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

After the conclusion of this publication, the society was revived, at the suggestion of the celebrated mathematical professor, Colin Maclaurin, and was extended to the admission of literary and philosophical topics. Dr. Monro a<yain took an active part in its proceedings, as one of its vice-presidents, especially after the death of Maclaurin, when two volumes of its memoirs, entitled “Essays Physical and Literary,” were published, and some materials for a third collected, to which Dr. Monro contributed several useful papers. The third was not published during his life. His last publication was an “Account of the Success of Inoculation in Scotland,” written originally as an answer to some inquiries addressed to him from the committee of the faculty of physicians at Paris, appointed to investigate the merits of the practice. It was afterwards published at the request of some of his friends, and contributed to extend the practice in Scotland. Besides the works which he published, he left several Mss. written at different times, of which the following are the principal viz. A History of Anatomical Writers An Encheiresis Anatomica; Heads of many of his Lectures; A Treatise on Comparative Anatomy; A Treatise on Wounds and Tumours; and, An Oration de Cuticula. This last, as well as the short tract on comparative anatomy, has been printed in an edition of his whole works, in one volume quarto, published by his son, Dr. Alexander Monro, at Edinburgh, in 1781. This tract had been published surreptitiously in 1744, from notes taken at his lectures; but is here given in a more correct form.

, senior member of the academy of sciences of France, was born July 16, 1714, at Angouleme. His family had been a long time rendered illustrious in arms by An. re* De Montalembert, count d'Esse“, lieutenant-general to the king, commander of his armies in Scotland, governor of Terouane near St. Omers, and who died on the breach, the 12th of June 1553. In 1732 the young Montalembert entered into the army, and distinguished himself at the sieges of Kehl and Philipsburg in 1736. He was afterwards captain of the guards to the prince of Conti. In peace he studied the mathematics and natural philosophy: he read a memoir to the academy of sciences, upon the evaporation of the water in the salt works at Turcheim, in the palatinate, which he had examined, and was made a member in 1747. There are in the volumes in the academy some memoirs from him upon the rotation of bullets, upon the substitution of stoves for fire-places, and upon a pool, in which were found pike purblind, and others wholly without sight. From 1750 to 1755 he established the forges at Angoumoisand Perigord. and there founded cannon for the navy. In 1777 three volumes were printed of the correspondence which he held with the generals and ministers, whilst he was employed by his country in the Swedish and Russian armies during the campaigns of 1757 and 1761, and afterwards in Britanny and the isle of Oleron, when fortifying it. He fortified also Stralsund, in Pomerania, against the Prussian troops, and gave an account to his court of the military operations in which it was concerned; and this in a manner which renders it an interesting part of the History of the Seven-years War. In 1776 he printed the first volume of an immense work upon Perpendicular Fortification, and the art of Defence; demonstrating the inconveniences of the old system, for which he substitutes that of casemates, which admit of such a kind of firing, that a place fortified after his manner appears to be impregnable. His system has been, however, uot always approved or adopted. His treatise was extended to ten volumes in quarto, with a great number of plates; the last volume was published in 1792, and will doubtless carry his name to posterity as an author as well as a general. He married, in 1770, Marie de Comarieu, who was an actress, and the owner of a theatre, for whom the general sometimes composed a dramatic piece. In 1784 and 1786 he printed three operatical pieces, set to music by Cambini and Tomeoni: they were,” La Statue,“” La Bergere qualite,“and” La Bohemienne." Alarmed at the progress of the revolution, he repaired to England in 1789 or 1790, and leaving his wife there, procured a divorce, and afterwards married Rosalie Louise Cadet, to whom he was under great obligation during the Robespierrian terror, and by whom he had a daughter born in July 1796. In his memoir published in 1790, it may be seen that he had been arbitrarily dispossessed of his iron forges, and that having a claim for six millions of livres clue to him, he was reduced to a pension, but ill paid, and was at last obliged to sell his estate at Maumer, in Angoumois, for which he was paid in assignats, and which were insufficient to take him out of that distress which accompanied him throughout his life. He was sometimes almost disposed to put an end to his existence, but had the courage to resume his former studies, and engaged a person to assist him in compleating some new models. His last public appearance was in the institute, where he read a new memoir upon the mountings (affect) of ship-guns. On this occasion he was received with veneration by the society, and attended to with religious silence: a man of eighty-six years of age had never been heard to read with so strong a voice. His memoir was thought of so much importance, that the institute wrote to the minister of marine, who sent orders to Brest for the adoption of the suggested change. He was upon the list for a place in the institute, and was even proposed as the first member for the section of mechanics, but learning that Bonaparte was spoken of for the institute, he wrote a letter, in which he expressed his desire to see the young conqueror of Italy honoured with this new crown. His strength of mind he possessed to the last, for not above a month before his death he wrote reflections upon the siege of St. John d'Acre, which contained further proofs of the solidity of his defensive system, but at last he fell ill of a catarrh, which degenerated into a dropsy, and carried him off March 22, 1802.

, was an Italian physician of so much reputation, that he was regarded by his countrymen as a second Galen. He was born at Verona in 1488, of the noble family of Monte in Tuscany, and sent to Padua by his father, to study the civil law. But his bent lay towards physic; which, however, though he made a vast progress in it, so displeased his father, that he entirely withdrew from him all support. He therefore travelled abroad, and practised physic in several cities with success, and increased his reputation among the learned, as an orator and poet. He lived some time at Home, with cardinal Hyppolitus; then removed to Venice; whence, having in a short time procured a competency, he retired to Padua. Here, within two years after his arrival, he was preferred by the senate to the professor’s chair; and he was so attached to the republic, which was always kind to him, that, though tempted with liberal offers from the emperor, Charles V. Francis I. of France, and Cosmo duke of Tuscany, he retained his situation. He was greatly afflicted with the stone in his latter days, and died in 15'5l. He was the author of many works; part of which were published by himself, and part by his pupil John Crato after his death. They were, however, principally comments upon the ancients, and illustrations of their theories; and have therefore ceased to be of importance, since the originals have lost their value. He translated into Latin the works of Aetius, which he published at the desire of cardinal Hyppolitus. He also translated into Latin verse the poem of Museus; and made translations of the Argonautics attributed to Orpheus, and of Lucian’s Tragopodagra.

