and elegant, and his expression remarkably clear. He was once esteemed the best translator since the days of Pope, a praise which, if now disallowed, it is much that it could in his own time have been bestowed with justice.

He was afterwards remanded to the Tower, where he continued till queen Mary’s accession to the crown in 1553; but was then released, and made chaplain to the queen. He became also again chaplain to Bonner, prebendary of St. Paul’s, dean of St. Paul’s, rector of Finchley in Middlesex, which he held only a few months; and then rector of Greenford in the same county. In 1554, he was one of the disputants at Oxford against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, before they suffered martyrdom, but said very little against them; and during Mary’s reign, he was constantly employed in doing good offices to the afflicted protestants from the highest to the lowest. Francis Russel earl of Bedford, Ambrose and Robert Dudley, afterwards earls of Warwick and-Leicester, were benefited by his kindness; as was also sir John Cheke, whose life he and sir Thomas Pope, the founder of Trinity college, Oxford, are said to have saved, by a joint application to queen Mary. Feckenham was very intimate with sir Thomas, and often visited him at Tyttenhanger-house. Feckenham also interceded with queen Mary for the lady Elizabeth’s enlargement out of prison, and that so earnestly, that the queen was actually displeased with him for some time. In May 1556, he was complimented by the university of Oxford with the degree of doctor in divinity; being then in universal esteem for his learning, piety, charity, moderation, humility, and other virtues. The September following, he was made abbot of Westminster, which was then restored by queen Mary; and fourteen Benedictine monks placed there under his government, with episcopal power.

His chief works are, 1. “Entretiens sur les Vies et sur les Ouvrages des plus excellens Peintres anciens et modernes:” 1666 1688, 5 vols. 4to. 2. “Les Principes de l'Architecture, de la Sculpture, et de la Peinture, avec un dictionaire des termes propres de ces artes,” 1676, and 1691, 4to. 3. “De l'origi.ne de la Peinture, avec plusieurs pieces detachers,” 1660. 4. “Several Descriptions, as that of Versailles, of Entertainments given by the king, and of several Pictures,” collected into one vol. in 12mo., 5 “The Conferences of the royal academy of painting,” in one vol. 4to. 6. “The Description of the Abbey de la Trappe,” in 12mo. He also left some translations: viz. “An Account of what passed in Spain, when the count duke of Olivares fell under the king’s displeasure,” translated out of Italian “The Castle of the Soul,” written by St. Teresa, translated from the Spanish “The Life of pope Pius V.” translated from the Italian.

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

He was now induced to trust to his abilities for a subsistence, but whatever his difficulties or discouragements, he kept his name unsullied, and never descended to any mean or dishonourable shifts. Indeed, whoever mentioned him, mentioned him with honour, in every period of his life. His first employ he owed to a recommendation to Charles earl of Orrery, whom he accompanied to Flanders, in quality of secretary, and returned with his lordship to England in 1705. Being then out of employment, he became assistant in the school of Mr. Bonwicke, (see Bo?7­Wicki:), at Headley, near Leatherhead, in Surrey; after which he was invited to the mastership of the free grammar school at Sevenoaks, in Kent, and in a few years brought that seminary into much reputation, while he enjoyed the advantage of making easy and frequent excursions to visit his friends in London. In 1710 he was prevailed upon by Mr. St. John (lord Bolingbrokt ) to give up what was called the drudgery of a school, for the worse drudgery of dependence on a political patron, from whom, after all, he derived no advantage. When Steele resigned his place of commissioner in the stamp-office, Fenton applied to his patron, who told him that it was beneath his merit, and promised him a superior appointment; but this, the subsequent change of administration prevented him from fulfilling, and left Fenton disappointed, and in debt. Not long after, however, his old friend the earl of Orrery appointed him tutor to his son, lord Broghill, a boy of seven years old, whom he taught English and Latin until he was thirteen. About the time this engagement was about to expire, Craggs, secretary of state, feeling his own want of literature, desired Pope to procure him an instructor, by whose help he might supply the deficiencies of his education. Pope recommended Fenton, but Craggs’s sudden death disappointed the pleasing expectations formed from this connection.

His next engagement was with Pope himself, who after the great success of his translation of the Iliad, undertook that of the Odyssey, and determined to engage auxiliaries. Twelve books he took to himself, and twelve he distributed between Broome and Fenton. According to Johnson and Warton, Fenton translated the first, fourth, nineteenth and twentieth. But John, earl of Orrery, in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, asserts that Fenton translated double the number of books in the Odyssey that Pope has owned. “His reward,” adds the noble writer, “was a trifle, an arrant trifle. He has even told me, that he thought Pope feared him more than he loved him. He had no opinion of Pope’s heart, and declared him, in the words of bishop Atterbury, Mens curia in corpore curvo.” It is, however, no small praise to both Fen tun and Broome, that the readers of poetry have never been able to distinguish their books from those of Pope. In 1723, Fenton’s tragedy of “Mariamne” was brought on the stage in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and was performed with such success, that the profits of the author are said to have amounted to nearly a thousand pounds, with which he very honourably discharged the debts contracted by his fruitless attendance on Mr. St. John. The poetical merit of this tragedy is confessedly great, but the diction is too figurative and ornamental. Colley Cibber has been termed insolent for advising Fenton to relinquish poetry, by which we presume he meant dramatic poetry; but Cibber, if insolent, was not injudicious, for Mariamne has not held its place on the stage, In 1 1727, Fenton revised a new edition of Milton’s Poems, and prefixed to it a short but elegant and impartial life of the author. In 1729 he published a very splendid edition of Waller, with notes, which is still a book of considerable value.

The latter part of Mr. Fenton' s life was passed in a manner agreeable to his wishes. By the recommendation of Pope to the widow of sir William Trumbull, that lady invited him to be tutor to her son, first at home, and afterwards at Cambridge; and when disengaged from this attendance on her son, lady Trumbull retained Fenton in her family, as auditor of her accounts, an office which was probably easy, as he had leisure to make frequent excursions to visit his literary friends in London. He died July 13, 1730, at East-Hampstead, in Berkshire, lady Trumbull’s seat, and was interred in the parish-church, and his tomb was honoured with an epitaph by Pope. In person, Fenton was tall and bulky, inclined to corpulence, which he did not lessen by much exercise, as he was sluggish and sedentary, rose late, and when he had risen, sat down to his book or papers. By a woman who once waited on him in a lodging, he was told, that he would “lie a-bed, and be fed with a spoon.” Pope says in one of his letters, that he died of indolence and inactivity; others attribute his death to the gout; to which lord Orrery adds, “a great chair, and two bottles of port in a day.” Dr. Johnson observes, that “Of his morals and his conversation, the account is uniform. He was never named but with praise and fondness, as a man in the highest degree amiable and excellent. Such was the character given him by the earl of Orrery, his pupil such is the testimony of Pope; and such were the suffrages of all who could boast of his acquaintance.” There is a story relating to him, which reflects too much honour upon his memory to be omitted. It was his custom in the latter part of his life, to pay a yearly visit to his relations in the country. An entertainment being made for the family by Jiis elder brother, he observed that one of his sisters, who had been unfortunate in her marriage, was absent; and, upon inquiry, he found that distress had made her thought unworthy of an invitation; but he refused to sit at the table until she was sent for and, when she had taken her place, he was careful to shew her particular attention.

, a celebrated Persian poet, and, according to sir William Jones, at the head of all Persian poets, was a native of Tus or Meshed. He was originally a peasant, but his talents procuring him distinction, he was admitted to the court of the sultan Mahmud, who reigned in the city of Gazna, at the close of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries, and entertained several poets in his palace. Ferdusi, happening to find a copy of an old Persian history, read it with great eagerness, and found it involved in fables, but bearing the marks of high antiquity. The most ancient part of it, and principally the war of Afrasiab and Kosru, or Cyrus, seemed to afford an excellent subject for an heroic poem, which he accordingly began to compose. Some of his episodes and descriptions were shewn to the sultan, who commended them exceedingly, and ordered him to comprize the whole history of Persia in a series of epic poems. The poet obeyed, and after the happiest exertion of his fancy and art for near“thirty years, finished his work, which contained sixty thousand couplets in rhyme, all highly polished, with the spirit of our Dryden, and the sweetness of Pope. He presented an elegant transcript of his hook to Mahmud, who coldly applauded his diligence, and dismissed him. Many months elapsed, and Ferdusi heard no more of his work: he then took occasion to remind the king of it by some little epigrams, which he contrived to let fall in the palace; but, says sir William Jones,” where an epic poem had failed, what effect could be expected from an epigram“At length the reward came, which consisted only of as many small pieces of money, as there were couplets in the volume. The high-minded poet could not brook this insult; he retired to his closet with bitterness in his heart, where he wrote a most noble and animated invective against the sultan, which he sealed up, and delivered to a courtier, who, as he had reason to suspect, was his greatest enemy, assuring him that it was” a diverting tale,“and requesting him to give it to Mahmud,” when any affair of state or bad success in war should make him more uneasy and splenetic than usual." Having thus given vent to his indignation, he left Gazna in the night, and took refuge in Bagdad, where the calif protected him from the sultan Mahmud, who demanded him in a furious and menacing letter. Ferdusi is supposed to have died in the 411th year of the Hegira, or A. D. 1020.

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

, a skilful painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Rome in 1634, where, being in. easy circumstances, he pursued his inclination and taste for painting. He was a faithful imitator of Peter da Cortona, whose favourite disciple he was, and to whom he came so near in his ideas, his invention, and his manner of painting, that his cielings particularly are often mistaken, for Cortona’s. Generally, however, Mr. Fuseli says, Ferri has less grace of design, less ease in his actions and draperies, and less compass of mind; but he has more solidity and carefulness of finish than his master. Though he set great prices on his works, he was in continual employ. Pope Alexander VII. had a great esteem for him; and his three successors were no less favourable to him. The great duke sent for him to Florence, and assigned him a large pension to finish the works which Cortona had left imperfect. He entered so well into the spirit of them, and acquitted himself so worthily, that the whole work seems to be of the same hand. The great duke nominated him chief of the school of Florence, in which rank he continued for a long time. Ferri returned to Rome, where he appeared a great architect as well as a good painter. Several palaces and grand altars, as St. John of the Florentines, and that of the Chiesa Nuova, were raised from his designs. He diverted himself more with drawing than painting. He was much importuned for devices, figures for breviaries, and titles of books: several of which have been engraved by Spierre and Bloemart. The pope employed him in making cartoons for the Vatican; and few men have worked in more different ways. The cupola of St. Agnes, in the palace of Navona, was his last work. The chagrin he felt in seeing the angels of Bacici, a Genoese painter, which were directly under it, the force of whose colouring made his appear too weak, is said to have been the cause of his death. One day he told Lazaro Baldi, his companion, that his cupola appeared very different on the scaffold from what it did from below, and that the angels of Bacici gave him great pain; and, falling sick soon after, he died in 1689, at the age of fifty-five.

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

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

Marsilius now undertook the entire translation of Plato, which he completed in five years, and was then in his thirty-fifth year. Cosmo was now dead, but his son Peter who succeeded him, had the same friendship and esteem for our author, and it was by his orders that he published his translation, and lectured on the works of Plato at Florence to an audience composed of the eminent scholars of Europe who were most conversant in ancient philosophy. Lorenzo also extended his patronage to Marsilius, who having taken priest’s orders in his forty-second year (1475), Lorenzo bestowed several henefices on him, which rendered him easy in his circumstances. More he never wished, and when, by Lorenzo’s bounty, he had attained this competency, he made over his patrimony to his relations. His time was now divided between his ecclesiastical duties and his philosophical studies. His life was exemplary, and his temper amiable. He loved retirement, especially at his country-seat, where he enjoyed the conversation of a fevf friends. Although his constitution was weak, and he was frequently a sufferer by disease, his ardour of study never abated. The pleasure he felt in his retirement, his contented disposition, and his respect for the Medici family, made him refuse some great otters made by pope Sixtus IV. and by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary. He died at the age of sixty-six in 1499.

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

Many of the most eminent critics of the age have treated on Mr. Fielding’s genius, as may appear from our references, and while they concur in censuring his occasional indelicacies, are yet unanimous in assigning him the very first rank of genius. “Tom Jones, and” Amelia,“are his best performances, and the most perfect perhaps of their kind in the world. With respect to the former, Dr. Beattie has well observed,” that since the days of Homer, the world has not seen a more artful epic fable. The characters and adventures are wonderfully diversified, yet the circumstances are all so natural, and rise so easily from one another, and co-operate with so much regularity in bringing on, even while they seem to retard, the catastrophe, that the curiosity of the reader is kept always awake, and instead of flagging, grows more and more impatient as the story advances, till at last it becomes downright anxiety. And when we get to the end, and look back on the whole contrivance, we are amazed to find that of so many incidents there should be so few superfluous; that in such a variety of fiction there should be so great probability; and that so complex a tale should be so perspicuously conducted, and with perfect unity of design.“The same author justly remarks that the novel, or” comic romance, since the time of Fielding, seems to have been declining apace, from simplicity and nature, into improbability and affectation.“Fie has, indeed, not only had no equal, no successful rival; but among the many hundreds who have attempted the same species of writing, there is not one who reminds us of Fielding. The cause of his superiority is to be sought in his wit and humour, of which he had a more inexhaustible fund, as well as more knowledge of mankind, than any person of modern times. Lord Lytteiton, after mentioning several particulars of Pope, Swift, and other wits of that age, when reminded of Fielding, said,” Henry Fielding had more wit and humour than all the persons we have been speaking of put together.“And many parts of his writings, particularly of his tc Amelia,” shew that he could excel, when he chose, in the pathetic. The world, after so many years, yet concurs in these sentiments of Fielding’s excellence; and his works are as fully established in popularity, as those of the greatest geniuses of our nation, and the demand for them continues as great.

, a lady of considerable poetical talents, was the daughter of fcir William Kingsmill, of Sidmonton, in the county of Southampton, but the time of her birth is not mentioned. She was maid of honour to the duchess of York, second wife of James II.; and afterwards married to Heneage, second son of Heneage earl of Winchelsea; which Heneage was, in his father’s life-time, gentleman of the bed-chamber to the duke of York, and afterwards, upon the death of his nephew Charles, succeeded to the title of earl of Winchelsea. One of the most considerable of this lady’s poems was that “upon the Spleen,” printed in “A new jniscellany of original Poems on several occasion’s,” pub lished by Mr. Charles Gildon in 1701, 8vo, That poem occasioned another of Mr. Nicholas, Rovye, entitled ^ An Epistle to Flavia, on the sight of tvva Pindaric Odes on the Spleen and Vanity, written by a lady to her friend.“A collection of her poems, was printed in 1713, 8vo; containing likewise a, tragedy called” Aristomenes;" never acted; and many still continue unpublished, a few of which may be seen in the General Dictionary, which Dr. Birch inserted there by permission of the countess of Hertford, in whose possession they were. Her ladyship obtained the good will of Pope, who addressed some verses to her which drew forth an elegant replication, printed in Gibber’s Lives. She died August 5, 1720, without issue as did the earl her husband, Sept. 30, 1726.

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

, so called from his native city, Florence (in Italian Firenze), though his family name was Nannini, was celebrated in his time as a poet, but his works are now in less repute, which, from their light character and indecencies, is not much to be regretted. He originally practised as an advocate at Rome, and then became an ecclesiastic of the congregation of Vallombrosa. He was personally esteemed by pope Clement VII. who was also an admirer of his works. He died at Rome in 1545. His works in prose were published in 8vo, at Florence, in 1548, and his poetry, the same size, in 1549. These editions, as well as his translation of the Golden Ass of Apuleius, are scarce, but a complete edition of his whole works was published at Florence, 4 vols. 8vo, in 1765-66, in which are some comedies, and other productions.

, a celebrated bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in the third century, was one of the friends of Origen, who took St. Cyprian’s part against pope Stephen; maintaining the necessity of re-baptizing those who had been baptized by heretics; and wrote a long letter on this subject in the year 256, to St. Cyprian, by whom it was translated into Latin, and may be seen in his works. St. Firmilian presided at the first council of Antioch held in the year 264, against Paul of Samosata, who promised a change of doctrine; but, continuing to propagate his errors, was condemned at the second council of Antioch, in the year 269. St. Firmilian died at Tarsus, as he was going to this council.

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

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

, an English historian of the twelfth century, and author of the earliest description of London extant, was of Norman extractio/i, but born of creditable parents in London. He was a monk of Canterbury, was dispatched to his holiness the pope, who was then probably at Rome or Benevento, once at least, and was much connected with archbishop Becket. He tells us h msel f that he was one of his clerks, and an inmate in h s family. He was also a remembrancer in his exchequer; a subdeacon in his chapel whenever he officiated a reader of Lil’s and petitions, when the archbishop sat to hear and determine causes, and sometimes, when his grace was pleased to order it, Fitzstephen performed the office of an advocate. He was also present with him at Northampton, and was an eye-witness of his murder at Canterbury, continuing with him after his other servants had had deserted him. He has reported a speech which he made on occasion of the archbishop’s sitting alone, with the cross in his hand, at Northampton, when he was forsaken by his suffragans, and expected, as he relates it, to be assaulted and murdered. This speech is memorable, and breathes more of a Christian spirit than we should have expected in those days. One of the archbishdp’s friends had recommended, that if any violent attempt was made upon his person, immediately to excommunicate the parties, which then was the most dreadful vengeance an ecclesiastic could inflict. Fitzstephen, on the contrary, said, “Far be that from my lord. The holy apostles and martyrs, when they suffered, did not behave in that manner,” and endeavoured to dissuade the archbishop from taking a step that would appear to proceed from anger and impatience, &c. This worthy monk is supposed to have died in 1191; but authors vary much as to the particular time when he composed his work, although it seems certain that he wrote it in the reign of Henry II. and that it was part of another work, “The Life and Passion of archbishop Becket.” Dr. Pegge fixes the period between the years I 170 and 1182. This “Description of the City of London,” affords, after Domesday Book, by far the most early account we have of that metropolis, and, to use his editor’s words, we may challenge any nation in Europe to produce an account of its capital, or any other of its great cities, at so remote a period as the twelfth century. It was accordingly soon noticed by Leland and Stowe, who inserted a translation of it in his “Survey of London.” But this edition was grown not only obsolete, but incorrect, when Dr. Pegge published in 1772, 4to, a more accurate translation, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation on the author. Fitzstephen was a person of excellent learning for his age. He was well versed in Horace, Virgil, Sallust, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, and with perhaps many other of the Latin classics, and had even peeped into Plato and some of the Greeks. If he was in some respects a little too credulous, it must be imputed to the times he lived in. His account of London, however, is in all views, curious and interesting, and the composition easy, natural, and methodical.

, a painter of historical subjects, was born at Liege in 1614, and began his studies in Flanders, but at the age of twenty-four he went into Italy to cultivate his talents by a view of the works of the renowned painters of that country. At Rome, he copied the best works of the great masters, and soon acquired a reputation which recommended him to the court of Florence, to which the grand duke invited him, and there employed him in several works, the execution of which acquired for him the esteem of that prince, and the applause of the public. In returning from hence homewards, after an absence of nine years, he went to Paris, where some of his best works were executed. In 1647 he returned to Liege, where he was received with great warmth, and by his subsequent works confirmed the high, opinion which his countrymen had conceived of his merit. He then visited Paris again, was admitted a member of the academy of painting, and appointed professor. Returning home, he became rich enough to build a house at St. Remi, which cost 50,000 florins. He also embraced the clerical profession, and although he knew nothing of Latin, was made a canon of St. Paul, by a dispensation from the pope. But in the midst of wealth, possessed of public and private esteem, and of every other circumstance that could render life comfortable, he was seized with an unaccountable melancholy and dejection of spirits, which incessantly oppressed him, till it occasioned his death in 1675; and many persons believed his disorder to have been occasioned by poison administered to him by the celebrated marchioness de Brinvilliers, with whom he had formed an unfortunate connexion, but for this there appears no proof, and his death seems more reasonably attributed to his disordered mind. He appears indeed to have given way to that selfish jealousy which some have reckoned a system of approaching derangement. When one of his scholars, Carlier, had begun to give extraordinary proofs of excellence in his art, Flameel did every thing he could to discourage him, and actually transferred him to a grinder of colours. Carlier, however, conscious of his abilities, secretly painted “the Martyrdom of St. Denis,” which was placed in the church dedicated to that saint; and Flameel had no sooner seen it, than he threw his pencil into the fire, and never painted more.

, an eminent Latin poet, whose family name was Zarrabini, was born at Serevalle in 1498. His father, John Anthony, who first changed the family name to Flaminio on entering a literary society at Venice, was himself a man of learning, and professor of belles-lettres in different academies in Italy, and has left some works both in prose and verse, particularly twelve books of letters, in which are many particulars of literary history. He bestowed great pains on the instruction of his son, and sent him, when at the age of sixteen, to Rome, with a poem addressed to Leo X. exhorting him to make war against the Turks, and a critical work entitled “Annotationum Sylvae.” Leo appears to have been so pleased with the appearance of young Flaminio, as to request that he might remain at Rome, promising to encourage his studies there; but although this did not take place, in his after-visits to Rome, the pope patronized him with great liberality, and Flaminio answered every expectation that had been formed of his talents. In 1515 he accompanied the count Castiglione to Urbino, where he resided some months, and was held in the highest esteem by that accomplished nobleman for his amiable qualities and great endowments, but particularly for his. early and astonishing talents for Latin poetry. In this year he published at Fano, the first specimen of his productions, with a few poems of Marullus, not before printed, in a very rare volume in 8vo. entitled, “Michaelis Tardaaniotas Marulli Neniae. Ejusdem epigrammata nunquarn alias impressa. M. Antonii Flaminii carminum libellus. Ejusdem Ecloga Thyrsis.” Of these poems some have been printed, often with variations, in the subsequent editions of his works; but several pieces appear there which are not to be found in the edition by Mancurti, published at Padua, by Comino, in 1727, which is considered as the most complete; whence it is probable this early publication of Flaminio was not known to his editors.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the fifth cen tury, succeeded Proclus in that dignity, in the year 447; and although Chrysaphius, favourite of the younger Theodosius, wished to drive him from his see, Flavian despised his menaces. In his time arose the Eutychian heresy, which he condemned in a synod held ut Constantinople. But the partizans of Eutyches condemned and deposed Flavian in the year 449, in the council called “Latrocinium Ephesinnm,” or “Conventus Latronum,” the “Assembly of Robbers.” Dioscurus bishop ol Alexandria, was placed at the head of this council by Tlicodosius, who carried matters with such violence, that Flavian was personally mal-treated, publicly scourged, and banished to Hypacpa, in Lydia, where he died soon after, in consequence of this scandalous usage. Before his death he appealed to Leo, and this appeal produced another council, in which Eutyches was condemned, and the savage Dioscorus deposed. Flavian was the author of “Two Letters” to pope Leo, which are printed in the fourth volume of the “Collectio Conciliorum,” and of a “Declaration of Faith delivered to the emperor Theodosius.”

, or Flavius Blondus, an Italian anticjuaryand historian, was born at Forli, in 1388. We have only a very slight account of his early years, but he appears to have been young when he was sent to Milan by his fellow-citizens to negociate some affairs for them. In 1434 he was secretary to pope Eugene IV. in which office he served three of the successors of that pontiff, but was not always with them. He travelled much through various parts of Italy, studying carefully the remains of antiquity. He died at Rome, in 1463, leaving three sons well educated, but without any provision, his marriage having prevented him from rising in the church. His long residence at Rome inspired him with the design of publishing an exact description of all the edifices, gates, temples, and other remains of ancient Rome, which then existed as ruins, or had been repaired. This he executed in a work entitled “Romae instauratae lib. III.” in which he displays great learning, as he did in his “Romce triumphantis, lib. X.” in which he details the laws, government, religion, ceremonies, sacrifices, military state, and wars of the ancient republic. Another elaborate work from his pen, was his “Italia illustrata,” or ancient state of Italy; and he published also a history of Venice, “De origine et gestis Venetorum.” At his death he had made some progress in a general history of Rome from its decline to his own time, the manuscript of which is in the library of Modena. His style is far from elegant, nor are his facts always correct; but he has the merit of paving the wav for future antiquaries, who have been highly indebted to his researches. A collection of his works was published at Basil, in 153 1.

, an English poet and dramatic writer in the reign of Charles II. whose productions, although not without some proportion of merit, would not have preserved his name so long as the satire of Dryden, entitled “Mac Flecnoe,” is said to have been originally a Jesuit, and to have had connections with some persons of high distinction in London, who were of the Roman catholic persuasion. What was the cause of Dryden’s aversion is not determined. Some have said that when the revolution was completed, Dryden, having some time before turned papist, became disqualified for holding his place of poet-laurcat. It was accordingly taken from him, and conferred on Flecknoe, a man to whom Dryden is said to have had already a confirmed aversion; and this produced the famous satire, called from him Mac Flecknoe, one of the most spirited and amusing of Dryden' s poems; and, in some degree, the model of the Dunciad. That this is a spirited poem is as certain, as that all the preceding account from Cihber and his copiers is ridiculous. Shadwell was the successor of Dryden, as laureat, and in this poem is ridiculed as the poetical son of Flecknoe. However con.­temptibly Dryden treated Flecknoe, the latter at one time wrote an epigram in his praise, which, with his religion, might have conciliated both Dryden and Pope. Perhaps Dryden, says a modern critic, was offended at his invectives against the obscenity of the stage, knowing how much he had contributed to it. Be this as it may, Flecknoe himself wrote some plays, but not more than one of them was acted. His comedy, called “Damoiselles a la mode,” was printed in 1667, and addressed to the duke and duchess of Newcastle; the author had designed it for the theatre, and was not a little chagrined at the players for refusing it; He said upon this occasion: “For the acting this comedy, those who have the government of the stage have their humours, and would.be in treated and I have mine, and won't intreat them and were all dramatic writers of my mind, tljeyshould wear their old plays thread-bare, ere they should have any new,till they better understood their own interest, and how todistinguish between good *nd bad.”

In 1410, being then rector of Boston in Lincolnshire, he exchanged his prebend of South Newbold for that of Langford in the cathedral church of York, and on April 28, 1420, was promoted to the see of Lincoln. In 1424 he was sent to the council of Sienna, where, in a dispute about precedency, he vindicated the honour and superiority of his country, against the Spanish, French, and Scotch deputies. This council was called to continue the proceedings of that of Constance against the Hussites, and other continental reformers, and our prelate distinguished himself so much as to become a favourite with Pope Martin V. who would have promoted him to be archbishop of York, had not the king as well as the dean and chapter opposed his -election with such firmness as to oblige the pope to yield. Flemming consequently remained in his diocese of Lincoln. In 1428, he executed that decree of the council of Constance which ordered that the bones of Wicklilf should be taken up and burned; the harmless remains of a man whom he once honoured with the warmth of his zeal, and supported with the vigour of his talents.

, nephew to the preceding, was educated at Oxford, and probably in Lincoln college, then newly founded by his uncle. On Jan. 21, 1451, he was admitted dean of Lincoln, being much admired for his learning. He afterwards went to Italy, and visited the principal universities; and among other eminent men, he attended the lectures of the celebrated orator and poet Baptista Guarini, professor of the Greek and Latin languages at Ferrara. From this place he went to Rome, >vhere he remained a year or two, and became acquainted with several learned men, particularly Earth. Platina, librarian of the Vatican. He became also known to pope Sixtus IV, in whose praise, during a summer’s recess at Tibur, or Tivoli, he composed a Latin poem in two books inscribed to his holiness; who was so pleased with it, that he made the author his protonotary. Of this poem, entitled “Lucubrationes Tiburtinae,” we have only a few verses quoted by Leland, and praised by him for the style. At his return from Italy, he brought over with him several books curiously illuminated, which he bequeathed to Lincoln college library, with some of his own composition, among which Leland, Bale, and Pits mention “Dictionarium Graeco-Latinum;” “Carolina diversi generis,” and “Epistolarum ad diversos, liber unus.” On Sept. 27, 1467, he was installed into the prebend of Leigh ton -man or, in the cathedral church of Lincoln, which he exchanged, Dec. 3, 1478, for that of Leighton-Bosard; and he fotmded in this cathedral, a chantry for two chaplains. This learned man died Aug. 12, 1483, and was buried near bishop Flemming, his relation.

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

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

, was born at Mantua in 1490, and at the age of sixteen he entered into a Benedictine monastery in his native city, where his talents and industry obtained for him a high reputation for proficiency in literature and sacred criticism, while the excellence of his disposition rendered him an object of general esteem. He was selected to fill the most important and distinguished stations in his order, and he was afterwards chosen by pope Paul IV. as visitor of the Benedictine foundations in Spain. When he had performed this task, he had returned to his native country, and devoted himself almost wholly to theological studies, in the course of which he conceived the hopeless project of uniting Catholics and Protestants in one communion. After a life spent in the service of his fellow creatures, he died in 1559, in his seventieth year. He left behind him many theological works, of which the principal were “Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, and the first Epistle of St. John,” published in 1551, in 8vo; also a “Commentary upon the Psalms.” These works must have had more than common merit in respect to liberality of sentiment, as they were prohibited by his church. His “Commentary on the Psalms” indeed was reprinted in 1585, but revised and curtailed. Dupin says that he “writes purely and nobly” and Thuanus had reason to say, “that no man will ever repent the reading of his Commentaries.”

Besides the periodical works mentioned above, he was the author of many others; many of them critical, some historical, and some translations from English writers, chiefly from Pope, Swift, &c. The abbe“de la Porte published in 1757,” L‘Esprit de i’Abbe des Fontaines," 4 vols. 12mo; at the head of which is the life of Fontaines, a catalogue of his works, amounting to forty-seven articles, and another catalogue of writings against him, amounting to thirty-three. He translated Virgil also, and some other classics.

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

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

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

Dr. Foster’s character has been spoken of by his friends in the highest terms, and they dwell with peculiar emphasis on his humanity, as a man perfectly free from every thing gross and worldly. His benevolence and charities were so extraordinary, that he never reserved any thing for his own future use: and had it not been for two thousand subscribers to his “Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue,” he would have died extremely poor. His way of thinking is thus described by himself: “I always had,” says he, “I bless God, ever since I began to understand, or think, to any purpose, large and generous principles; and there never was any thing either in my temper or education, which might incline me to narrowness and bigotry: and I am heartily glad of this opportunity, which now offers itself, of making this public, serious profession, that I value those who are of different persuasions from me, more than those who agree with me in sentiment, if they are more serious, sober, and charitable.” His talent for preaching was very eminent and extraordinary. His voice was naturally sweet, strong, distinct, harmonious: and his ear enabled him to manage it exactly. He was also a perfect master of action; his action, however, was grave, expressive, natural, free from violence, free from distortions: in short, such as became the pulpit, and was necessary to give force and energy to the truths there delivered. The Sunday evening lecture, begun in 1728, which he carried on at the Old Jewry above twenty years, shewed indisputably, that nobody ever went beyond him for popularity in preaching. Hither resorted persons of every rank, station, and quality clergy, wits, freethinkers: and hither curiosity might probably draw Pope himself, who, in the epilogue to his satires, has taken occasion to praise him for this talent in the following lines:

, two learned printers of Scotland, were, it is supposed, natives of Glasgow, and passed their early days in obscurity. Ingenuity and perseverance, however, enabled them to establish a press from which have issued some of the finest specimens of correct and elegant printing which the eighteenth century has produced. Even Bodoni of Parma, or Barbou of Paris, have not gone beyond some of the productions from the press of Robert and Andrew Foulis. It would b highly agreeable to trace the progress of these ingenious men, but their history has been neglected by their countrymen, and at this distance little can be recovered. Robert Foulis began printing about 1740, and one of his first essays was a good edition of Demetrius Phalereus, in 4to. In 1744 he brought out his celebrated immaculate edition, of Horace, 12mo, and soon afterwards was in partnership with his brother Andrew. Of this edition of Horace, the sheets, as they were printed, were hung up in the college of Glasgow, and a reward was offered to those who should discover an inaccuracy. It has been several times reprrnted at Glasgow, but not probably with the same fidelity. The two brothers then proceeded in producing, for thirty years, a series of correct and well printed books, particularly classics, which, either in Greek or Latin, are as remarkable for their beauty and exactness as any in the Aldine series. Among those classics we may enumerate J. “Homer,” 4 vols. fol. Gr. 2. “Herodotus,” 9 vols. J2mo. 3. “Thucydides,” 8 vols. 12mo. 4. “Xenophon,” 8 vols. 12mo. 5. “Epictetus,” 12mo. 6. “Longiniis,” 12mo. 7. “Ciceronis Opera,” 20 vols. 12mo. %. “Horace,” 12mo and 4to. 9. “Virgil,” I3mo. 10. ' Tibullus and Propertius,“12mo. 11.” Cornelius Nepos,“3 vols. 12mo. 12.” Tacitus,“4 vols. 12mo. 13. 11 Juvenal and Persius,” 12mo. 14. “Lucretius,” 12mo. To these may be added a beautiful edition of the Greek Testament, small 4to; Gray’s Poems; Pope’s Works; Hales of Eton, &c. &c. &c.