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, and one of the most learned antiquaries France has produced, was born Jan. 17, 1655, at Soulage in Langnedoc, whither his parents had removed on some business; and was educated at the castle of Roquetaillade in the diocese of Alet, where they ordinarily resided. His family was originally of Gascony, and of the ancient lords of Montfaucon-le-Vieux, first barons of the comte de Comminges. The pedigree of a man of learning is not of much importance, but Montfaucon was an antiquary, and has given us his genealogy in his “Bibl. Bibliothecarum manuscriptorum,” and it must not, therefore, be forgotten, that besides his honourable ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he was the son of Timoleon de Montfaucon, lord of Roquetaillacle and Conillac in the diocrse of Alet, by Flora de Maignan, daughter of the baron d'Albieres. He was the second of four brothers. From his early studies in his father’s house he was removed to Limoux, where he continued them under the fathers of the Christian doctrine, and it is said that the reading of Plutarch’s Lives inspired him first with a love for history and criticism. A literary profession, however, was not his original destination, for we find that he set out with being a cadet in the regiment of Perpignan, and served one or two campaigns in Germany in the army of marshal Turenne. He also gave a proof of his courage by accepting a challenge from a brother bfficer who wished to put it to the tfcst. About two years after entering the army, the death of his parents, and of an officer of distinction under whom he served, with other circumstances that occurred about the same time, appear to have given him a dislike to the military life, and induced him to enter the congregation of St. Maur in 1675 at the age of twenty. In this learned society, for such it was for many years, he had every opportunity to improve his early education, and follow the literary pursuits most agreeable to him. The first fruits of his application appeared in a kind of supplement to Cottelerius, entitled “Analecta Graeca sive vuria opuscula, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 4to, 1688, with notes by him, Antony Pouget and James Lopin. In 1690 he published a small volume 12mo, entitled “La verite de l'Histoire de Judith,” in which he attempts to vindicate the authenticity of that apocryphal book, and throws considerable light on the history of the Medes and Assyrians. His next publication of much importance was a new edition in Gr. & Lat. of the works of St. Athanasius, which came out in 1698, 3 vols. fol. This, which is generally known by the name of the Benedictine edition, gave the world the first favourable impression of Montfaucon’s extensive learning and judgment. He had some assistance in it from father Lopin, before-mentioned, who, however, died before the publication.

General Hutchinson had a considerable circuit to make to get to the ground where he was to make his attack, and the attack of the reserve was to be regulated by his. When he got to his ground, the position of the French was found to be so strongly defended by a numerous artillery, and covered besides by the guns on the fortified heights near Alexandria, that the attempt was given up, and as the army were in their present position exposed to the enemy’s cannon without being able to retaliate, a position on the height in the rear was marked out, to which the army fell back as the evening advanced. This severe action cost the British army 1300 in killed and wounded. The situation of the British army at this period was certainly a very critical one, as it was quite evident that government had been deceived in their estimate of the French forces. Sir Raiph, therefore, was well aware of the difficult task he had to perform. The camp of the British was about four or five miles from Alexandria. In front of the reserve, which, formed the right of the army, was a very extensive ancient ruin, which the French called Caesar’s camp; it was twenty or thirty yards retired from the right flank of the redoubt, and commanded the space between the redoubt and the sea. In this redoubt and ruin major-general Moore had posted the 28th and 58th regiments. On the 21st the attack was made by the French, who were driven back by his troops, but he received a shot in the leg. The result, however, was, that every attack the French made was repulsed with great slaughter. In the early part of the action, and in the dark, some confusion was unavoidable, but wherever the French appeared, the British went boldly up to them, even the cavalry breaking in had not in the least dismayed them. As the day broke, the foreign brU gaJe, under brigadier-general, afterwards sir John Stuart, who fought the battle of Maida, came to the second line to the support of the reserve, shared in the action, and behaved with great spirit. Day-light enabled major-general Moore to get the reserve into order, but there was a great want of ammunition. The guns could not be fired for a very considerable time, otherwise the French must have suffered much more severely, while retreating from their different unsuccessful attacks, than they did. The enemy’s artillery continued to gall the British severely with shot and shells, after the infantry and cavalry had been repulsed. The British could not return a shot. Had the French attacked again, the British had nothing but their bayonets, which they unquestionably would have used, as never was an army more determined to do their duty. But the enemy laad suffered so severely, that the men could not be got to make another attempt. They continued in front at a distant musket-shot, until the ammunition for the English guns was brought up to enable them to fire, when theyvery soon retreated. While the attacks were made on the British right, a column attacked the guards on the left of the reserve, but were repulsed with loss. The French general, Menou, had concentrated the greatest part of the force in Egypt for this attack; the prisoners stated his force in the field at about 13,000 men, of whom between three and four thousand were killed or wounded. The British army lost about 1300 men, of which upwards of 500 belonged to the reserve. This battle commenced at half past four in the morning, and terminated about nine. The French made three different attacks, with superior numbers, the advantage of cavalry, and a numerous and well-served artillery. The British infantry here gave a decided proof of their superior firmness and hardihood. Sir Ralph, who always exposed his person very much, in this last battle carried the practice perhaps farther than he bad e?er done before. Major-general Moore met hjnv early in the anion, close in the rear of the 42d, without any of the officeFS of his family; and afterwards, when the French cavalry charged the second time, and penetrated the 42d, major-general Moore saw him again and waved to him to retire, but he was instantly surrounded by the hussars; he received a cut from a sabre ou the breast, which penetrated his clothes and just grazed the flesh. He received a shot in the thigh, but remained in the field until the battle was over, when he was conveyed on board the Foudroyant. Major-general Moore, at the close of the action, had the horse killed under him that major Honeyroan had lent him. Wnen the battle was over, the wound in his leg became so stiff and painful, that as soon as he could get a hurse, he gave the command of the reserve to coloi ei Spencer, and retired with brigadier-general Oakes, who commanded the reserve under him, and who was wounded in the leg also, to their tents in the rear. Brigadier-general Oakes was wounded nearly at the same time, and in the same part of the leg that major-general Moore was, but they both continued to head the reserve until the battle was over. When the surgeon had dressed their wounds, finding that they must be some time incapable of action, they returned to the Diadem troop-ship. Sir Ralph Abercrombie died of his wound on board the Foudroyant on the 28th day of March, and the command devolved on major-general Hutchinson. It is unnecessary here to detail the operations in Egypt that followed the battle of the 2 1st, as major-general Moore was confined on hoard the Diadem with his wound until the I Oth of May, when he was removed to Rosetta for the benefit of a change of air. He suffered very severely the ball had passed between the two bones of his leg he endured a long confinement and much torment, from inflammation and surgical operations. When at length he could move on crutches, and was removed to Rosetta, where he got a house on the banks of the Nile, agreeably situated, he began to recover rapidly, and afterwards continued to serve in the army of Egypt until after the surrender of Alexandria, when he returned to England, where he received the honour of knighthood, and the order of the bath. On the renewal of the war, the talents and services of sir John Moore pointed him out as deserving of the most important command. It was not, however, until 1808 that he was appointed to the chief command of an army to be employed in Spain, and Gallicia or the borders of Leon were fixed upon as the place for assembling the troops. Sir John was ordered to send the cavalry by land, but it was left to his own discretion to transport the infantry and artillery either by sea or land. He was also assured, that 15,000 men were ordered to Corunna, and he was directed to give such orders to sir David Baird, their commander, as would most readily effect a junction of the whole force. Both, however, soon discovered that little reliance could be placed on the Spaniards; and they had not got far into the country before their hopes were completely disappointed. Sir John Moore soon began to anticipate the result which followed. In the mean time the French army had advanced, and taken possession of the city of Valladolid, which is but twenty leagues from Salamanca. Sir John had been positively informed that his entry into Spain would be covered by 60 or 70,000 men; and that Burgos was the city intended for the point of union for the different divisions of the British army. But already not only Burgos, but Valladolid, was in possession of the enemy; and he found himself with an advanced corps in an open town, at three marches distance only from the French army, without even a Spanish piquet to cover his front He had at this time only three brigades of infantry, without a gun, in Salamanca. The remainder, it is true, vyere moving up in succession, but the whole could not arrive in less than ten days. At this critical time the Spanish main armies, instead of being united either among themselves, or with the British, were divided from each other almost by the whole breadth of the peninsula. The fatal consequences of this want of union were but too soon made apparent; Blake was defeated, and a report reached sir David Baird that the French were advancing upon his division in two different directions, so as to threaten to surround him. He, consequently, prepared to retreat upon Corunna; but sir John Moore, having ascertained that the report was unfounded, ordered sir David to advance, in order, if possible, to form a junction with him. On the 28th of November he received information that there was now no army remaining, against which the whole French force might be directed, except the British; and it was in vain to expect that they, even if they had been united, could have resisted or checked the enemy. Sir John Moore, therefore, determined to fall back on Portugal, to hasten the junction of general Hope, who had gone towards Madrid, and he ordered sir David Baird to regain Corunna as expeditiously as possible; and when he had thus determined upon a retreat, he communicated his design to the general officers, who, with the exception of general Hope, seemed to doubt the wisdom of his decision; he would, however, have carried it into execution, if he had not been induced, by pressing solicitations, and representations of encouragement, to advance to Madrid, which he was told not only held out, but was capable of opposing the French for a considerable length of time. Sir John, therefore, anxious to meet the wishes of his troops, by leading them against the enemy, determined to attack Soult, the French general, who was posted at Saldanha, by which he thought he should draw off the French armies to the north of Spain, and thus afford an opportunity for the Spanish armies to rally and re-unite. Soult was probably posted in that spot with so small a body of men for the purpose of enticing the British army farther into Spain, while Bonaparte, in person, with his whole disposable force, endeavoured to place himself between the British army and the sea. At length the two armies met; and the superiority of the British cavalry was eminently displayed in a most brilliant and successful skirmish, in which 600 of the imperial guards of Bonaparte were driven off the field by half the number of British, Reaving 55 killed and wounded, and 70 prisoners, among whom was general Le Febre, the commander of the imperial guard.