But what conferred an almost immediate superiority of reputation on this society, was the appointment of two lectures for Greek and Latin, which obtained the praise and admiration of Erasmus and the other learned men who urere now endeavouring to introduce a knowledge of the classics as an essential branch of academic study. With this enlightened design, the founder invited to his new college Ludovicus Vives, Nicholas Crucher the mathematician, Clement Edwards and Nicholas Utten, profes-f ors of Greek; Thomas Lupset, Richard Pace, and other men of -established reputation. This, Mr. Warton observes, was a new and noble departure from the narrow plan of academical education. The course of the Latin lecturer was not confined to the college, but open to the students of Oxford in general. He was expressly directed to drive barbarism from the new college, barbarieme nostro alveario pro virili si quando pullulet cxtirpet et ejiciat. The Greek lecturer was ordered to explain the best Greek classics, and those which Fox specified on this occasion, are the purest in the opinion of modern times. But such was the temper of the age, that Fox was obliged to introduce his Greek lectureship, by pleading that the sacred canons had commanded, that a knowledge of the Greet tongue should not be wanting in public seminaries of education. By the sacred canons he meant a decree of the council of Vienne, in Dauphiny, promulgcd so early as 1311, which enjoined that professorships of Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, should be instituted in the universities of Oxford, Paris, Bononia, Salamanca, and the court of Rome. This, however, was not entirely satisfactory. The prejudices against the Greek were still, so inveterate, that the university was for some time seriously disturbed by the advocates of the school-learning. The persuasion and example of Erasmus, who resided about this time in St. Mary’s college, had a considerable effect in restoring peace, and more attention was gradually bestowed on the learned languages, and this study, so curiously introduced under the sanction of pope Clement’s decree of Vienne, proved at no great distance of time, a powerful instrument in effecting the reformation. Those who would deprive Clement of the liberality of his edict, state his chief motive to have been a superstitious regard for the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, because the superscription on the cross was written in these languages.

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

, commonly called Francesco Dal Borgo A San Sepolcro, a painter of considerable renown, was born at Borgo in Umbria, in 1372. In his youth he studied the mathematics; but at fifteen years of age determined on being a painter, when he was patronised by Gindobaldo Fettro, duke of Urbino. He did not, however, so completely devote his time to painting as to neglect his former studies, but wrote several essays on geometry and perspective, which were long preserved in the duke’s^ library at Urbino. He afterwards painted in Pesara, Ancona, and Ferrara; but few of his works remain at either of these places. Having obtained much reputation, he was sent for to Rome by pope Nicholas V. to paint two historical subjects in the chambers of the Vatican, in concurrence with Bramante di Milano, called Bramantino; but Julius II. destroyed these to make room for Raphael’s Miracle of Bolsena, and St. Peter in Prison. Notwithstanding this degradation of his labours, before the superior powers of Raphael, he was very deserving of esteem, if the account which Vasari gives of him be true, and we consider the imperfect state of the art at the time in which he lived. He exhibited much knowledge of anatomy, feeling of expression, and of distribution of light and shade. The principal work of Franceses was a night scene, in which he represented an angel carrying a cross, and appearing in vision to the emperor Constantine sleeping in his tent with his chamberlain near him, and some of his soldiers. The light which issued from the cross and the angel illuminated the scene, and was spread over it with the utmost discretion. Every thing appeared to have been studied from nature, and was executed with great propriety and truth. He also painted a battle, which was highly commended for the spirit and fire with which it was conducted; the strength of the expression, and the imitation of nature; particularly a groupe of horsemen, which, Vasari says, “considering the period, cannot be too highly commended.”

, a celebrated saint of the Romish church, and founder of one of the four orders of mendicant friars, called Franciscans, was born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1182. He was the son of a merchant, and was christened John, but had the name of Francis added, from his facility of talking French, which he learned to qualify him for his father’s profession. He was at first a young man of dissolute manners, but in consequence of an illness about 1206, he became so strongly affected with religious zeal, that he took a resolution of retiring from the world. He now devoted himself so much to solitude, mortified himself to such a degree, and contracted so ghastly a countenance, that the inhabitants of Assisi thought him distracted. His father, thinking to make him resume his profession., employed a very severe method for that purpose, by throwing him into prison; but finding this made no impression on him, he took him before the bishop of Assisi, in order to make him resign all claim to his paternal estate, which he not only agreed to, but stripped off all his clothes, even to his shirt. He then prevailed with great numbers to devote themselves, as he had done, to the poverty which he considered as enjoined by the gospel; and drew up an institute or rule for their use, which was approved by pope Innocent III. in 1210. The year after, he obtained of the Benedictines the church of Portiuncula, near Assisi, and his order increased so fast, that when he held a chapter in 1219, near 5000 friars of the order of Minors (so they were called) were present. Soon after he obtained also a bull in favour of his order from pope Honorius III. About this time he went into the Holy Land, and endeavoured in vain to convert the sultan Meledin. It is said, that he offered to throw himself into the flames to prove his faith in what he taught. He returned soon after to his native country, and died at Assiai in 1226, being then only fortyfive. He was canonized by pope Gregory IX. the 6th of May, 1230; and Oct. the 4th, on which his death happened, was appointed as his festival.

, another Romish saint, who to exceed his predecessor in humility, founded the order of Minims (least), as he had that of Minors (inferiors). He was born in 1416, at Paulo in Calabria. He began his career of mortification by retiring to a cell on a desert part of the coast, where his sanctity soon obtained followers, and they ere long constructed a monastery round his cell. Thus was his order commenced. He formed a rule for it, which was approved by pope Alexander VI. and confirmed by Julius II. His rule was extremely rigorous, enjoining perpetual abstinence from wine, fish, and meat. His disciples were always to go bare-footed, never to sleep upon a bed, and to use many other mortifications. He died in France, to which country be went at the earnest solicitation of Louis XI. who hoped to be cured of a dangerous malady by his presence. This event took place at Plessisdu-Parc, in 1508, when he was at the age of ninety-one. He was canonized in 1519, by Leo X. By the confession of his admirers he was perfectly illiterate.

king of France, surnamed “the Great, and the restorer of learning,” succeeded his father-in-law Louis XII. who died without a son in 1515. Francis I. was the only son of Charles duke of Orleans, constable of AngoulSroe, and born at Cognac, September 12, 1494. Immediately after his coronation he took the title of cluke of Milan, and put himself at the head of a powerful army to assert his right to that duchy. The Swiss, who defended it, opposed his enterprize, and attacked him. near Marignana; but they were cut to pieces in a sanguinary contest, and about 15,000 left dead on the field. The famous Trivulce, who had been engaged in eighteen battles, called this “The battle of the Giants,” and the others “Children’s play.” It was on this occasion that the king desired to be knighted by the famous Bayard. That rank was originally the highest that could be aspired to: princes of the blood were not called monseigneur, nor their wives madaine, till they had been knighted; nor might any one claim that honour, unless he could trace his nobility at least three generations back, both on his father’s and mother’s side, and also bore an unblemished character, especially for military courage and valour. The creation of a knight was attended with few ceremonies, except at some festivals, inwhich case a great number were observed. This institution, which may be traced up to the first race, contributed not a little to polish the minds of the French, by restraining them within the bounds of a benevolent morality. They swore to spare neither life or fortune in defence of religion, in fighting against the infidels, and in protecting the widow, the orphan, and all who were defenceless. By this victory at Marignana, Francis I. became master of the Milanese, which was ceded to him by Maximilian Sforza, who then retired into France. Pope Leo X. alarmed by these conquests, held a conference with the king at Bologna, obtained from him the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, and settled the Concordate, which was confirmed the year following in the Latcran council. From that time the kings of France appointed to all consistorial benefices, and the pope received one year’s income upon every change. The treaty of N.oyon was concluded the same year between Charles V. and Francis I. one principal article or' which was the restoration of Navarre. Charles V. on the death of Maximilian I. being elected emperor, 1519, in opposition to Francis, the jealousy which subsisted between those two princes broke out immediately, and kindled a long war, which proved fatal to all Europe. The French, commanded by Andrew de Foix, conquered Navarre in 1520, and lost it again almost directly; they drove the English and Imperialists from Picardy; took Hesdin, Fontarabia, and several other places; but lost Milan and Tournay in 1521. The following year, Odet de Foix, viscount of Lautrec, was defeated at the bloody battle of Bicoque, which was followed by the loss of Cremona, Genoa, and a great part of Italy. Nor did their misfortunes end here. The constable of Bourbon, persecuted by the duchess of Angouleme, joined the emperor 1523, and, being appointed commander of his forces in 1524, defeated admiral Bonevet’s rear at the retreat of Rebec, and retook all the Milanese. He afterwards entered Provence with a powerful army, but was obliged to raise the siege of Marseilles, and retired with loss. Francis I. however, went into Italy, retook Milan, and was going to besiege Pavia; but, having imprudently detached part of his troops to send them to Nappies, he was defeated by the constable de Bpurbon in a bloody battle before Pavia, February 24, 1525, after, having two horses killed under him, and displaying prodigious valour. His greatness of mind never appeared more conspicuously than after this unfortunate engagement. In a letter to his mother he says, “Every thing is lost but honour.” He was conducted as a prisoner to Madrid, and returned the following year, after the treaty which was concluded in that city, January 14, 1526. This treaty, extorted by force, was not fulfilled; the emperor had insisted on the duchy of Burgundy being ceded to him but, when Lannoi went to demand it in his master’s name, he was introduced to anaudience given to the deputies of Burgundy, who declared to the king, that he had no power to give up any province of his kingdom. Upon this the war re-commenced immediately. Francis I. sent forces into Italy, under the command of Lautrec, who rescued Clement VII. and at first gained great adVantages, but perished afterwards, with his army, by sickness. The king, who had been some years a widower, concluded the treaty of Cambray in 1529, by which he engaged to marry Eleanor of Austria, the emperor’s sister; and his two sons, who had been given as hostages, were Ransomed at the king’s return for two millions in gold. The ambition of possessing Milan, caused peace again to be broken. Francis took Savoy in 1535, drove the emperor from Provence in 153G, entered into an alliance with 8olyman II. emperor of the Turks; took Hesdin, and seyeral other places, in 1537, and made a truce of ten years with Charles V. at Nice, 1538, which did not, however, Jast long. The emperor, going to punish the people of Ghent, who had rebelled, obtained a passage through France, by promising Francis the investiture of the duchy of Milan for which of his children he pleased; but. after being received in France with the highest honours in 1539, he was no sooner arrived in Flanders than he refused to keep his promise. This broke the truce; the war was renewed, and carried on with various success on both sides. The king’s troops entered Italy, Roussillorr, and Luxemburg. Francis of Bourbon, comte d‘Enguien, won the battle of Cerizoles in 154*, and took Montferrat. Francis I. gained over to his side Barbarossa, and Gustavus Vasa, Icing of Sweden; while, on the other hand, Henry VIII. of England espoused the interests of Charles V. and took Bologna, ’1544. A peace was at last concluded with he emperor at Cressy, September 18, 1544, and with Henry VIII. June 7, 154fi; but Francis did not long enjoy the tranquillity which this peace procured him; he died at the castle of Rambouillet the last day of March, 1547, aged fifty-three. This prince possessed the most shining qualities: he was witty, mild, magnanimous, generous, and benevolent. The revival of polite literature in Europe was chiefly owing to his care; he patronized the learned, founded the royal college at Paris, furnished a library at Fountainbleau at a great expence, and built several palaces, which he ornamented with pictures, statues, and costly furniture. When dying, he particularly requested his son to dimiuish the taxes which he had been obliged to levy for defraying the expences of the war; and put it in his power to do so, for he left 400,000 crowns of gold in his coffers, with a quarter of his revenues which was then due. It was this sovereign who ordered all public acts to "be written in French. Upon the whole he appears to have been one of the greatest ornaments of the French throne.

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

, sieur de Chambrai, under which name he is classed in some biographical works, was a learned architect of the seventeenth century, and a native of Chambrai. He was connected by relationship, as well as love of the art, with Sublet des Noyers, secretary of state and superintend ant of the buildings under Louis XIII. About 1640, Freart was sent, with one of his brothers, to Italy, on an important mission to the pope, and he was also ordered to collect antiquities, &c. and engage the ablest artists to reside in France. Among the latter he brought Poussin to Paris. Freart died in iv76. He published a French translation of Da Vinci on painting, Paris, 1651, fol. and another of Palladia’s Architecture, Paris, 1650. Of this a fine edition was printed by Nicolas du Bois at the Hague in 1726, with engravings by Piea*t, but he has strangely divided the translator into two persons, asserting that Freart published one edition of Palladio, and the sieur de Chambrai another. But the work by which Freart is best known is his “Parallele de l'architecture antique avec la rooderne,” Paris, 1650, fol. reprinted by Erard in 1702. Our celebrated countryman Evelyn trans-, lated this work, as already noticed in his article (vol. Xjijl p. 435). It was much admired in France, and is still in esteem with artists.

, of the ancient family of Fregoso, was the son of Peter Fregoso, who was elected doge of Genoa in 1450, and arrived himself at that honour in Nov. 1473. His arbitrary conduct, however, assisted the ambitious designs of his uncle Paul, archbishop of Genoa, who procured him to be deposed in 1483, and himself to be elected in his stead. Baptist was then banished to Tregui. When he died is not known. He amused himself in his exile by writing various works, among which was a collection of “Memorable Actions and Sayings,” addressed to his son Peter, and containing some particulars of his own life. Vossius has improperly classed him among Latin historians, on account of this work, which was written in Italian, but he had probably seen only Ghilini’s translation, published under the title “Batistte Fulgosi de dictis factisque memorabilibus collectanea a Camillo Ghilino Latina facta, libri novem,” Milan, 1508, fol. and often reprinted at Paris, Basil, Antwerp, &c. in 8vo. The best editions are those of Paris, 1578, and 1585, 8vo, which have additions by Gaillard. Fregoso also wrote “La vita di Martino V.” pope, bnt it tioes not appear whether it was published; and *' De Foeminis quae doctrina excelluerunt,“which appears to have been taken from his” Dicta,“and inserted in a collection respecting learned ladies by Ravisius Textor, Paris, 1521, fol. The only remaining publication of his was a treatise against love, entitled” Anteros." This is one of the earliest printed books, bearing date Milan, 1496, according to Clement, but Niceron says 1469.

, an elegant Portuguese writer in prose and verse, was born in 1597, at Beja in Portugal, and became abbé of St. Mary de Chans. He appeared at first with some distinction at the court of Spain, but his attachment to the house of Braganza impeded his advancement. In 1640, when John IV. was proclaimed king of Portugal, he went to his court, and was well received. Yet it was found difficult to advance him, for he was of too light and careless a character to be employed in diplomatic business; and though the king would have gone so far as to make him bishop of Visieu, this dignity he had the wisdom to refuse, well-knowing that the pope who did not acknowledge his master as king, would never confirm his appointment as bishop. He did not choose, he said, merely to personate a bishop, like an actor on a stage. He died at Lisbon in 1657. Notwithstanding the levity of his character, he had a generous heart, and was a firm and active friend. He wrote with much success; his “Life of Don Juan de Castro,” is esteemed one of the best written books in the Portuguese language. It was published in folio, and was translated into Latin by Rotto, an Italian Jesuit. He wrote also a small number of poems in the same language, which have considerable elegance, and are to be found in a collection published at Lisbon in 1718, under the title of “Fenix Renacida.”

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

His works are these: “Treatise of Purgatory; Antithesis between Christ and the Pope; Letters unto the faithful followers of Christ’s Gospel, written in the Tower, 1532; Mirror, or Glass to know thyself, written in the Tower, 1532; Mirror or Looking-glass, wherein you may behold the Sacrament of Baptism; Articles, for which he died, written in Newgate-prison, June 23, 1533; Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogues concerning Heresies; Answer to John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, &c.” all which treatises were reprinted at London, 1573, in folio, with the works of Tyndale and Barnes. He also wrote some translations.

After a series of travels into different countries, for the sake of obtaining information, we find him in 1390 in his own country, solely occupied in the completion of his history, at least until 1392, when he was again at Paris. From the year 1378 he had obtained from pope Clement VII. the reversion of a canonry at Lille, and in the collection of his poetry, which was completed in 1393, and elsewhere, he calls himself canon of Lille; but pope Clement dying in 1394, he gave up his expectations of the. reversion, and began to qualify himself as canon and treasurer of the collegiate church of Chirnay, which he probably owedi to the friendship of the count de Blois. In 1395, after an absence of twenty-seven years, he returned to England, where he was received with marks of high favour and affection by Richard II. and the royal family; and here he went on collecting information for his history, and had the honour to present his “Meliador” to the king, who was much delighted with it. After a residence of three mouths, he was dismissed with marks of princely favour, which he endeavoured to return by his affectionate and grateful' lamentation on the death of his royal patron, at the end of the fourth volume of his history.

, an Italian poet, was born November 21, 1692, at Genoa, of a noble family, which ended in him. He was persuaded by his tutors to enter the order of regular clerks of Somasquo; but that confined life was so contrary to his gay temper, and fondness for pleasure, that he obtained leave from the pope to quit the order, and remain a secular priest. Frugoni then settled at Parma, where the different sovereigns procured him all the conveniences of life; but the infant don Philip showed yet greater attention to him than the rest. He gave him the titles of court poet, inspector of the theatres, and secretary of the fine arts. He died at Parma, December 20, 1768. His poems are much esteemed by the Italians, and his songs, in particular, were the delight of his contemporaries. An edition of this author’s works was published at Parma in 1779, in 10 vols. 8vo. They consist of every species of minor poems.

, an eminent benefactor to literature, was born at Augsburg in 1526, and deserves a place in this work for his affection to learning and learned men. His family was considerable for its antiquity and opulence; and Thuanus informs us, that when Charles V. changed the government of Augsburg, in 1548, he nominated the family of the Fuggers among those who thenceforward were to be raised to the dignity of senators. Yet this illustrious family, as all the genealogical writers of Germany, notice, sprung from a weaver, who, in 1370, was made free of the city of Augsburg. Huldric had been chamberlain to pope Paul III. and afterwards turned protestant. He laid out great sums in purchasing good manuscripts of ancient authors, and getting them printed; and for this purpose he for some time allowed a salary to the famous Henry Stephens. His relations were so incensed at him for the money he expended in this way, that they brought an action against him, in consequence of which he was declared incapable of managing his affairs. Thuanus, and some other writers observe, that this sentence pronounced against Fugger plunged him into a deep melancholy, which accompanied him almost to his grave; but it is asserted in his epitaph, that he was unmoved at the shock, and that he was soon after restored to his estate. He had retired to Heidelberg, where he died in 1584; having bequeathed his library, which was very considerable, to the elector Palatine, with a fund for the maintenance of six scholars.

, bishop of Chartres, who flourished towards the end of the tenth t and beginning of the eleventh century, is celebrated, in the Tlomish church history, for his learning and piety. Some authors rank him among the chancellors of France, under the reign or‘ king Robert, but he was only chancellor of the church of Chartres, at the same time that he was rector of the school. He had been himself a disciple of the learned Gerbert, who was afterwards pope Sylvester II. in the year 999. Fulbert came from Rome to France, and taught in the schools belonging to the church of Chartres, which were then not only attended by a great concourse of scholars, but by his means contributed greatly to the revival of learning and religioii in France and Germany; and most of the eminent men of his time thought it an honour to be able to say that they had been his scholars. In 1007 he succeeded to the bishopric of Chartres, and the duke William gave him the office of treasurer of St. Hilary of Poitiers, the profits of which Fulbert employed in rebuilding his cathedral church. He was distinguished in his time for attachment to ecclesiasrtical discipline, and apostolic courage; and such was his character and fame, that he was highly esteemed by the princes and sovereigns of his age, by Robert, king of France, Canute, king of England; Richard II. duke of Normandy; William, duke of Aquitaine; and the greater part of the contemporary noblemen and prelates. He continued bishop of Chartres for twenty-one years and six months, and died, according to the abbé Fleuri, in 1029; but others, with more probability, fix that event on April 10, 1028. His works, which were printed, not very correctly, by Charles de Villiers in 1608, consist of letters, sermons, and some lesser pieces in prose and verse. His sermons, Dupin thinks, contain little worthy of notice; but his letters, which amount to 134-, have ever been considered as curious memorials of the history and sentiments of the times. They prove, however, that although Fulbert might contribute much to the propagation of learning, he had not advanced in liberality of sentiment before his contemporaries. There are also two other letters of our prelate in existence, the one in D’Acheri’s “Spicilegium,” and the other in Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” both illustrative of his sentiments, and the sentiments of his age.

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

Furietti collected and published at Rome the works of the celebrated Caspar Barziza of Bergamo, and of his son Guiniforte, most of which were never before printed, in a handsome 4to vol. 1723, with a learned preface and life. He published, likewise, at Bergamo in 1752, a fine edition of the poems of Fontana; but what obtained him most reputation among scholars and antiquaries, was his treatise on the Mosaic art of painting, entitled “De Musivis, vel pictoriae Mosaicse artis origine, progressu, &c.” Home, 1752, 4to. In this he describes a rare specimen of Mosaic which he discovered in 1737 in the ruins of Adrian, and which, according to him, is mentioned by Pliny, as being the work of the celebrated artist Sosius. This exquisite specimen, with the centaurs belonging to Furietti, was purchased after his death by pope Clement XIII. for 14,000 Roman crowns, and deposited in the museum.

, an eminent prelate, the descendant of a noble family in Westphalia, was born at Bilstein in 1626. He studied at Cologne, where he contracted an intimate friendship with Chigi, who was then nuncio, and afterwards pope. During the cardinalate of Chigi, he invited f urstemberg to reside with him, whom he raised to the bishopric of Paderborn in 1661, when he himself was seated in the papal chair, under the title of Alexander VII. The high reputation of the bishop attracted the notice of Vat) Galer:, who appointed him his, coadjutor, and whom he succeeded in 1678, when he. was declared by the pope apostolical vicar of all the north of Kurope. He was. a zealous catholic, and anxious for the conversion of those who were not already within the pale of the church; but at the same time he did not neglect the cultivation of the belles lettres, eitper by his own efforts or those of many learned men whom he patronized. He died in 1683, As an author he collected a number of Mss. and monuments of antiquity, and gave to the world valuable work relative to those subjects, entitled “Momimenta Paderbornensia.” He al*o printed at Rome a. collection of Latin poems, entitled “Septem Virorutn. illusirium Poemata.” In this work there were many poems of his own, written witU much purity. A magnificent edition of these poems was published in the same year in which he died, at the Louvre, at the expence of the king of France.

, a very extraordinary character, of great talents, and great vices, was a Roman catholic, of a good Family in Ireland. He was a very considerable Latin scholar, and editor of Brindley’s beautiful edition of the Classics. He translated Pope’s “Essay on Criticism” into Latin verse, and after his confinement in Newgate, to which he was sent for filing gold, he translated into the same language the “Temple. of Fame,” and the “Messiah,” which he dedicated to the duke of Newcastle, in hopes of a pardon; he also wrote verses in English on prince George (our present sovereign), and on Mr. Adams, the recorder, which were published in the ordinary’s account; with a poetical address to the duchess of Queensbury, by one Conner, who was then in prison for the same Crime. Gahagan was executed at Tyburn, Feb. 1749.

, or Galeotus Martius, was born at Narni, in the pupal territory, and was for some time an instructor of youth at Bologna, but removed and kept a private school in Hungary. Being there distinguished by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, he was admitted into his family, made his private secretary, and, it is supposed, presided over the education of his son John Coryinus. He was also keeper of the library at Buda. In this situation his fame reached Louis the Xlth, king of France, who invited him into that kingdom. Galeoti went accordingly to meet the king at Lyons, but Louis happening to come out of the city, they met a litjtle without the gates, and Galeoti, attempting to descend hastily to pay due honours to the king, fell, and being very fat, was so much hurt, that he died very soon 'after. In 1478, Galeoti published a collection of the bon-mots of Matthias Corvinus, “De jocose dictis ac factis regis Matt. Corvini,” inserted in the folio collection of writers on the history of Hungary. There is also by him a treatise in 4to, entitled “De nomine interiore et de corpore ejus,” and others, “De incognitis vulgo,” never printed; “De doctrina promiscua,” Lyons, 1552, 8vo, which is a miscellany of physical, medical, and astronomical questions. For some of his sentiments the monks accused him of heresy, and he had contentions with them, but he was protected by pope Sixtus IV. who had been his pupil.

, of Milan, a learned ecclesiastical antiquary, and apostolical notary, flourished in the sixteenth century, under the pontificate of Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. He was an able scholar in the ancient languages, and had devoted much of his time to researches in ecclesiastical history. He endeavoured to correct and illustrate the “Roman Martyrology,” by new-modelling it, and adding a number of new facts respecting the saints. This he dedicated to pope Gregory XIII. and published it at Milan in 1577, but it never was approved by the Roman censors, who thought it too long to be recited in the canonical office; and others have accused him of many inaccuracies. He wrote also the “Lives of the Saints of Milan,” printed there in 1582; some notes on the Greek Septuagint, Rome, 1567, and a “Commentary on the Pentateuch,” ib. 1587. His other works, are translations from Greek into Latin of some discourses of St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret new editions of the histories of Sulpicius Severus and of Haymo of Halberstadt, in folio; the acts of Milan; a tract concerning the obelisk which Sixtus V. raised in 1586; and another on the tomb which the same pope erected in. honour of Pius V. a history of the popes, entitled “Theatrum Pontificate;” “S. Didaci Complutensis Canonizatio,” Rome, 1588; “II perfetto Dittionario,” Latin and Italian, Venice, 1659, and 1684. We have no further particulars of his life, except that he died about the year 1590.

At the age of twenty, about 1740, he published a ludicrous work, which evinced the turn of his genius for wit and humour. It was a prevailing custom at that time in Naples (as well as in other cities of Italy), on the decease of any great or eminent person, to make a large collection of songs, sonnets, epigrams, elegies, and inscriptions, in praise of the real or reputed talents and virtues of the deceased. The abuse to which such a practice is liable, called loudly for reformation, and Galiani catching the opportunity of the death of a famous public executioner, named Jannaccone, sported a droll funereal collection of prose and verse in his praise, in which the manner and style of the respective authors, accustomed to that sort of compositions, were ingeniously personated and burlesqued. Much about the same time, Galiani had an opportunity in another work, of producing another specimen of his humour. Pope Benedict XIV. had applied to his uncle, the great almoner, to procure him a complete collection of the various materials which compose mount Vesuvius. This prelate intrusted the commission to his nephew, who actually undertook to make the collection, accompanying each article with a short philosophical comment. Soon after, he addressed them in a box to the pontiiT, with an humorous inscription to the whole, “Si filius Dei es, fae ut Lapides isti Panes fiant.” The turn of this motto was easily apprehended by the pope, who was himself one of the wittiest men of his age, and it could not fail to procure Galiani what he hinted at. He accordingly received soon afterwards a rich abbey, worth four thousand ducats (nearly seven hundred pounds) per annum. Galiani soon afterwards displayed his abilities in philosophy, by publishing about 1745, his well-known political tract “Trattato della Moneta,” (a Treatise on Money). This was unanimously pronounced in Italy an original and capital publication, which firmly established his reputation in the world. He was now appointed secretary to the Neapolitan ambassador in Paris, where he soon exhibited other specimens of his philosophical abilities, by publishing an “Essay on the Commerce of Corn.” This new work was very favourably received in France, where some of their philosophers were candidly wont to say, “Le petit Italien est en cela plus instruit que nous.” By the word -petit, they allude to the diminutive stature of the author.

It was after this period, in going to Italy to engage performers, that he obtained his title at Rome of the pope, who made him “Cavaliere del speron d'Oro,” knight of the golden spur, the only order which his holiness has to bestow. But lord Kenyon, when his title was introduced in court on a trial, refused to acknowledge it, and treated the assumption with indignation and contempt. Sir John, however, continued to retain it, and was abetted by the public.

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

, or Garcias Lasso de La Vega, a celebrated Spanish poet, was born of a noble family at Toledo, in 1500 or 1503. His father was a counsellor of state to Ferdinand and Isabella, and employed by them on several important negociations, particularly in an embassy to pope Alexander VI. Garcilasso was educated near the emperor Charles V. who had a particular regard for him, and took him with him in his military expeditions, where he became as renowned for his courage as for his poetry. He accompanied that emperor into Germany, Africa, and Provence; and it was in this last expedition, in 1536, that he commanded a “battalion, when he received a wound, of which he died at Nice, about three weeks after, aged only thirty -three. The wound was made by a stone thrown by a countryman from a turret, and falling upon his head. The Spanish poetry was greatly obliged to Garcilasso, not only for extending its bounds, but also for introducing new beauties into it. He had strong natural talents for poetry; and he did not fail to improve them by culture, studying the best poets ancient and modern. His poems are full of fire; have a nobleness and majesty without affectation; and, what is somewhat singular, there is in them a great deal of ease, united with much subtilty. Paul Jovius has not scrupled to say that his odes have all the sweetness of Horace. Though his imitations of the ancients may be traced throughout almost all his works, yet, as they are conspicuous for good taste and harmonious versification, and were written amidst many distracting occupations, there can be no doubt that he would have gained great celebrity if he had lived longer. The learned grammarian Sanctius has written commentaries upon all his works, and has illustrated him every where with very learned and curious notes. They were all printed at Naples in 1661, with this title,” Garcilasso de la Vega Obras Poeticas con annotationes de Franc. Sanchez,“in 8vo. We must not confound this poet with another person of the same name, a native or” Cusco, who wrote in Spanish the History of Florida, and that of Peru and the Incas.

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

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

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

The distemper which seized him the ensuing year, and ended not but with his life, caused a general concern, and was particularly testified by lord Lansdown, a brother poet, though of a different party, in a copy of verses written on the occasion. He died after a short illness, which he bore with great patience, January 18, 1718-19. His loss was lamented by Pope, in a letter to a friend, as follows: “The best-natured of men,” says this muchadmired poet, “Sir Samuel Garth, has left me in the truest concern for his loss. His death was very heroical, and yet unaffected enough to have made a saint or a philosopher famous. But ill tongues and worse hearts have branded even his last moments, as wrongfully as they did his life, with irreligipn. You must have heard many tales on this subject; but if ever there was a good Christian, without knowing himself to be so, it was Dr. Garth.” This, however, is nothing against positive evidence, that Dr. Garth was a free-thinker, and a sensualist; and the latter part of it, his being a good Christian without knowing himself to be so, if it be not nonsense, is a proof that Pope cannot deny what he is angry to hear, and loth to confess. Dr. Johnson observes, that “Pope afterwards declared himself convinced that Garth died in the communion of the church of Rome,” and adds a sentiment of Lowth’s, “that there is less distance than is thought between scepticism and popery and that a mind, wearied with perpetual doubt, willingly seeks repose in the bosom of an infallible church.” If Dr. Johnson took this declaration of Pope’s from Spence’s “ms Anecdotes,” to which it is known he had access, he did not transcribe the whole. What Pope said is thus given by Spence: “Garth talked in a less libertine manner than he had been used about the three last years of his life. He was rather doubtful and fearful than irreligious. It was usual for him to say, that if there was any such thing as religion, it was among the Roman catholics. He died a papist, (as I was assured by Mr. Blount, who called the father to him in his last moments) probably from the greater efficacy, in which we give the sacraments. He did not take any care of himself in his last illness, and had talked for three or four years as one tired of living.” The same ms. insinuate* that this impatience of life had nearly at one time prompted him to suicide.