The pretensions, which such authors as we have just mentioned, make of arriving at extraordinary degrees of illumination by their institutes, entirely captivated More’s fancy who pursued their method with great seriousness and intense application and, in three or four years, had reduced himself to so thin a state of body, and began to talk in such a manner of experiences and communications, as brought him into a suspicion of being touched with enthusiasm. Ib 1640, he composed his “Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the Soul;” which, with an addition of other poems, he republished in 1647, 8vo, under the title of “Philosophical Poems,” and dedicated to his father. He takes notice, in his dedication, that his father used to read to his children on winter nights “Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” with which our author was highly delighted, and which, he says in the dedication, “first turned his ears to poetry.” In 1639, he had taken his master of arts’ degree; and, being chosen fellow of his college, became tutor to several persons of great quality. One of these was sir John Finch, whose sister lady Con way was an enthusiast of his own stamp, and became at length a quaker, although he laboured for many years to reclaim her. He still, however, had a great esteem for her and drew up some of his “Treatises” at her particular request and she, in return, left him a legacy of 400l. He composed others of his works at Ragley, the seat of her lord in Warwickshire, where, at intervals, he spent a considerable part of his time. He met here with two extraordinary persons, the famous Van Helmont, and the no less famous Valentine Greatrakes; for, it seems, lady Conway was frequently afflicted with violent pains in her head, and these two persons were called in, at different times, to try their powers upon her; and, at last, Van Helmont lived in the family. There was once a design of printing some remains of this lady after her death; and the preface was actually written by our author under the person of Van Helmont; in which disguise he draws her character with so much address, that we are told the most rigid quaker would see every thing he could wish in it, and yet the soberest Christian be entirely satisfied with it. It is printed at large in his life.

As for sir Thomas’s daughters, the eldest of them, Margaret, was married to William Roper, esq. of Well-hall, in the parish of Eltham, in Kent; who wrote the “Life” of his father-in-law, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, in 1716, 8vo. She was a woman of great talents and amiable manners, and seems to have been to More what Tullia was to her father Cicero, his delight and comfort. The greatest care was taken of her education; and she became learned not only in the Greek and Latin tongues, but in music, arithmetic, and other sciences. She wrote two “Declamations” in English, which her father and she turned into Latin; and both so elegantly, that it was hard to determine which was best. She wrote also a treatise of the “Four last Things;” and, by her sagacity, corrected a corrupt place in “St. Cyprian,” reading “nervos sinceritatis,” for “nisi vos sinceritatis.” Erasmus wrote a letter to her, as to a woman famous not only for virtue and piety, but also for true and solid learning. Cardinal Pole was so affected with the elegance of her Latin style, that he could not at first believe what he read to be penned by a woman. This deservedly-illustrious lady died in 1544, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church in Canterbury, with her father’s head in her arms, according to her desire; for she had found means to procure his head, after it had remained upon London-bridge fourteen days, and had carefully preserved it in a leaden box, till there was an opportunity of conveying it to Canterbury, to the burying-place of the Ropers in the church above mentioned. Of five children which she brought, there was a daughter Mary, as famous for parts and learning almost as herself. This Mary was one of the gentlewomen, as they were then called, of queen Mary’s privy chamber. She translated into English part of her grandfather’s “Exposition of the Passion of our Saviour;” and also “Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History” from the Greek into Latin; but this latter translation was never published, being anticipated by Christopherson’s Version.