, one of the revivers of literature, and an able grammarian, took his name from the village of Barzizza, near Bergamo, where he was born in 1370. It is thought that he studied at Bergamo, and kept a private school there. He afterwards became professor of the belles lettres at Pavia, Venice, Padua, and Milan. He was in this last mentioned city in 1418, when pope Martin V. passed through in his return from the council of Constance. Barzizza was on this occasion appointed to pay him the compliments of the city, and the two universities of Pavia and Padua having sent orators to the pope, he was also' employed in preparing their intended speeches. He was during the rest of his life patronized by the duke Philip-Maria-Visconti, and enjoyed the esteem due to his learning and talents until his death at Milan about the end of 1430.

He adhered, however, closely to the court, and in compliance with the measures which were then pursued, drew up a declaration for liberty of conscience extending to papists, of which a few copies were printed off, though presently called in; he was about the same time employed to draw up 'another declaration of indulgence to the quakers, by an exemption from all oaths. He also wrote, “Considerations touching the Liturgy of the Church of England, in reference to his Majesty’s late Declaration, and in order to a happy union in church and state,” 1660. He then obtained a removal to the see of Worcester, to which he was elected May 23, 1662. But with this promotion he was so far from being satisfied, that he looked upon it as an injury; he had, it seems, applied to the king for the rich bishopric of Winchester, and flattered himself with the hopes of a translation thither; and the regret and vexation at the disappointment is thought to have hastened his end, for he died on September 2O, that year. After his death, his widow, being left with five children, in consideration of the short time he had enjoyed Worcester, and the charge of removing from Exeter, petitioned the king for the half year’s profits of the last bishopric; but her petition was rejected as unreasonable, on account of his large revenues and profits at his first coming to Exeter. As to his character, it is certain he was an ambitious man; which, as is usually the case, occasioned the moral part to be severely sifted; and in this respect the behaviour of his relict, though otherwise intended, was far from being of service to his memory. In a letter to one of her sons, after the bishop’s death, she calls the Emov B<Wixj*J, “The Jewel;” said her husband had hoped to make a fortune by it; and that she had a letter of a very great man’s, which would clear up that he wrote it. This assertion, as Clarendon had predicted, was eagerly espoused by the anti-royalists, in order to disparage Charles I. This, on the other hand, kindling the indignation of those who thought his majesty greatly injured, they took every opportunity to expose the dark side of the bishop’s character; and represented him as an inconstant, ambiguous, and lukewarm man, covetous of preferment, hasty and impatient in the pursuit of it, and deeply tinctured with folly and vanity; upon the whole, an unhappy blemish and reproach of the sacred order. Nor is bishop Kennet’s censure less severe, though conveyed in a somewhat less intemperate language, when he tells us that Dr. Gauden was capable of underwork, and made himself a tool to the court, by the most sordid hopes of greater favour in it. This charge is supported by two instances, namely, his drawing up the two declarations already mentioned; one for liberty of conscience to the papists, the other for indulgence to the quakers in respect to taking an oath; the latter of which we have seen passed into an act of parliament, and the policy and justice of the former attested by a connivance to all loyal papists, or such as deny the pope’s power of dissolving their allegiance to their lawful sovereign, which was the express motive for making the declaration. The most candid character of him is that left us by Wood, who says, “that he was esteemed by all who knew him, to be a very comely person, a man of vast parts, and one that had strangely improved himself by unwearied labour; and was particularly much resorted to for his most admirable and edifying way of preaching.” It is certain, however, he had too luxuriant an imagination, which betrayed him into an Asiatic rankness of style; and thence, as bishop Burnet argues, that not he, but the king himself, was the true author of the Eixuv Boktixjkw; in. which there is a nobleness and justness of thought, with a greatness of style that caused it be esteemed the best written book in the English language. But Burnet had not the advantage of proofs which have since been published, particularly in Clarendon’s State Papers, vol. III. from which an opposite conclusion may be drawn. Those, however, who would examine this question in all its bearings, may be referred to Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes” for the arguments against Gauden, and to Laing’s “History of Scotland,” for what can be alleged in favour of Gauden’s being the real author of the “Icon.” Our own opinion is, that the matter may still be questioned, nor can we agree with Mr. Laing in presuming “that no one will now venture to defend the authority of the Icon.” We think there is a strong probability that it was composed from materials written by the king; and that Gauden, a man so ambitious and avaricious as to claim high rewards for all his services, was very likely to attribute the whole to himself. We agree, however, with Mr. Laing, that “if ever a literary imposture were excusable, it was undoubtedly Gauden’s, and had it appeared a week sooner, it might have preserved the king.”

, bishop of Brescia, about the end of the fourth and the beginning of -the fifth century, was elected to that see by the prelates and the people of the province, while performing a journey of devotion to the east, but it appears that he was very reluctant to take upon him the office. Having at length accepted it, he was sent in the year 405 to Constantinople, with the legates of pope Innocent, to re-establish St. Chrysostom in his see, and to hold a general council. The time of his death is fixed by some at the year 410, and by others at 427. The 25th of October is celebrated as his day. He was author of several works, a life of his predecessor Philaster, and of letters and other pieces, which are inserted in the fifth volume of the “Bibliotheca Patrum;” but the most complete edition of his works was published at Brescia, in 1738, by Paul Galeardi, a canon of Brescia. His style is plain, but neither animated nor correct.

Socinien des Peres Berruyer et Hardouin,“1756, 3 vols. 12mo. This book is the most forcible, and the most esteemed of all that have been written against P. Berruyer. Among his other works are, 1.” Relation de ce qui s’est passe“durant la Maladie et la Mort de M. de Langle, Eveque de Boulogne,” 1724, 4to. 2. “The Preface to M. Colbert’s works,” 1739, 4to. 3. “Lettre a M. Berger de Charancy, Eveque de Montpellier,” 1740, 4to; it is known by the title of “Verges d'Heliodore.” 4. “Relation de la Captivite” de la Sceur Marie Desforges,“1741, 12mo. 5.” Les Jesuites convaincus d‘Obstination a perinettre l’Idolatrie dans la Chine,“1743, 12mo. 6.” Lettre au sujet de la Bulle de N. S. P. le pape, concernant les Kits Malabares,“1745, 12mo. 7.” Pope’s Essay on Man proved to be impious,“1746, 12mo. 8.” The Refutation of a Libel entitled La voix du Sage et du Peuple,“1750, 12mo. 9.” Vie de M. Soanen, Eveque de Schez,“175O, 4to and 12mo. 10.” Les Lettres Persannes convaincues d‘lmpieteV’ 1751, 12mo. II. “Hist, abreg^e du Parlement de Paris, durant les Troubles du Commencement du Regnede Louis XIV.” 1754, 12mo.

These qualities recommended him to such company and acquaintance as delighted him most; and among others to Swift and Pope, who were struck with the sincerity, the simplicity of his manners, and the easiness of his temper. To the latter he addressed the first-fruits of his muse, entitled “Rural Sports, a Georgic,” printed in 1711. This piece discovered a rich poetical vein, peculiar to himself, and met with some agreeable attestations of its merit, that would have been enjoyed with a higher relish, had not the pleasure been interrupted by the state of his finances; which, by an uncommon degree of thoughtlessness and Gullibility , were reduced now to a low ebb. Our poet’s purse was an unerring barometer of his spirits; whifch, sinking with it, left him in the apprehension of a servile dependence, a condition he dreaded above any thing that could befal him. The clouds were, however, shortly dispelled by the kindness of the duchess of Monmouth, who appointed him her secretary in 1712, with a handsome salary. This seasonable favour seating him in a coach, though not his own, kindled his muse to new efforts. He first produced his celebrated poem called “Trivia or the Art of Walking the Streets,” and the following year, at the instance of Pope, he formed the plan of his “Pastorals.” There is not perhaps in history a more remarkable example of the force of friendship in an author, than was the undertaking and finishing of this inimitable poem. Pope, in the subscription of the Hanover-club to his translation of the “Iliad,” had been ill used by Philips their secretary, and his rival in this species of poetry. The translator highly resented the affront; and, meditating revenge, intimated to Gay how greatly it was in his power to pluck the bays from this envied rival’s forehead. Gay immediately engaged in his friend’s quarrel, and executed his request even beyond his expectation. The rural simplicity neglected by Pope, and admired in Philips, was found, though mixed with some burlesque, only in the “Shepherd’s Week.” This exquisite piece of nature and humour came out in 1714, with a dedication to lord Bolingbroke, which Swift facetiously called the author’s original sin against the court.

This easy travelling, with some decent appointments, was one of the highest relished pleasures of Gay’s life, and never failed of calling forth his muse. Soon after his return froni France, he introduced to the stage “The Three Hours after Marriage.” His friends Pope and Arbuthnot had both a hand in this performance, and the two principal characters were acted by two of the best comedians at that time, Johnson and Mrs. Oldfield; yet, with all these helps and advantages, it was very ill received, if not condemned the first night. Gay stood the brunt with an unusual degree of magnanimity, which seems to have been inspired by a hearty regard for his partners; especially Pope, who was greatly affected with it. In 1718 he accompanied Pope to lord Harcourt’s seat in Oxfordshire, where they united in consecrating to posterity the death of two rustic lovers, unfortunately killed in the neighbouring fields by a stroke of lightning. In 1720 he again recruited his finances by a handsome subscription to his poems, which he collected and printed in 2 vols. 4to; but falling into the general infatuation of that remarkable year, he lost all his fortune in the South-sea scheme, and consequently all his spirits. Secretary Craggs had made him, a present of some S. S. stock, and he was worth at one time 20,000l. but neglecting to sell out, lost the whole. This stroke had almost proved fatal to him; he was seized with a violent colic; and after languishing some time, removed in 1722 to Hampstead, for the benefit of the air and waters; but, by the assistance of Dr. Arbuthnot, who constantly attended him, at length he recovered. He then began to write his tragedy called “The Captives;” which, when finished, he had the honour of reading in manuscript to the princess of Wales, in 1724. Her royal highness also promised him further marks of her favour, if he would write some fables in verse for the use of the duke of Cumberland; which task he accordingly undertook, and published them in 1726, with a dedication to that prince. All this was done against the advice of Pope, the duke being then only an infant; and the result was, as that friend presaged, very disagreeable to him. Swift says that in these fables “he was thought to be something too bold with the court.”

These noble additions to his fame, his fortune, and his friendships, inspired him with fresh vigour, raised him to a degree of confidence and assurance, and he was even prompted to think that “The Wife of Bath,” despised and rejected as it had been in 1714, when first acted, might, with some improvements which he could now give it, be made to taste the sweets of this happy change in his fortune. In this temper he revised and altered it, and brought it again upon the stage in 1729, but had the mortification to see all his sanguine hopes of its success blasted; it met with the same fate in the play-house as formerly. This rebuff happened in March 1729-30; and as he was easily depressed, produced a degree of melancholy, which, with the return of his constitutional distemper the colic, gave a new edge to the sense of his disappointments at court, with respect to the “Beggar’s Opera.” By that satire, he had flattered himself with the hopes of awing the court into a disposition to take him into favour, in order to keep so powerful a pen in good humour. But this last refinement upon his misery, added to former indignities, threw him into a dejection, which he in vain endeavoured to remove, by another tour into Somersetshire, in 1731. The state both of his body and mind cantiot be so forcibly described, as it is in his own account of it to Pope. “My melancholy,” says he, “increases, and every hour threatens me with some return of my distemper. Nay, I think I may rather say, I have it on me. Not the divine looks, the kind favours and expressions of the divine duchess, who hereafter shall be in place of a queen to me, nay, she shall be my queen, nor the inexpressible goodness of the duke, can in the least chear me. The drawing: room no more receives light from these two stars. There is now (what Milton says in hell) darkness visible. O that I had never known what a court was! Dear Pope, what a barren soil (to me so) have I been striving to produce something out of! Why did not I take your advice before my writing fables for the duke, not to write them, or rather to write them for some young nobleman? It is my hard fate, I must get nothing, write for them or against them.” In this disposition, it is no great wonder that we find him rejecting a proposal, made to him by this last-mentioned friend in 1732, of trying his muse upon the hermitage, then lately built by queen Caroline in Richmond-gardens; to which he answers with a fixed despondency, that “he knew himself unworthy of royal patronage.”

In the delightful retirement of Amesbury, however, a seat of his noble patron, near Stonehenge upon Salisburyplain, he found lucid intervals enough to finish his opera called “Achilles;” and coming with the family to his grace’s house in Burlington-gardens, to pass the whiter season, he gave that piece to the play-house. The week after, he was suddenly seized with a violent inflammatory fever; which, ending in a mortification of the bowels, in three days put a period to his life, Dec. 11, 1732. In his short illness he was attended by two physicians, besides Dr. Arbuthnot, who particularly observed^ that it was the most precipitate case he ever knew; meaning, after the fever shewed itself: for there were prognostics enough to predict his approaching end long before, and he himself was sensible of it. In October, he sent Pope his last gift, as a token to be kept in remembrance of his dying friend; declaring, that he found by many warnings, that he had no continuing city here. “I begin,” says he, " to look upon myself as one already dead; and desire, my dear Mr. Pope, whom I love as my own soul, if you survive me, as you certainly will, if a stone should mark the place of my grave, see these words put upon it:

The opera of “Achilles” was brought upon the stage soop after his death, and met with a very good reception, which was greatly promoted by the duke of Queensberry, who was uncommonly assiduous in patronizing it; and who, as Pope observes, acted in this, and every thing else, more than the part of a brother to his deceased friend. It was also through the influence of his example, that the profits of the representation were given by the managers of the play-house to our author’s two widow sisters, Katharine and Joanna, relicts of Mr. Ballet and Mr. Fortescue, who, as heirs at law, shared his fortune (about 3000l.) equally between them; which disposition was agreeable to his own desire, and therefore he made no will. He left several Mss. behind him, some of which came into the hands of -Pope, who took care no doubt (as he promised Swift) to suppress such as he judged unworthy of him. A few years after his death, there was published under his name a comedy, called “The Distressed Wife,” the second edition of which was printed in 1750; and in 1754-, a humorous piece, with the title of “The Rehearsal a't Gotham.”

The character of Gay may be fairly estimated from the preceding facts. He wanted firmness and consistency; and knew not, when it was in his power, to support the independence which he affected. Pope said “he was quite a natural man, wholly without art or design, and spoke just what he thought, and as he thought it.” From the same authority we learn that his affectionate friend, the duke of Queensberry, finding what a wretched manager he was, took his money into his keeping, beginning with what he got by the “Beggar’s Opera” and “Polly,” and let him have only what was necessary, which, as he lived with the duke, could never be much. It is this only that can account for his dying worth 3000l. Pope also informs us that “he was remarkable for an unwillingness to offend the great by any of his writings. He had an uncommon timidity in relation to any thing of that sort; and yet you see what ill luck he had in that way, after all his care not to offend.” Gay’s character seems in many respects to have resembled that of Goldsmith.

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

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

His works may be divided into original pieces and translations. Of the former are, 1. “Grammaticae Graecoe Libri quatuor.” Written in Greek, and printed first at Venice in 1495: afterwards at Basil in 1522, with a Latin translation by Erasmus. 2. “Liber de Atticis Mensibus Greece;” by way of supplement to his grammar, with which it was printed with a Latin version. 3. “Epistola ad Franciscum Phiielphum de origine Turcarum, Graece, cum Versione Leonis Allatii.” Printed in the Symmicta of the translator at Cologne in 1653. His translations are also of two sorts; from Greek into Latin, and from Latin into Greek. Of the latter sort are Cicero’s pieces, “De Senectute,” and “De Somnio Scipionis:” both printed in Aldus’s edition of Cicero’s works in 1523, $vo. Of the former sort are, “Aristotelis Libri novem Historise Animalium de Partibus Animalium Libri quatuor & de Generatione Animalium Libri quinque. Latine versi. Venet. 1476.” It was Aristotle’s “History of Animals,” which is said to have caused the enmity between Gaza and Trapezuntius. Trapezuntius, it was alleged, had translated the same work before Gaza: and though Gaza had made great use of Trapezuntius’s version, yet in his preface he boasted, that he had neglected to consult any translations whatever; and declared contemptuously, that his design was not to enter the list with other translators, or to vie with those whom it would be so easy to conquer. This conduct, if the statement be true, Trapezuntius might very justly resent. The same “History of Animals,” or rather, as P. Valerianus says, his divine lucubrations upon it, were memorable on another account; for it is said to have been the work which he presented in a Latin translation to pope Sixtus, and for which he underwent so severe a disappointment. He translated also other Greek books into Latin: as, “Aristotelis Problemata,” Theophrasti Historiae Plantarum Libri decem,“” Alexandri Problematum Libri duo,“” JEAiani Liber de Instraendis Aciebus,“”J. Chrysostomi Homiliae quinque de incomprehensibili Dei Natura." There are extant also some works of Gaza which have never been published.

, also bishop of Cæsarea, flourished about the year 476. He compiled a history of the Nicene council, in three books, partly from an old manuscript of Dalmatius archbishop of Cyzicus, and from other authorities. It was published at Paris, Gr. & Lat. 1559. His style, according to Photius, was extremely low and bad, and the credit of his account, whether from himself or his manuscript, is according to Dupin, as bad as possible. Two books of pope Gelasius I. on the double nature in Christ, have been erroneously ascribed to him.

, was a learned Maronite, who went to Rome in the time of pope Clement VIII. and there published a “Syriac and Chaldee Grammar,” 1596, 4to, which is much esteemed. At his return to his native country, he was elected patriarch of the Maronites, and introduced the reformation of the Calendar. He died about 1641.

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

, by some called Charlier, an illustrious Frenchman, and usually styled “Doctor Christianissimus,” was born in 1363 at Gerson in France. He was educated at Paris, after which he studied divinity for ten years under Peter D'Ailly and Giles Deschamps, and received the degree of doctor in 1392. Three years after he became canon and chancellor of the church of Paris and, when John Petit had the baseness to justify the murder of Louis duke of Orleans, which was committed in 1408 by order of the duke of Burgundy, Gerson caused the doctrine of this tyrannicide to be censured by the doctors and bishops of Paris. His zeal shone forth no less illustriously at the council of Constance, at which he assisted as ambassador from France, and where he distinguished himself by many speeches, and by one, particularly, in which he enforced the superiority of the council over the pope. He caused also the doctrine of the above John Petit to be condemned at this council. Not venturing to return to Paris, where the duke of Burgundy would have persecuted him, he retired into Germany, and afterwards got into a convent at Lyons, of which his brother was prior; and here he died in 1429. A collection of his writings have been published several times; but the best edition is that of 1706, under the care of Du Pin, in five vols. folio. In this edition there is a “Gersoniana,” which is represented as being curious. Thuanus has spoken highly of Gerson in the first book of his history. Hoffman, in his Lexicon, calls him, “ssBculi sui oraculum;” and Cave, in his “Historia Literaria,” says, that no man can be very conversant in his works, sine insigni fructu, “without very great benefit.” Some have attributed to him the famous book of “the Imitation of Christ” but for this there seems no sufficient foundation. It is not in any edition of Gerson’s works; but its being attributed to Gerson, says Dr. Clarke, has led the friends of Thomas a Kemp is to doubt whether such a man as Gerson ever existed. The Gerson, however, to whom that work was attributed, is not the above John Gerson, but another, the abbot of Verceil, who lived in the twelfth century.

The biographer of sir Robert Walpole allows that the inveteracy displayed against this eminent prelate for the conscientious discharge of his duty on this occasion, reflects no credit on the memory of that statesman. His esteem for Gibson had been so great, that when he was reproached with giving him the authority of a pope, he replied, “And a very good pope he is.” Even after theii; disagreement, he never failed to pay an eulogium to tha learning and integrity of his former friend. About this time, great pains were taken to fix upon this worthy prelate, the character of a haughty persecutor, and even of a Secret enemy to the civil establishment. To this end a passage in the introduction to his “Codex,” which suggested the groundlessness of the modern practice of sending prohibitions to the spiritual from the temporal courts, was severely handled, in a pamphlfet written by the recorder of Bristol, afterwards sir Michael Foster, as derogatory from the supreme power and superintendency of the court of king’s bench; and other writers, with less reason and no moderation, attacked our prelate in pamphlets and periodical journals. It is said also that he was obnoxious to the king, on a personal account, because he had censured, with a freedom becoming his character, the frequent recurrence of masquerades, of which his majesty was very fond. Bishop Gibson had preached against this diversion in the former reign: and he now procured an address to the king from several of the bishops, for the entire suppression of such pernicious amusements. In all this his zeal cannot be too highly commended; and to his honour be it recorded, that neither the enmity of statesmen, nor the frowns of princes, could divert his attention from the duties of his pastoral office; some of which consisted in writing and printinrg pastoral letters to the clergy and laity, in opposition to infidelity and enthusiasm; in visitation-charges, as well as occasional sermons, besides less pieces of a mixt nature, and some particular tracts against the prevailing immoralities of the age.

, a learned Italian, who flourished in the early part of the seventeenth century, was admitted to the degree of doctor by the Ambrosian college at Milan. He was author of a Latin translation of the “Commentary of the three Rabbins on the Proverbs of Solomon,” Milan, 1620, 4to; but his better known work is his “Thesaurus Linguae Arabicse, seu Lexicon ArabicoLatinum,” 1632, 4 vols. fol. As a recompence for the learning and industry which it exhibited, pope Urban VIII. nominated the author to an honourable post in a college at Rome; but he died in 1632, before he could enter upon its functions.

Much of this is certainly true. His plays, enumerated in the “Biog. Dramatics,” procured him little reputation. He had some talent, however, for criticism, and Pope was weak enough to believe that Addison employed Gildon to write against him. Pope introduced him into the Dunciad for another reason, his “New Rehearsal, or, Bays the Younger; containing an examen of Mr. Rowe’s plays, and a word or two on Mr. Pope’s ‘ Rape of the Lock,’” 1714. Gildon wrote the “Life of Betterton,” published in 1710.

Soon after queen Elizabeth’s accession, a general visitation was held. An assembly of divines, among whom were Parker, Grindal, and Sandys, having finished a body of injunctions aud articles, commissions were issued out, impowering proper persons to enforce them; the oath of supremacy was to be tendered to the clergy, and a subscription imposed. When the visitors came to Durham, Mr. Gilpin was requested to preach before the clergy, against the pope’s supremacy. To this he had no objection, but did not like the thoughts of subscribing, having some doubts with regard to one or more of the articles. His curate having not these scruples, he hoped that his subscription might satisfy the visitors; but next clay, when the clergy were assembled to subscribe, as an instance of respect Mr. Gilpin was first called upon. The emergency allowed him no time for reflection. He just considered with himself, that upon the whole these alterations in religion were certainly right; that he doubted only in a few immaterial points; and that, if he should refuse, it might be a means to keep others back. He then took up the pen, and, with some hesitation, at length subscribed. Afterwards retiring, he sent a letter to the visitors, acquainting them in what sense he subscribed the articles; which they accepted very favourably.

, a skilful mathematician, was born December 13, 1633, at Bitonto. He spent his youth in idleness and debauchery, and married a young woman without any fortune; and having killed one of his brothersin-law, who reproached him with his indolence and laziness, he entered as a soldier in a fleet fitted out by the pope against the Turks. The admiral, finding that he did not want genius, gave him a writer’s place which happened to be vacant; and Giordani, being obliged in consequence to learn arithmetic, eagerly studied that of Clavius, and acquired a taste for mathematics. Returning to Rome, in 1659, he was made keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, and devoted the leisure that office afforded him to mathematical studies, in which he made so rapid a progress, that queen Christina chose him for her mathematician during her stay at Rome; and Louis XIV, appointed him to teach mathematics in the academy of painting and sculpture which he had founded in that city, 1666. Giordani was made engineer to the castle of St. Angelo by pope Clement X., appointed mathematical professor at the college della Sapienza 1685, and admitted into the academy of the Arcadi, May 5, 1691. He died November 3, 1711. His principal works are, “Euclide restitute,” foiio; “De componendis gravium momentis,” folio; “Fundamentum doctrines motus gravium,” 1705, folio; “Ad Hyacinthum Christophorum Epistola,” 1705, folio.

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

, an eminent painter, sculptor, and architect, was born in 1276, at a village near Florence, of parents who were plain country people. When a boy, he was sent out to keep sheep in the fields; and, having a natural inclination for design, he used to amuse himself with drawing his flock after the life upon sand, in the best manner he could. Cimabue travelling once that way, found him at this work, and thence conceived so good an opinion of his genius for painting, that he prevailed with his father to let him go to Florence, and be brought up under him. He had not applied himself long to designing, before he began to shake off the stiffness of the Grecian masters. He endeavoured to give a finer air to his heads, and more of nature to his colouring, with proper actions to his figures. He attempted likewise to draw after the life, and to express the different passions of the mind; but could not come up to the liveliness of the eyes, the tenderness of the flesh, or the strength of the muscles in naked figures. What he did, however, had not been done in, two centuries before, with any skill equal to his. Giotto’s reputation was so far extended, that pope Benedict IX. sent a gentleman of his court into Tuscany, to bring him a just report of his talents; and withal to bring him a design from each of the Florentine painters, being desirous to have some notion of their skill. When he came to Giotto, he told him of the pope’s intentions, which were to employ him in St. Peter’s church at Rome; and desired him to send some design by him to his holiness. Giotto, who was a pleasant ready man, took a sheet of white paper, and setting his arm close to his hip to keep it steady, he drew with one stroke of his pencil a circle so round and so equal, that “round as Giotto’s O” afterwards became proverbial. Then, presenting it to the gentleman, he told him smiling, that “there was a piece of design, which he might carry to his holiness.” The man replied, “I ask for a design:” Giotto answered, “Go, sir, I tell you his holiness asks nothing else of me.” The pope, who understood something of painting, easily comprehended by this, how much Giotto in strength of design excelled all the other painters of his time; and accordingly sent for him to Rome. Here he painted many pieces, and amongst the rest a ship of Mosaic work, which is over the three gates of the portico, in the entrance to St. Peter’s church, and is known to painters by the name of Giotto’s vessel. Pope Benedict was succeeded by Clement V. who transferred the papal court to Avignon; whither, likewise, Giotto was obliged to go. After some stay there, having perfectly satisfied the pope by many fine specimens of his art, he was largely rewarded, and returned to Florence full of riches and honour in 1316. He was soon invited to Padua, where he painted a new-built chapel very curiously; thence he went to Verona, and then to Ferrara. At the same time the poet Dante, hearing that Giotto was at Ferrara, and being himself then in exile at Ravenna, got him over to Ravenna, where he executed several pieces; and perhaps it might be here that he drew Dante’s picture, though the friendship between the poet and the painter was previous to this. In 1322, he was again invited abroad by Castruccio Castrucani, lord of Luca; and, after that, by Robert king of Naples. Giotto painted much at Naples, and chiefly the chapel, where the king was so pleased with him, that he used very often to go and sit by him while he was at work: for,Giotto was a man of pleasant conversation and wit. One day, it being very hot, the king said to him, “If I were you, Giotto, I would leave off working this hot weather” “and so would I, Sir,” says Giotto, “if I were you.” He returned from Naples to Rome, and from Rome to Florence, leaving monuments of his art in almost every place through which he passed. There is a picture of his in one of the churches of Florence, representing the death of the blessed Virgin, with the apostles about her: the attitudes of which story, Michael Angelo used to say, could not be better designed. Giotto, however, did not confine his genius altogether to painting: he was both a sculptor and architect. In 1327 he formed the design of a magnificent and beautiful monument for Guido Tarlati, bishop of Arezzo, who had been the head of the Ghibeline faction in Tuscany: and in 1334 he undertook the famous tower of Sancta Maria del Fiore; for which work, though it was not finished, he was made a citizen of Florence, and endowed with a considerable yearly pension. His death happened in 1336: and the city of Florence erected a marble statue over his tomb. He had the esteem and friendship of most of the excellent men of the age in which he lived and among the rest, of Dante and Petrarch. He drew, as already noticed, the picture of the former and the latter mentions him in his will, and in one of his familiar epistles.

Giotto is said to have been the inventor of Mosaic work, and of crucifixes. The former has been disproved in our Archasologia. The latter rests on a story which we hope has as little foundation. It is thus related: “Giotto, intending one day to draw a crucifix to the life, wheedled a poor man to suffer himself to be bound to a cross for an hour, at the end of which he was to be released, and receive a considerable reward for it; but instead of this, as soons he had fastened him, he stabbed him dead, and then fell to drawing when he had finished his picture, he carried it to the pope, who liked it so well, that he was resolved to place it over the altar of his own chapel: Giotto told him, as he liked the copy so well, he would show him the original. What do you mean, said the pope? Will you show me Jesus Christ on the cross in person? No, said Giotto, but I will show your holiness the original from whence I drew this, if you will absolve me from all punishment. The pope promised this, which Giotto believing, attended him to the place where it was: as soon as they were entered, he drew back a curtain, which hung before the dead man on the cross, and told him what he had done. The pope, troubled at so barbarous an action, repealed his promise, and told Giotto, that he should surely be put to an exemplary death. Giotto, with a seeming resignation, only begged leave to finish the piece before he died, which was granted him, and a guard set upon him to prevent his escape. As soon as the picture was delivered into his hands, he took a brush, and dipping it into a sort of stuff ready for that purpose, daubed the picture all over with it, so that nothing of the crucifix could be seen. This made his holiness stark mad, and he swore, that Giotto should he put to the most cruel death, unless he drew another equal to the former; if so, he would not only give him his life, but also an ample reward in money. Giotto, as he had reason, desired this under the pope’s signet, that he might not be in danger of a second repeal. This was granted to him; and taking a wet spunge, he wiped off all the varnish he had daubed on the picture, so that the crucifix appeared the same in all respects as it did before. Upon this, the pope remitted his punishment. And they say, that this crucifix is the original, from which the most famous crucifixes in Europe are drawn.”

His works consist of seventeen productions, which were first printed separately; but afterwards collected and published in 2 vols. folio, at Basil 15SO, and at Leyden 1696. The most valued pieces among them are, “Historia de Deis Gentium,” <( Historian Poetarum tarn Grajcorum, quam Latinorum Dialogi decem,“and,” Dialogi duo de Poetis nostrorum.“The first of these books is one of the last he composed, and full of profound erudition. The other two, which make up 'the history of the ancient and modern poets, are written with great exactness and judgment. Vossius speaks highly of this work, as the production of great judgment and learning, as well as industry, and observes, that though his professed design is to collect memoirs concerning their persons, characters, and writings in general, yet he has occasionally interspersed many things, regarding the art of poetry, which may be useful to those who intend to cultivate it. Joseph Scaliger, indeed, would persuade us, though not very consistently, that nothing can be more contemptible than the judgment be passes on the poets he treats of: for in another place he allows all the works of Giraldus to be very good, and that no man knew better how to temper learning with judgment. There is a work also by Giraldus,” De annis & mensibus, ciEterisque temporis partibus, una cum Kalendario Romano & Grocco,“written with a view to the reformation of the kalerular, which was afterwards effected by pope Gregory XIII. about 1582. There are likewise among his works a few poems, the principal of which is entitled,” Epistola in qua agitur de incommodis, quse in direptione Urbana passus est ubi item est quasi catalogus suorum, umicorurn Poetarum, & deileaiur interitus Herculis Carclinalis Rangonis.“This poem is annexed to the Florentine edition of th6 two dialogues concerning his contemporary poets; and contains a curious literary history of that time. To other praises bestowed upon Giraldus by authors of the first name, we may add that of Casaubon, who calls him,” vir solide doctus, & in scribendo accuratus,“a man solidly learned and an accurate writer. Thuanus says, that” he was excellently skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues, in polite literature, and in antiquity, which he has illustrated in several works; and that, though highly deserving a better fate, he struggled all his life with illhealth and ill-fortune." His books he bequeathed to his relatives John Baptist Giraldi and Pasetius.