He was an early contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; assisted Hogarth in his “Analysis of Beauty,” and published some occasional sermons. His other publications followed in this order, 1. “The Life of Dr. Edward Littleton,” prefixed to the first volume of his sermons, in 1735. 2. “Poems on Divine Subjects; original and translated from the Latin of Marcus Hieronymus Vida, with large annotations, more particularly concerning the being and attributes of God,” Loud. 1732, 8vo, reprinted 1736. 3. “The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer, in the original, from the most authentic Mss. and as they are turned into modern language by the most eminent hands,” ibid. 1737. 4. “A copy of English congratulatory verses on the maryiage of the prince of Orange with the princess Anne,” 1737. 5. “Philalethes and Theophanes; or a summary view of the last controversy occasioned by a book entitled The Moral Philosopher,' parti.” Lond. 1739, 8vo, reprinted 1740. 6. “The Christian’s Epinikion, or Song of Triumph; a paraphrase on I Cor. xv. attempted in blank Terse; with annotations, explanatory and critical,” ibid. 1743, 4to. 7. “Hope, a poetical essay, in blank verse, on that Christian grace, in three books,” 1745. 8. “Spenser’s Works,” by subscription, 1747. 9. “Euripidis Hecnba, Orestes, et Phenissce, cum scholiis antiquis, &c.” 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a reprint of King’s edition, with the Alcestes added by himself. In 1749, Dr. Morell published the “Hecuba,” translated from the Greek, with annotations. 10. A speciaien of his “Thesaurus,” 1757. 11. “Philoctetes,” 1757, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Graecse Poeseos, sive Lexicon Grreco-prosodiacum,” &c. 4to, with Hogarth’s portrait of the author. The value of this work has been so long and so often acknowledged, that it is only necessary to add that a much improved edition is now in the hands of an eminent scholar, and nearly ready for publication. 13. The “Prometheus” of jschylus/&e. 1767, 8vo; 1774, 4to. 14. “A Dissertation on the Corbridge altar now in the British Museum,” &c. in a Latin letter to the hon. Daines Barrington,“1774, printed in the Archasologia, vol. III. 15.” Sacred Annals; or the Life of Christ, as recorded by the Four Evangelists,“&c. 1776, 4to. He also published a corrected edition of Hederick’s Lexicon, and three editions of Ainsworth’s Dictionary; and compiled the words for Handel’s Oratorios. After his death was published a translation of” Seneca’s Epistles,“with annotations, 1786, 2 vols. 4to. This is a correct and faithful translation, but never attracted much public attention. In 1794 also was published” Notes and Annotations on Locke on the Human Understanding, written by order of the queen (Caroline), corresponding in section and page to the edition of 1793," 8vo. This, which was written by the author while in the prime of life, does great credit to his talents as a metaphysician, and has been judged a very necessary aid in the perusal of Locke.

Mr. Morland informs us that both before and after this publication, particularly from 164-1 to 1656, and some years after, he was admitted into the most intimate affairs of state, and had frequent opportunities of taking a clear view of the proceedings of Cromwell and his agents. Among other intrigues, he tells us that he was an eye and ear-witness of Dr. Hewit’s being trepanned to death by Thurloe and his agents. One Dr. Corker was sent by Thurloe to Dr. Hewit to advise him, and desire him, on behalf of the royalists, to send to Brussels for blank commissions from Charles II. and when the commissions arrived, was ordered to request that he might be employed to disperse part of them in several counties, and keep the rest by him. This done, Hewit was seized, and part of the commissions being found upon him, he was condemned and executed. But the most remarkable plot to which he was privy, was that usually called sir Richard Willis’s plot. The object of it was to entrap king Charles II. and his brothers to land somewhere in Sussex, under pretence of meeting with many supporters, and to put them to death the moment they landed. This plot is said to have formed the subject of a conversation between Cromwell, Thurloe, and Willis, at Thurloe’s office, and was overheard by Morland, who pretended to be asleep at his desk. In “Wel­* Note by Mr. Thomas Warton on Milton’s beautiful sonnet” On ths late Massacre in Piedmont.“Milton’s Poems, edit. 1785, p. 357. wood’s Memoirs,” it is said that when Cromwell discovered him, he drew his poinard, and would have dispatched him on the spot, if Thurloe had not, with great intreaties, prevailed on him to desist, assuring him that Morland had sat up two nights together, and was certainly asleep. Morland himself gives a somewhat different account of this plot than what appears in Echard, and is copied in the life of Thurloe in the Biog. Brit* but the chief circumstances are the same, and he was the means of discovering it to the king. It also appears to have alienated him from the party with which he had been connected, and from this time he endeavoured to promote the restoration by every means in his power, for which, in “Hollis’s Memoirs,” as may be expected in such a work, he is termed a “dextrous hypocrite*.”

, an English artist, at one time of considerable fame, was born at Eastbourne in the county of Sussex, in November 1739. His father, who was a collector of the customs at that port, was descended from Mortimer earl of March, and a man of most respectable character. His uncle was an itinerant painter, of merit much above mediocrity; from frequently seeing his productions, the nephew imbibed an early fondness for that art, which he afterwards practised with considerable success. His taste for the terrific he is said to have acquired from the scenery of the place, and the tribe of ferocious smugglers, whom it was his father’s duty to watch, whose countenances, unsoftened by social intercourse, were marked with that savage hardihood, which he afterwards so much admired, and sometimes imitated, in the banditti of Salvator Rosa.

When the society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, gave premiums for the best historical pictures, Mortimer contended for the prize with Huytfian and several other artists, painted a picture of St. Paul converting the Britons, was adjudged worthy of the palm, and received one hundred guineas as a reward for his superiority, and an encouragement to his perseverance. -This picture, at a future day, became the property of Dr. Bates of Great Missenden, and, in 1778, was by him presented to the church of Chipping-Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, of which it now forms the altar-piece. At the time of painting it he was an inhabitant of Covent-garden parish, and lived in the piazza, where he contracted an intimacy with Charles Churchill, Lloyd, and several other eccentric characters, more distinguished by the brilliancy of their wit, than the regularity of their conduct. He afterwards removed to a r^ouse in the church-yard of the same parish, and resided there until the year 1775, when he married, and removed to Norfolk-street, where he lived four years during the winter, but in the summer months, pursued his professional studies at a house at Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. In this retirement, secluded from the society to whom he had, in early life, devoted many of his hours, he recovered his health, gave a new tone to his mind, and cultivated his art with more enthusiastic ardour.

, an eminent physician, was born in the county of Suffolk; and became a commoner in Magdalen-hall, Oxford, afterwards one of the chaplains of New college, and M. A. On leaving the university, where he took orders, he was for some time chaplain in the family of Foley, in Worcestershire. Having, however, adopted the principles of the nonconformists, he found it necessary, after tue restoration of Charles II. to abandon the profession of theology, and adopted that of medicine. He accordingly was admitted to the degree of doctor in this faculty in 1670, having in that year accompanied the prince of Orange to Oxford, as physician to his person. He afterwards settled in London, became a fellow of the college of physicians, and obtained a large share of city practice. He died at his house in Surrey, in 1698. The works of Dr. Morton had a considerable, reputation, but they lean too much to the humoral pathology, which was prevalent in that age; and his method of treatment in acute diseases, is now generally discarded. His first publication was entitled “Phthisioiogia, seu Exercitationes de Phthisi,” 1689, 8vo, and was translated into English in 1694. In this attempt to arrange the varieties of consumption, the distinctions, both in the classification and the indications of cure, are complicated and obscure. His “Pyretologia, seu Exercitationes de Morbis universalibus acutis,” published in 1691—1694, 2 vols. 8vo, of which some account is given in the Philos. Transactions, No. 199, contains his humoral doctrines of fermentation and the agitations of the animal spirits; and his practice was an unusual extension of the cordial and stimulant treatment of all fevers, and a more general introduction of the Peruvian bark, by which he probably contributed to prolong the reign of that prejudicial system. His works have been printed collectively at Amsterdam, 2 vols. 8vo, and at Geneva, Leyden, Venice, and Lyons, in 4to.

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

Having thus failed in obtaining the first situation in which a man of letters could be placed, he succeeded, in 1647, in being appointed to what might be considered as the second, that of preceptor to Philip, then duke of Anjou, and afterwards duke of Orleans, the king’s brother. He had also conferred on him the titles of historiographer of France and counsellor of state. By his first wife he had an only son, who died in 1664, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. His wife also being dead long before, he is said to have been so much afflicted at the loss of his son, as to determine to marry again, which he did the same year, 1664, at the age of seventy-six He died in 1672, aged eightyfour. He was a voluminous writer, and upon all subjects, ancient, modern, sacred and profane. We cannot, perhaps, to some of our readers, give a better idea of his works, than by comparing them to those of Bayle. We find in them the same scepticism and the same indecencies; and on this account Bayle expatiates on his character with congenial pleasure. In his private character, he was somewhat of a humourist, but his moral conduct was more correct than might have been expected from his writings. He is mentioned hy Guy Patin as a Stoic, who would neither praise nor be praised, and who followed his own fancies and caprices without any regard to the opinions of the world, and his dress and usual demeanour distinguished him from other men. In the court he lived like a philosopher, immersed in books, simple and regular in his manner of living, and void of ambition and avarice. His treatise which we have mentioned, “On the Virtue of Pagans/' was answered by Arnauld. La Mothers bookseller complaining that his book did not sell,” I know a secret,“said the author,” to quicken the sale:" he procured an order from government for its suppression, which was the means of selling the whole edition. His works were collected in two volumes folio; and there was an edition, we believe the last, printed at Dresden, in 1756, in 14 vols. 8vo, so lowpriced, in the French catalogues, that there seems now little value placed on them.

, in Latin Molinæus, a celebrated lawyer, was born at Paris in 1500. His family was noble, and Papyrius mentions “that those of the family of Moulin were related to Elizabeth queen of England;” which she acknowledged herself in 1572, when conversing with Francis duke of Montmorency, marshal of France and ambassador to England. This relation probably came by Thomas Bullen, or Boleyn, viscount of Rochefort, the queen’s grandfather by the mother’s side; for Sanderus and others say, “that this Rochefort being ambassador to France, gave his daughter Anne of Bulloigne to a gentleman of Brie, a friend and relation of his, to take care of her education; and this gentleman is supposed to be the lord of Fontenay in Brie, of the family of du Moulin.” This branch came from Denys du Moulin, lord of Fontenay in Brie, archbishop of Thoulouse, patriarch of Antioch, and bishop of Paris, where he died in 1447. The subject of our memoir was at first educated at the university of Paris, and afterwards studied law at Poitiers and Orleans, at the latter of which cities he gave lectures on the subject in 1521. In the following year he was received as an advocate of parliament; but, owing to a defect in his speech, was obliged to give up pleading, and confine himself to chamber practice, and the composition of those works which gained him so much reputation. He was an indefatigable student, and set such a value on time, that, contrary to the custom of his age, he had his beard close shaven, that he might not lose any precious moments in dressing it; but in his latter days he permitted it again to grow. From the same love of study, he refused some valuable employments, and even took the resolution never to marry; and that he might be equally free from every other incumbrance, he gave the whole of his property to <rn elder brother, reserving only for his maintenance the profits of his studies. It was not long, however, before he had cause to repent of this uncommon liberality, as his brother behaved to him in a brutal and unnatural way. To revenge himself, he had recourse to an expedient suggested by his professional knowledge. He married, and having children, he resumed, according to the law, the possession of that property with which he had parted so freely when a bachelor. It was in 1538 that he married Louise de Beldon, daughter of the king’s secretary, a lady of a most amiable and affectionate temper, who, instead of being an incumbrance, as he once foolishly thought, proved the great comfort of his life, and in some respect, the promoter of his studies, by her prudent care of those domestic affairs of which literary men are generally very bad managers. She was also his consolation in the many difficulties in which he soon became embroiled. He was a man of an ardent mind and warm temper, totally incapable of concealing his sentiments, particularly in the cause of truth and justice, or regard to his country. Like many other eminent men of that age, he embraced the principles of the reformed religion, first according to the system of Calvin, but afterwards he adopted that of Luther, as contained in the Augsburgh confession. On this account it is said that the Calvinists endeavoured to make him feel their resentment, and even suspended their animosity against the Roman catholics, that they might join with the latter in attacking Du Moulin.