Glover’s “Leonidas” amply entitles him to a distinguished place among the poets of his country, but the public has not held it in uniform estimation. From the time of its first appearance in 1737, it went through six, if not seven editions; but for nearly forty years there has not been a demand for another, although that published in 1770 was highly improved and enlarged. Its history may probably account in part for this singular fate, and public taste must explain the rest. On its first publication, it was read and praised with the utmost avidity. Besides the encomiums it drew from Lyttelton and Pemberton, its fame reached Ireland, where it was reprinted, and became as much in fashion as it had been in England. “Pray who is that Mr. Giover,” says Swift to Pope, in one of his letters, *' who writ the epic poem called Leonidas, which is reprinting here, and hath great vogue“Unfortunately, however, the whole of this tribute of praise was not paid to the intrinsic merit of the poem. It became the adopted favourite of the party in opposition (to sir Robert Walpoie) who had long endeavoured to persuade the nation that public liberty was endangered by the measures of that minister, and that they formed the chosen band who occupied the straits of Thermopylae in defiance of the modern. Xerxes. Leonidas therefore was recommended, to rouse an oppressed and enslaved people to the vindication of their rights. That this should be attempted is less wonderful than that it should succeed. We find very few passages in this poem which will apply to the state of public affairs in. England at that time, if we except the common-place censure of courts and courtiers, and even that is appropriated with so strict historical fidelity to the court of Xerxes, that it does not seem easy to borrow it for any other purpose.” Nothing else,“however, Dr. Warton informs us,” was read or talked of at Leicester-house," the illustrious owner of which extended his patronage to all poets who fanned the sacred flame of patriotism. The consequence of all this was, that Leonidas, which might have laid claim to a considerable rank among English poems of the higher order, was pushed beyond it, and when the purposes for which it had been extolled were either answered, or no longer desirable, it fell lower than it deserved. This is the more justly to be regretted, as we have no reason to think the autlior solicited the injudicious praise of his friends and patrons, or had any hand in building the airyedifice of popular fame. He was, indeed, a lover of liberty, which has ever been the favourite theme of poets, but he did not write for a temporary purpose. Leonidas had been the fruit of very early ambition to be known to posterity, and when he had outlived the party who pressed his poem, into their service, he corrected and improved it for a generation that knew nothing of the partialities which first extended its fame. If his object, however, in this epopee, had been solely to inculcate a love of liberty, a love of our country, and a resolute determination to perish with its freedom, he could not have chosen a subject, at least from ancient times, so happily adapted to elevate the mind. The example was unparalleled in history, and therefore the more capable of admitting the embellishments and attractions that belong to the epic province. Nor does it appear that he undertook a task to which his powers were inadequate, when he endeavoured to interest his readers in the fate of his gallant hero and faithful associates. He is not deficient either in the sublime or the pathetic, although in these essentials he may not bear an uniform comparison with the great masters of the passions. The characters are varied with much knowledge of the human heart. Each has his distinctive properties, and no one is raised beyond the proportion of virtue or talent which may be supposed to correspond with the age he lived in, or the station he occupied.

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

Notwithstanding these compliances with the powers then in being, he was much esteemed for his knowledge in the civil law, which obtained him the post of king’s advocate at the restoration: after which, he published several books in his own faculty then in good esteem, as “A View of the Admiral’s Jurisdiction,” 1661, 8vo, in which is printed a translation by him, of Grasias, or Ferrand’s “Extract of the ancient Laws of Oleron;” “The Orphan’s Legacy, &c. treating of last wills and testaments,” 1674, 4to. And “Repertorium Canonicurn,” &c. 1678, 4to. In this last piece he strenuously and learnedly asserts the king’s supremacy, as a power vested in the crown, before the Pope invaded the right and authority, or jurisdiction. He died April 4, 1678, and was interred in St. James’s church, Clerkenwell.

, a man of some poetical turn, but principally known as a translator, in the sixteenth century, was a native of London. In 1563 we find him living with secretary Cecil at his house in the Strand, and in 1577 in the parish of Allhallows, London Wall. Amongst his patrons, as we may collect from his dedications, were, sir Walter Mildmay, William lord Cobham, Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton, lord Oxford, and Robert earl of Essex. He was connected with sir Philip Sydney, for he finished an English translation of Philip Mornay’s treatise in French, on the “Truth of Christianity,” which had been begun by Sydney, and was published in 1587. His religious turn appears also from his translating many of the works of the early reformers and protestant writers, particularly Calvin, Chytraeus, Beza, Marlorat, Hemingius, &c. He also enlarged our treasures of antiquity, by publishing translations of Justin in 1564; and of Csesar in 1565. Of this last, a translation as far as the middle of the fifth book by John Brend, had been put into his hands, and he therefore began at that place, but afterwards, for uniformity, re-translated the whole himself. He also published translations of Seneca’s Benefits, in 1577; of the Geography of Pomponius Mela the Poly history of Solinus, 1587, and of many modern Latin writers, which were then useful, and suited to the wants of the times. Warton thinks his only original work is a “Discourse of the Earthquake that happened in England and other places in 1580,” 12mo; and of his original poetry, nothing more appears than an encomiastic copy of verses prefixed to Baret’s “Alvearie” in 1580. His chief poetical translation is of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” the first four books of which he published in 1565, and the whole in 1567. Pope, who read much in old English translations, used to say “it was a pretty good one considering the time when it was written.” The style is certainly poetical and spirited, and his versification clear; hi manner ornamental and diffuse; yet with a sufficient observance of the original. He has obtained a niche in the “Biographia Dramatica” for having translated a drama of Beza’s, called “Abraham’s Sacrifice,” 1577, 18mo.

In 1769 he produced his admirable poem “The Deserted Village,” which he touched and re-touched with the greatest care before publication. How much it added to his reputation, it is unnecessary to mention. No poem since the days of Pope has been so repeatedly read, admired, and quoted.

Being a zealous promoter of the reformation, soon after his arrival he visited the prior and convent of Ely; and next year sent a mandate to all the clergy of his diocese, dated at Somersham June 27, 1535, with orders to erase the name of the pope out of all their books, and to publish in their churches that the pope had no further authority in this kingdom. This mandate is printed in Bentham’s “History of Ely Cathedral,” together with his injunctions, dated from Ely, Oct. 21, 1541, to the clergy,“to see that all images, relics, table-monuments of miracles, shrines, &c. be so totally demolished and obliterated, with all speed and diligence, that no remains or memory might be found of them for the future.” These injunctions were so completely executed in his cathedral, and other churches in the diocese of Ely, that no traces remain of many famous shrines and altars, which formerly were the objects of frequent resort, nor any signs at all that they had ever existed.

, a native of Scotland, was an excellent draughtsman, and a good Grecian, who resided many years in Italy, visited most parts of that country, and had also travelled into France, Germany, &c. In 1736 he was appointed secretary to the society for the encouragement of learning, with an annual salary of 50l. which he resigned in 1739. In the same year (1736) he succeeded Dr. Stukeley as secretary to the society of antiquaries, which office he resigned in 1741 to Mr. Joseph Ames, and was for a short time secretary to the Egyptian club, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt, viz. lord Sandwich, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Pococke, &c. In 1741 he went to Carolina with governor Glen, where, besides a grant of land, he had several offices, such as register of the province, &c. and died about 1750, a justice of the peace, leaving a handsome estate to his family. He published, 1. “Itinerarium Septentrionale, or a Journey through most parts of the counties of Scotland, in two parts, with 66 copper-plates, 1726,” folio. 2. “Additions and Corrections, by way of supplement, to the Itinerarium Septentrionale; containing several dissertations on, and descriptions of, Roman antiquities, discovered in Scotland since publishing the said Itinerary. Together with observations on other ancient monuments found in the North of England, never before published, 1732,” folio. A Latin edition of the “Itinerarium,” including the Supplement, was printed in Holland, in 1731. 3. “The Lives of pope Alexander VI. and his son Caesar Borgia, comprehending the wars in the reign of Charles VIII. and Lewis XII. kings of France; and the chief transactions and revolutions in Italy, from 1492 to 1516. With an appendix of original pieces referred to in the work, 1729,” folio. 4. “A complete History of the ancient Amphitheatres, more particularly regarding the Architecture of these buildings, and in particular that of Verona, by the marquis Scipio Maffei; translated from the Italian, 1730,” 8vo, afterwards enlarged in a second edition. 5. “An Essay towards explaining the Hieroglyphical Figures on the Coffin of the ancient Mummy belonging to capt. William Lethieullier, 1737,” folio, with cuts. 6. “Twenty-five plates of all the Egyptian Mummies, and other Egyptian Antiquities in England,” about 1739, folio.

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

, a German poet, rather, however, in theory than practice, was born at Konigsberg in 1700, and attained the office of professor of philosophy, logic, and metaphysics at Leipsic, where he died in 1766. His works, both original and republished, contributed in a considerable degree to diffuse a taste for elegant literature in Germany, as well as to refine the German language. Among these we find, 1. “An Introduction to Dramatic Poetry, or a Review of all the tragedies, comedies, and operas, which have appeared in Germany from 1450 to the middle of the eighteenth century,” Leipsic, 1757. 2. “The German Poets, published by John Joachim, a Suabian,” ibid. 1736. He also compiled various books of instruction in style and elocution adapted to the then state of the German schools; and might have deserved the praise of an acute critic, had he not unfortunately illustrated his principles by his own poetical effusions, in which there is only a mediocrity of taste and genius. He died in December 1766. His wife, Louisa Maria, had also very considerable literary talents, and had studied philosophy, mathematics, the belles lettres, and music, with success. She published a metrical translation of Pope’s “Rape of the Lock;” and since her death, in 1762, a collection of her letters has been published, which is held in high esteem. Frederick the Great of Prussia, who preferred Geliert to Gottsched, speaks with greater respect of this lady than of her husband, but seems to think that both discovered more pedantry than taste.

In this situation he diverted himself among his brother poets; and we find him at this time introducing Wycherley and Pope to the acquaintance of Henry St. John, esq. afterwards lord viscount Bolingbroke. This friend, then displaced, having formed a design of celebrating such of the poets of that age as he thought deserved any notice, had applied for a character of the former to our author, who, in reply, having done justice to Mr. Wycherley’s merit, concludes his letter thus: “In short, Sir,” I'll have you judge for yourself. I am not satisfied with this imperiect sketch name your day, and I will bring you together; I shall have both your thanks let it be at my lodging. I can give you no Falernian that has out-lived twenty consulships, but I can promise you a bottle of good claret, that has seen two reigns. Horatian wit will not be wanting when you meet. He shall bring with him, if you will, a youngpoet newly inspired in the neighbourhood of Cooper’shill, whom he and Walsh have taken under their wing. His name is Pope, he is not above seventeen or eighteen years of age, and promises miracles. If he goes on as he has becrun in the pastoral way, as Virgil first tried hu strength, we may hope to see English poetry vie with the Roman, and this Swan of Windsor sing as sweetly as the Mantuan. I expect your answer."

SacheverelPs trial, which happened not long after, brought on that remarkable change in the ministry in 1710, when Mr. Granville^s friends came again into power. He was elected for the borough of Helston, but, being returned at the same time for the county of Cornwall, he chose to represent the latter; and on September 29, he was declared secretary at war, in the room of Robert Walpole, esq. afterwards the celebrated minister. He continued in this office for some time, and discharged it with reputation; and, towards the close of the next year, 1711, he married the lady Mary, daughter of Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, at that time possessed of a considerable jointure, as widow of Thomas Thynne, esq. He had just before succeeded to the estate of the elder branch of his family, at Stow; and December 31, he was created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of lord Lansdowne, baron of Bideford, in the county of Devon. In this promotion he was one of the twelve peers who were all created at the same time; and so numerous a creation, being unprecedented, gave much offence, although but little in his case. His lordship was now the next male-issue in that noble family, in which two peerages, that of the earl of Bath, and that of lord Grenville of Potheridge, had been extinguished almost together: his personal merit was universally allowed; and as to his political sentiments, those who thought him most mistaken, allowed him to be open, candid, and uniform. He stood always high in the favour of queen Anne; and with great reason, having upon every occasion testified the greatest zeal for her government, and the most profound respect for her person. For these reasons, in the succeeding year, 1712, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy-council, made controller of her household, about a year after advanced to the post of treasurer in. the same office; and to his other honours, says Dr. Johnson, was added the dedication of Pope’s “Windsor Forest.” His lordship continued in his office of treasurer to the queen, until her death, when he kept company with his friends in falling a sacrifice to party-violence, being removed from his treasurer’s place by George I. Oct. 11, 1714.

His character, as drawn by Dr. Johnson, seems now uncontested. He was, says that eminent critic, a man illustrious by birth, and therefore attracted notice; since he is styled by Pope “the polite,” he must be supposed elegant in his manners, and generally loved; he was in times of contest and turbulence steady to his party, and obtained that esteem which is always conferred upon firmness and consistency. As a poet, Dr. Johnson has appreciated his merit with equal justice. He was indeed but a feeble imitator of the feeblest parts of Waller, and is far more to be praised for his patronage of poets, and the judgment he shewed in the case of Pope, than for any pretensions to rank among them. His prose style, however, is excellent, ancl far beyond that of his early contemporaries. Dr, Warton notices, as proofs of this, his “Letter to a young man on his taking orders;” his “Observations on Burnet,” his “Defence of his relation sir Richard Greenville,” his translation of some parts of Demosthenes, and his Letter to his father on the Revolution, written in 1688. The same critic, who must have been acquainted with some who knew him intimately, adds that his conversation was most pleasing and polite; and his affability, and universal benevolence and gentleness, captivating.