This transaction having by some means come to the knowledge of his Catholic majesty, who was passionately fond of all mechanical productions, and particularly of watches, that monarch immediately employed his agents in England to engage Mr. Mudge to work for him; and such was his approbation of his new artist’s performances, that he honoured him with an unlimited commission to make for him at his own price, whatever he might judge most worthy of attention. Accordingly, among the several productions of Mr. Madge’s genius which thus became the property of the king of Spain, was an equation watch, which not only shewed the sun’s time, and mean time, but was also a striking watch and a repeater; and what was very singular, and had hitherto been unattempted, it struck and repeated by solar, or apparent time. As a repeater, moreover, it struck the hours, quarters, and minutes. From a whim of the king’s this watch was made in the crutch end of a cane, in the sides of which were glasses covered with sliders, on the removal of which the work might be seen at any time; and his majesty being very fond of observing the motion of the wheels at the time the watch struck, it was his practice as he walked, to stop for that purpose. Those who have seen him on these occasions, observed that he ever showed signs of the most lively satisfaction. The price of this watch was 480 guineas, which, from the expensive materials and nature of the work, afforded Mr. Mudge but a moderate profit for his ingenuity; and he was strongly urged by several of his friends to charge 500 guineas for it, which the king would have readily paid. To this Mr. Mudge answered, that, “as 480 guineas gave him the profit to which he was fairly entitled, as an honest man, he could riot think of increasing it, and he saw no reason why a king should be charged more than a private gentleman.” Indeed the king of Spain had such a high opinion of his integrity, that he not only used to speak of him as by far the most ingenious watchmaker he had ever employed, but excelling also in his sense of honour and justice. Mr. Townsend, then secretary to the embassy at Madrid, once told Mr. Mudge that his Catholic majesty had often expressed to him his great admiration of his character, and would frequently ask his assistance to enable him to express the name of Mudge.

Of his private character few particulars have been preserved: his temper was warm, but not hasty; and though. Fuller has accused him of using his scholars too harshly, we may make some allowance when we find he was educated under the same master with Ascham, Dr. Nicholas Udall, whose severity he perhaps imbibed. Like Ascham, he was fond of archery, a science once of national concern, and was a member of a society of archers, called Prince Arthur’s Knights, from that prince (brother of Henry VIII.), who was so fond of this amusement that his name became the proverbial appellation of an expert bowman. Mulcaster was an adherent of the reformed religion, a man of piety, and “a priest in his own house, as well as in the temple.” As a scholar he ranks high. His English productions boast an exuberance of expression not often found in the writers of his day; and his Latin works, not inelegant, were celebrated in their times. He enjoyed, likewise, very high reputation as a Greek and Oriental scholar, and on this last account was much esteemed by the celebrated Hugh Broughton.

Regiomontanus was the author of some other works besides those before mentioned. Peter Ramus, in -the account he gives of him, tells us, that in his work-shop at Nuremberg-, was an automaton in perpetual motion; that he made an artificial fly, which taking its flight from his hand, would fly round the room, and at last, as if weary, would return to his master’s hand; that he fabricated an eagle, which, on the emperor’s approach to the city, he sent out, hi< r h in the air, a great way to meet him, and that it kept him company to the gate of the city. “Let us no more wonder,” adds Ramus, “at the dove of Archytas, since Nuremberg can shew a fly, and an eagle, armed with geometrical wings. Therefore, those famous artificers, who were formerly in Greece, and Egypt, are no longer of any account, since Nuremberg can boast of her Regiomontanuses. For the senate and people of this city did all in their power to have a continual succession of RegiomontaDuses. For Wernerus first, and then the Schoneri, father and son, afterwards revived the spirit of Regiomontanus.”

In the summer of 1763, Mr. Murphy went his first, the Norfolk, circuit; but with little success; and afterwards appeared occasionally as a pleader in London. The Muse, however, he confesses, “still had hold of him, and occasionally stole him away from ‘ Coke upon Littleton.’” In his law pursuits he continued till 1787, when, to his great astonishment, a junior to him on the Norfolk circuit was appointed king’s counsel. Disappointed at this, he sold his chambers in Lincoln’s-Inn, in July 1788, and retired altogether from the bar. The intermediate time, however, had been filled up by the production of his “Three Weeks after Marriage,” “Zenobia,” “The Grecian Daughter,” and other dramatic pieces, generally acted with great applause, and which are yet on the stock list. After he retired from the bar he bought a house at Hammersmith, and there prepared various publications for the press, among which, in 1786, was an edition of his works collectively, in seven volumes, octavo. In 1792, he appeared as one of the biographers of Dr. Johnson, in “An Essay on his Life and Genius;” but this was a very careless sketch, copied almost verbatim from the account of sir John Hawkins’s Life of Johnson, in the Monthly Review. In the following year he published a translation of Tacitus, in four volumes, quarto, dedicated to the late Edmund Burke. To this work, which is executed in a masterly manner, he added “An Essay on the Life and Genius of Tacitus;” with historical supplements and frequent annotations and comments. Mr. Murphy continued to write to an advanced age, and in 1798 he published his “Arminius,” intended to justify the war then carried on against the ambition of France, and which, with the majority of the nation, he considered as both just and necessary. Through his interest with lord Loughborough, he obtained the office of one of the commissioners of bankrupts, to which, during the last three years of his life, was added a pension of two hundred pounds a year. In his latter days, after he had published a “Life of Garrick,” a very sensible decay of mental powers became visible. He continued, however, to be occasionally cheered and assisted by a few friends, until his death, at his lodgings at Knightsbridge, June 18, 1805. From his biographer’s account it appears he had perfectly reconciled his mind to the stroke of death: when he had made his will, and given plain and accurate directions respecting his funeral, he said, “I have been preparing for my journey to another region, and now do not care how soon I take my departure.” On the day of his death he frequently repeated the lines of Pope:

His health continued to decline; but his mental faculties remained to the last very little impaired; he was glad to receive visitors, and talk upon the events of the time. Of the French revolution he is reported to have said, that it was an extraordinary event and, as it was without example, so it was without a prognostic no conjectures could be formed of its consequences. He lived to March 20, 1793, and departed this life in the eightyninth year of his age. He left no children; and the earldom, which was granted again by a new patent, in 1792, descended on his nephew, lord Stormont, together with his immense fortune. His will was dated April 17, 1782; it was written in his own hand, upon little more than a half sheet of paper. It begins thus: “When it shall please Almighty God to call me to that state, to which, of all I now enjoy, I can carry only the satisfaction of my own conscience, and a full reliance on his mercy, through Jesus Christ: I desire that my body may be interred as privately as may be; and, out of respect for the place of my early education, I should wish it to be in Westminster abbey.” He was buried, about nine o'clock in the morning of March 28, in the same vault with his countess, who died April 10, 1784, in Westminster-abbey, between the late earl of Chatham and lord Robert Manners.

, an eminent architect, to whose memory Black Friars Bridge will be a lasting monument, was born at Edinburgh, Jan. 4, 1734. His father, Thomas Mylne, was an architect, and a magistrate of that city; and his family, it has been ascertained, held th office of master-masons to the kings of Scotland for five hundred year’s, till the union of the crowns of England and Scotland. Mr. Mylne was educated at Edinburgh, and travelled early in life for improvement in h;s hereditary science. At Rome he resided five years, and in September 1758, gained the first prize in the first class of architecture, adjudged by the academy of St. Luke, and was also unanimously elected a member of that body. On this occasion prince Altieri, distinguished for his knowledge of the fine arts, obtained from the pope the necessary dispensation, Mr. Mylne being a protestant. He was also elected a member of the academies of Florence and Bologna. He visited Naples, and viewed the interior of Sicily with an accuracy never before employed; and from his skill in his profession, and his classical knowledge, was enabled to illustrate several very obscure passages in Vitruvius. His fine collection of drawings, with his account of this tour, which he began to arrange for publication in 1774, but was interrupted by his numerous professional engagements, are still in the possession of his son, and will, it is hoped, at no very distant period, be given to the public. He was often heard to remark in his latter days, that in most of his observations and drawings, he had neither been anticipated by those who traversed the ground before him, nor followed by those who came after him.

Carlo Dati, in the life of Zeuxis, speaking of our engraver’s works, says, “These words of Apollonius remind us to contemplate the astonishing art of the prints of the modern gravers in France, where every thing is represented so naturally, the quality of the drapery, the colour of the flesh, the beard, the hair with the powder upon it, and, what is most important, the age, the air, and the lively resemblance of a person, though nothing is made use of besides the black of the ink and the white of the paper; which not only make the light and the shade, but do the office of all the colours. Ail this is seen and admired above all others, in the excellent portraits of the illustrious Nantueil.” This artist was a man of pleasing manners and address, had some share of learning and wit, and his conversation recommended him much to people of fashion. He was well respected at court; and Mazarine, then prime minister, retained him as his designer and engraver, and honoured him with the title of Monsieur. But he never was an œconomist; and of upwards of 500,000 crowns which he had gained, he left only 20,000 to his heirs. The portraits by this excellent artist are well known, and although Strutt has given a short list of the bejt,he allows that it is not easy to say with any degree of precision, among so many beautiful ones, which are the best.

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

In 1740 he was employed by his superiors on a mission to England, and had the direction of the school erected at Twyford, near Winchester, for the education of the Roman catholic youth. In 1744 he was appointed professor of philosophy in the English college at Lisbon, where, on account of his bad health, he remained only fifteen months. After his return he passed several years at London and Paris, chiefly employed in microscopical observations, and in other branches of experimental philosophy. The results of these observations and experiments were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1749, and in a volume in 12mo at Paris in 1750; and an account of them was also given by Buffon, in the first volumes of his natural history. There was an intimate connection subsisted between Mr. Needham and this illustrious French naturalist: they made their experiments and observations together; though the results and systems which they deduced from the same objects and operations were totally different.

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

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

, an eminent painter, was born in 1639, at Prague in Bohemia. His father dying in the Polish service, in which he was an engineer, his mother was constrained, on account of the catholic religion, which she professed, to depart suddenly from Prague with her three sons, of whom Gaspard was the youngest* At some leagues from the town she stopped at a castle, which wafc afterwards besieged; and Gaspard’s two brothers were famished to death. The mother, apprehensive of the same fate, found means to escape in the night-time out of the castle, and with her son in her amis reached Arnheim, ifo Guelderland, where she met with some relief to support herself and breed op her son. A physician, named Tutkens, a man of wealth and humanity, became the patron of Netscher, and put him to school, with the view of educating him to his own profession; but Netscher’s decided turn for the art he afterwards practised, induced his patron to place him with a glazier to learn to draw, this being the only person at Arnheim who could give him any instructions. As soon as tie had iearned all this man could teach, he went to Deventer, to a painter, whose name was Gerhard Terburg, an able artist, and burgomaster of the town, under whom he acquired a great command of his pencil and, going to Holland, worked there a long time for the picture-merchants, who, abusing his easiness, paid him very little for his pieces, which they sold at a good price.

Dr. Neve was an able divine and scholar, and had long filled his station with credit to himself and the university, of which he remained a member more than sixty years. In private life, the probity, integrity, and unaffected simplicity of his manners, endeared him to his family and friends, and rendered him sincerely regretted by all who knew him. He had accumulated a very considerable collection of books, particularly curious pamphlets, which were dispersed after his death. Most of them contain ms notes by him, which we have often found of great value. His publications were not numerous, but highly creditable to his talents. Among them was a sermon, on Act-Sunday, July 8, 1759, entitled “The Comparative Blessings of Christianity,” the text Ephes. iv. 8. “Animadversions on Philips’s Life of Cardinal Pole, Oxford, 1766,” 8vo. “Eight Sermons preached at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. Canon of Salisbury,” 1781, 8vo and after his death appeared “Seventeen Sermons on various subjects,” 1798, 8vo, published by subscription for his family.