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

His first publication was a piece entitled “Prisci Censorini Photistici Hydra Mystica; sive, de corrupta morali doctrina dialogus,” Coloniic, 1691, 4to but really printed at Naples. This was without a name, and is very scarce the author having printed only fifty copies, which he distributed among his friends. 2. “L'Endimione di Erilo Cleoneo, Pasture Arcade, con nn Discorso di Bione Crateo,” Rome, 1692, 12mo. The Endymion is Alexander Guidi’s, who, in the academy of the Arcadians, went under the name of Erilo Cleoneo; and the discourse annexed, which illustrates the beauties of this pastoral, is Gravina’s, who conceals himself under that of Bione Crateo. 3. “Delle Antiche Favola,” Rome, 1696, 12 mo. 4. A Collection of pieces under the name of “Opuscula,” at Rome in lu96, 12mo; containing, first, “An Essay upon an ancient Law;” secondly, “A Dialogue concerning the excellence of the Latin Tongue,” thirdly, “A Discourse of the change which has happened in the Sciences, particularly in Italy;” fourthly, “A Treatise upon the Contempt of Death;” fifthly, upon “Moderation in Mourning;” sixthly, “The Laws of the Arcadians.” A collection of such of these as regard literary history and study was published in 1792, for the use of young students, by the present learned bishop of St. David’s. But the greatest of all his works, and for which he will be ever memorable, is, 5. His three books, “De Ortu et Progressu Juris Civiiis;” the first of which was printed at Maples, in 1701, 8vo, and at Leipsic in 1704, 8vo. Gravina afterwards sent the two other books of this work to John Burchard Mencken, librarian at Leipsic, who had published the first there, and who published these also in 1708, together with it, in one volume 4to. They were published also again at Naples in 1713, in two volumes, 4to, with the addition of a book, “De Romano Imperio;” and dedicated to pope Clement XI. who was much the author’s friend. This is reckoned the best edition of this famous work; for, when it was reprinted at Leipsic with the “Opuscula” abovementioned, in 1717, it was thought expedient to call it in the title-page, “Editio novissima ad nuperam Neapolitanam emt-ndata et aucta.” Gravina 1 s view, in this “History of Ancient Law,” was to induce the Roman youth to study it in its original records in the Pandects, the Institutes, and the Code, and not to content themselves, as he often complained they did, with learning it from modern abridgments, drawn up with great confusion, and in very barbarous Latin. Such knowledge and such language, he said, might do well enough for the bar, where a facility of speaking often supplied the place of learning and good sense, before judges who had no extraordinary share of either; but were what a real lawyer should be greatly above. As to the piece “De Romano Imperio,” Le Clerc pronounces it to be a work in which Gravina has shewn the greatest judgment and knowledge of Roman antiquity. The next performance we find in the list of his works is, 6. * c Acta Consistoriaiia creationis Em in. et Rev Cardinalium institute a S. D. N. Clemente XL P. M. diebus 17 Maii et 7 Junii anno salmis 1706. Accessit eorundem Cardinalium brevis delineatio,“Colonise, 1707, 4to. 7.” Delia Ragione Poetica Libri duo,“Rome, 1708, 4to. To a subsequent edition of this in 1716, was added a letter” De Poesi,“from which Blackwell, in his Inquiry into the life and writings of Homer, has taken many observations. Dr. Warton says that Gravina’s remarks have a novelty and penetration in them. 8. << Tragedie cinque,” ISlapofi, 1712, 8vo. These five tragedies are, “II Papimano;” “II Palamede” “L'Andromeda” “L'Appio Ciaudio;” “II Servio Tullio.” Gravina said that he composed these tragedies in three months, without interrupting l^is lectures; yet declares in his preface, that he should look upon all those as either ignorant or envious, who should scruple to prefer them to what Tasso, Bonarelli, Trissino, and others, had composed of the same kind. This at least shews that Gravina, great as his talents were, had too high an opinion of them. They could not, it is true, have been written by Sophocles himself in a more Grecian style; but he is entitled to more fame from having educated and formed the taste of Metastasio, who was his pupil, and to whom he left a legacy, amounting in our money to nearly 4000l. with his library, and a small estate in the kingdom of Naples. 9. “Orationes,” Nap. 1712, 12mo. These have been reprinted more than once, and are to be found with his < Opuscula“in the edition of 61 Origines Juris Civilis,” printed at Leipsic, in 1717. 10. <l Delia Tragedia Libro uno,“Napoli, 1715, 410. This work, his two books” Delia Ragione Poetica,“his discourse upon the” Endymion" of Alexander Guidt, and some other pieces, were printed together at Venice in 1731, 4to, but a more complete edition of his works was published at Naples by John Antony Sergi, 1756 1758, 3 vols. 4to.

* The same method had been pro- Greaves is in the Phil. Trans. No. 257. posed to pope Gregory, who rejected } These are the most genrally-seit, as Mr. Greaves says, that he migbt ful parts of his -works. Th latter 19

But the tyrannical violence of the parliamentary visitors was now above all restraint, and a fresh charge was drawn up against Greaves. Dr. Walter Pope informs us, that, considering the violence of the visitors, Greaves saw it would be of no service to him to make any defence; and, finding it impossible to keep his professorship, he made it his business to procure an able and worthy person to succeed him. By the advice of Dr. Charles Scarborough the physician, having pitched upon Mr. Seth Ward, he opened the matter to that gentleman, whom he soon met with there; and at the same time proposed a method of compassing it, by which Ward not only obtained the place, but the full arrears of the stipend, amounting to 500l. due to Greaves, and allowed him a considerable part of his salary. The murder of the king, which happened soon after, was a shock to Greaves, and lamented by him in pathetic terms, in a letter to Dr. Pococke: “O my good friend, my good friend, never was sorrow like our sorrow; excuse me now, if I am not able to write to you, and to answer your questions. O Lord God, avert this great sin and thy judgments from this nation.” However, he bore up against his own injuries with admirable fortitude; and, fixing his residence in London, he married, and, living upon his patrimonial estate, went on as before, and produced some other curious Arabic and Persic treatises, translated by him with notes, every year. Besides which, he had prepared several others for the public view, and was meditating more when he was seized by a fatal disorder, which put a period to his life, Octobers, 1652, before he was full fifty years of age. He was interred in the church of St. Bennet Sherehog, in London. His loss was much lamented by his friends, to whom he was particularly endeared by joining the gentleman to the scholar. He was endowed with great firmness of mind, steadiness in friendship, and ardent zeal in the interest which he espoused, though, as he declares himself, not at all inclined to contenlion. He was highly esteemed by the learned in foreign parts, with many of whom he corresponded. Nor was he less valued at home by all who were judges of his great worth and abilities. He had no issue by his wife, to whom he bequeathed his estate for her life; and having left his cabinet of coins to his friend sir John Marsham, author of the “Canon Chronicus,” he appointed the eldest of his three younger brothers (Dr. Nicolas Greaves), his executor, who by will bestowed our author’s astronomical instruments on the Savilian library at Oxford, where they are reposited, together with several of his papers; but many others were sold by his widow to a bookseller, and lost or dispersed.

“The Spleen” had not been long published before it was admired by those whose opinion was at that time decisive. Pope said there was a great deal of originality in it; and Gray, in his private correspondence with the lat lord Orford, observes of Green’s poems, then published i Dodsley’s Collection, “There is a profusion of wit everywhere; reading would have formed his judgment, and harmonized his verse, for even his wood-notes often break out into strains of real poetry and music.” “The Spleen” was first printed in 1737, a short time after the author’s death, and afterwards was taken, with his other poems, into Dodsley’s volumes, where they remained until the publication of the second edition of Dr. Johnson’s Poets. In 1796 a very elegant edition was published by Messrs. Cadell and Davies, which, besides some beautiful engravings, is enriched with a prefatory essay from the pen of Aikin.

Greene had the honour, early in life, to teach the duchess of Newcastle, which, joined to his professional merit, and the propriety of his conduct, was the foundation of his favour with the prime minister and the nobility. In 1730, when the duke of Newcastle was installed chancellor of the university of Cambridge, he was appointed to set the ode, and then not only obtained his doctor’s degree, but, on the death of Dr. Tudway, he was honoured with the title of professor of music in that university. As an exercise for his degree, he set Pope’s ode for St. Cecilia’s day; having first had interest sufficient to prevail on the author to make new arrangements in the poem to render it more fit for music, and even to add an entire new stanza, between the second and third, which had never appeared in any of the printed editions.

He had not, however, enjoyed his solitude in St. Andrew’s long, when he was removed from it by pope Pelagius II. who made him his seventh deacon, and sent him as his nuncio to the emperor Tiberius at Constantinople, to demand succours against the Lombards. The pope, it is said, could not have chosen a man better qualified than Gregory for so delicate a negociation; but the particulars of it are unknown. Meanwhile, he was not wanting in exerting his zeal for religion. While he was in this metropolis, he opposed Eutychius the patriarch, who had advanced an opinion bordering on Origenism, and maintained, that after the resurrection the body is not palpable, but more subtile than air. In executing the business of his embassy, he contracted a friendship with some great men, and so gained the esteem of the whole court, by the sweetness of his behaviour, that the emperor Maurice chose him for a godfather to one of his sons, born in the year 583. Soon after this he was recalled to Rome, and made secretary to the pope; but, after some time, obtained leave to retire again into his monastery, of which he had been chosen abbot.

Here he had indulged himself with the hopes of gratifymg his wish, in the enjoyment of a solitary and unruffled lite, when Pelagius II. dying Feb. 8, 590, he was elected pope by the clergy, the senate, and the people of Rome; to whom he had become dear by his charity to the poor, whom the overflowing of the Tiber, and a violent plague, had left perishing with hunger. This promotion was so disagreeable to him, that he employed all possible methods to avoid it; he wrote a pressing letter to the emperor, conjuring him not to confirm his election, and to give orders for the choice of a person who had greater capacity, more vigour, and better health than he could boast; and hearing his letter was intercepted by the governor of Rome, and that his election would be confirmed by the imperial court, he fled, and hid himself in the most solitary part of a forest, in a cave firmly resolved to spend his days there, till another pope should be elected and, the people despairing to find him, a new election ensued. In this case, the Roman clergy, always fond of miracles, tell us that Gregory would never accept the papal chair, till he had manifestly found, by some celestial signs, that God called him to it. It is pretended, that a dove flying before those who sought for him, shewed them the way they were to go; or that a miraculous light, appearing on a pillar of fire over his cavern, pointed out to them the place of his reeat.

However that be, it is almost as certain that his reluctance was sincere, as that he at length accepted the dignity, and was enthroned pope, Sept. 3, 590. And it appeared by his conduct, that they could not have elected a person more worthy of this exalted station; for, besides his great learning, and the pains he took to instruct the church, both by preaching and writing, he had a very happy talent to win over princes, in favour of the temporal as well as spiritual interests of religion. It would be tedious to run over all the particulars of his conduct on these occasions; and his converting the English to Christianity, a remarkable fact in our history, is on that account generally known. In this attempt Gregory owed his success to the assistance of queen Ethelburga, who not only prompted the king Ethelbert her consort, to treat the pope’s missionaries kindly, but also to become himself a convert.

The new pope, according to custom, held a synod at Rome the same year, 591; whence he sent letters to the four patriarchs of the East, with a confession of his faith, declaring his reverence to the four general councils, and the fifth too, as well as the four gospels. In this modesty he was not followed by his successors; and he even exceeded some of his predecessors in that and other virtues, which for many ages past have not approached the chair of St. Peter. As he had governed his monastery with a severity unparalleled in those times; so now he was particularly careful to regulate his house and person according to St. Paul’s directions to Timothy. Even in performing divine worship, he used ornaments of but a moderate price, and his common garments were still more simple. Nothing was more decent than the furniture of his house, and he retained none but clerks and religious in his service. By this means his palace became a kind of monastery, in which there were no useless people; every thing in his house had the appearance of an angelic life, and his charity surpassed all description. He employed the revenues of the church entirely for the relief of the poor; he was a constant and indefatigable preacher, and devoted all his talents for the instruction of his flock.

The same year he composed his “Dialogues,” a work filled with fabulous miracles and incredible stories; the style is also, low, and the narration coarse yet they were received with astonishing applause and Theodilinda, queen of the Lombards, having converted her husband to the catholic faith, the pope rejoiced at it, and sent his “Dialogues,” composed the following year, to that princess. She is thought to have made use of his book at this time for the conversion of that people, who were easily influenced by such compositions, for the same reason pope Zachary, about 150 years after, translated it into Greek for the use of those people, who were so delighted with it, that they gave St. Gregory the surname of Dialogist. Still these dialogues being the composition of Gregory is a point now thought very doubtful. In the year 594, he excommunicated and suspended the bishop of Salona, the metropolis of Dalmatia, who, however, paid no regard to the exercise of his power in these censures. The same year he laboured to convert the infidels in Sardinia by gentle methods/ according to his system: which was, to punish heretics, especially at their first rise, as rebels and traitors, but to compel infidels only indirectly; that is, treating the obstinate with some rigour, and persuading them as much by promises, threats, and gentle severities, as by argument and reason. This was the distinction he made in treating with the Manichees and pagans.

In the year 595, he refused to send the empress Constantia any relics of St. Paul, which she had requested, desiring to look at the body of that apostle. On this occasion he relates several miraculous punishments for such a rash attempt, all as simply devised as those in his< Dialogues." The same year he warmly opposed John patriarch of Constantinople, for assuming the title of oecumenical or universal, which he himself disclaimed, as having Do right to reduce the other bishops to be his substitutes; and afterwards forbad his nuncio there to communicate with that patriarch, till he should renounce the title. His humility, however, did not keep him from resenting an affront put upon his understanding, as he thought, by the emperor, for proposing terms of peace to the Lombards, who besieged Rome this year: the same year he executed the famous mission into England; and as Brunehaut, queen of France, had been very serviceable in it, he wrote a letter of thanks to her on the occasion. The princess is represented as a profligate woman, but very liberal to the ecclesiastics; founding churches and convents, and even sueing t9 the pope for relics. This was a kind of piety which particularly pleased Gregory; and accordingly, he wrote to the queen several letters, highly commending her conduct in that respect, and carried his complaisance so far as to declare the French happy above all other nations in having such a sovereign. In the year 598, at the request of the Christian people at Caprita, a small island at the bottom of the gulph of Venice, he ordered another bishop to be ordained for that place, in the room of the present prelate, who adhered to the Istrian schism. This was done contrary to the orders of the emperor Maurice, against taking any violent measures with schismatics.

The dispute about the title of Universal Bishop and the equality of the two sons of Rome and Constantinople still subsisting, and the emperor Maurice having declared for the latter, our pope saw the murder of him and his family without any concern by Phocas. This usurper having sent his picture to Rome in the year C03, Gregory received it with great respect, and placed it with that of the empress his consort (Leontia) in the oratory of St. Csesarius in the palace; and soon after congratulated Phocas’s accession to the throne. There are still extant, written upon this occasion, by the holy pontiff, three letters^ wherein he expresses his joy, and returns thanks to Godj for that execrable parricide’s accession to the crown, as the greatest blessing that could befall the empire; and he praises God, that, after suffering under a heavy galling yoke, his subjects begin once more to enjoy the sweets of liberty under his empire flatteries unworthy a man of honour, and especially a pope and for which his historian, Maimbourg, condemns them. But Gregory thought himself in conscience obliged to assert the superiority of his see above that of Constantinople, and he exerted himself much to secure it. In general he had the pre-eminence of the holy see much at heart; accordingly this same year, one Stephen, a Spanish bishop, having complained to him of an unjust deprivation of his bishopric, the pope sent a delegate to judge the matter upon the spot, giving him a memorial of his instructions, in which among other particulars he orders thus: “If it be said, that bishop Stephen, had neither metropolitan nor patriarch, you must answer, that he ought to be tried, as he requested, by the holy see, which is the chief of all churches.” It was in the same spirit of preserving the dignity of his pontificate, that he resolved to repair the celebrated churches of St. Peter and St. Paul; with which view, he gave orders this year to the subdeacon Sabinian (afterwards his successor in the popedom), to fell all the timber necessary for that purpose in the country of the Brutii, and send it to Rome: he wrote several other letters on this occasion, which are striking proofs of his zeal for carrying on the repairs of old churches, although he built no new ones.

But while he was thus intent in correcting the mischiefs of the late war, he saw it break out again in Italy, and still to the disadvantage of the empire, the affairs of which were in a critical situation, not only in the provinces of the west, but every where else. Gregory was much afflicted with the calamities of this last war, and at the same time his illness increased. The Lombards made a truce in November 603, which was to continue in -force till April 605. Some time after, the pope received letters from queen Theodilinda, with the news of the birth and baptism of her son Adoaldus. She sent him also some writings of the abbot Secundinus upon the fifth council, and desired him to answer them. Gregory “congratulates her on having caused the young prince, destined to reign over the Lombards, to be baptised in the catholic church.” And as to Secundinus, he excuses himself on account of his illness: I am afflicted with the gout,“says he,” to such a degree, that I am not able even to speak, as your envoys know; they found me ill when they arrived here, and left me in great danger when they departed. If God restores my health, I will return an exact answer to all that the abbot Secundinus has written to me. In the mean time, I send you the council held under the emperor Justinian, that by reading it he may see the falsity of all that he has heard against the holy see and the catholic church. God forbid that we should receive the opinions of any heretic, or depart in any respect from the letter of St. Leo, and the four councils:“he adds,” I send to the prince Adoaldus, your son, a cross, and a book of the gospel in a Persian box; and to your daughter three rings, desiring you to give them these things with your own hand, to enhance the value of the present. I likewise beg of you, to return my thanks to the king, your consort, for the peace he made for us, and engage him to maintain it, as you have already tlone."