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

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

The work for which he is chiefly entitled to notice, was his dictionary of the words that occur in Cicero, commonly called “Thesaurus Ciceronianus;” but the first edition was entitled “Observationes in Ciceronem,” 1535, 2 parts fol. It afterwards had the title of “Thesaurus,” and was repeatedly reprinted, and at last with such improvements as to make it a complete lexicon. There is one printed at Padua, as late as 1734, fol. The other most valued editions are the Aldine, 1570, 1576-, and 1591, and that by Gellarius, at Francfort, 1613. Henry Stephens and Vemeret have spoken harshly of this work, but without much injury to its fame. Nizolius was an enthusiastic admirer of the purity and eloquence of the style of Tully; and it was to promote a taste for correct and elegant literature, that he compiled this “Ciceronian Treasury.” By a natural association, he extended his attachment to Cicero from his language to his philosophy, and maintained a strenuous contest in favour of Cicero, with several learned men. In the course of the dispute he wrote a treatise “De veris Principiis et vera Ratione Philosophandi,” in Which he vehemently censured the followers of the Stagyrite, and particularly the scholastics, chiefly for the corruptions they had introduced into the Latin language, and the many ridiculous opinions which they held. Leibnitz was so struck with its solidity and elegance, that to expose the obstinacy of those who were zealously attached to Aristotle, he gave a new edition of it, with critical notes of his own, 1670, in 4to.

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

Dr. North appears to have been a man of great probity and learning, but, upon the whole, to have been better qualified for private than public life. Although his conversation was fluent, and he possessed much of the wit that is so observable in his descendants, he had an uncommon timidity of temper; and there is much reason to think that the ungovernable state in which he found Trinity college, and the vexatious insolence of some of the fellows, had a tendency to produce that imbecility which rendered his last years useless. His only publication, except the sermon above-mentioned, was an edition of some pieces of Plato, whose philosophy he preferred to that of Aristotle, as more consonant to Christian morality. These were printed at Cambridge in 1673, 8vo, under the title “Platonis de rebus divinis Dialog! selecti, Gr. et Lat. Socratis Apologia, Crito, Phasdo, e libb. legum decimus, Alcibiades secundus.”

Dean Nowell died Feb. 13, 1601-2, in the ninety-fifth year of his age, almost forty years after he had begun to reckon himself an old man. “But notwithstanding his very great age and frequent sicknesses, such was the original strength of his constitution, and such the blessing of providence on a life of piety, peace, and temperance, that neither his memory nor any of his faculties were impaired; and to the last, it is said, he was able to read thesmallest print without the help of glasses.” He was interred in St. Mary’s chapel, at the back of the high altar in St. Paul’s, in the same grave where, thirty-three years before, he had buried his beloved brother Robert Nowell. He was twice married, but had no issue by either of his wives. ii For the minutiae of his character, the reader will find ample gratification in the elaborate life lately published by Mr. Archdeacon Churton. It concerns a long period of our ecclesiastical history, and in every history indeed mention is made of Nowell’s eminent services in promoting and establishing the reformed religion. Endowed, says Mr. Churton, with excellent parts, he was soon distinguished by the progress he made in the schools of Oxford; where he devoted thirteen years, the flower of his life and the best time for improvement, to the cultivation of classical elegance and useful knowledge. His capacity for teaching, tried first in the shade of the university, became more conspicuous when he was placed at the head of the first seminary in the metropolis; and at the same time his talents as a preacher were witnessed and approved by some of the principal auditories of the realm. Attainments such as these, and a life that adorned them, rendered him a fit object for Bonner’s hatred; but Providence rescued him from the fangs of the tyger, in the very act of springing upon his prey. Retirement, suffering, and study, in the company of Jewell, Grindal, and Sandys, stimulated by the conversation and example of Peter Martyr, and other famed divines of Germany, returned him to his native land, with recruited vigour and increasing lustre, when the days of tyranny were overpast. Elizabeth, and her sage counsellor Burghley, placed him at once in an eminent situation among those of secondary rank in the church, and accumulated other preferments upon him; and would probably have advanced him to the episcopal bench, had not his real modesty, together with the consciousness of approaching old age, been known to have created in him a fixt determination not to be raised to a station of greater dignity which, however, all things considered, could scarcely, in his case, have been a sphere of greater usefulness. Near to his friend and patron, the excellently pious and prudent archbishop Parker, and not distant from the court, he was an able coadjutor to each and to alj, in bringing forward and perfecting, what they all had at heart, the restoration of true and pure religion.

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

This gentleman has often been confounded with Christopher Nugent, M. D. and F. R. S. who died Nov. 12, 1775, and whose daughter became the wife of the celebrated Edmund Burke. Sir John Hawkins says he was an ingenious, sensible, and learned man 1 of easy conversation, and elegant manners. Dr. Johnson had a high opinion of him, and always spoke of him in terms of great respect. We know of only one publication from his pen, which appeared ia 1753, an “Essay on the Hydrophobia.”

, one of a family' of physicians of considerable eminence, was born at Augsburgh, Oct. 17, 1524. When he had finished his medical studies under his father, a physician of Augsburgh, who died in 1572, and at the university, he soon became noted as a practitioner, and in 1564 was appointed inspector of the apothecaries, and perpetual vicar to the dean of the college of physicians. He died in 1605. He published a “Pharmacopoeia” in 1574, which continued to be reprinted as late as 1734; and “Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata a Pompeio M. ad Heraclium,” Strasburgh, 4to and folio. This is an excellent book of general reference, being a list of all the coins in every reign, digested into the years in which they were apparently struck. It was first printed in 1579, and again in 1600, which is the best edition. One afterwards published by Mezzabarba is not so highly valued, as this editor’s additions are of doubtful authority. Among Gesner’s letters is a learned “Epistola Graeca de Oxymeli helleborato, aiiisque ad rem medicam spectantibus,” written by Occo, who was an excellent Greek scholar.

, the most considerable of a family of learned men of thU name, originally of Saxony, was horn at Leipsic July 23, 1672. He was the son of John Olearius, professor of Greek and theology in that university, and the grandson of Godfrey Olearius, a learned Lutheran divine. From his earliest years he discovered a thirst for knowledge, and a capacity which enabled him to rm.ke a distinguished figure during his studies. When his academic course was completed, in his twenty-first year he went to Holland, and then to England, attracted by the reputation of the university of Oxford and the Bodleian library, to which he gained admittance, and pursued his learned inquiries there a year. On his return home he was appointed professor of Greek at Leipsic; and in 1708 succeeded to the theological chair. In 1709 he obtained a canonry at Meissen; was appointed inspector of the students maintained by the elector, and in 1714 assessor to the electoral and ducal consistory. He died Nov. 10, 1715, when only forty-three years of age. He was an able divine and philosopher, and particularly distinguished for a critical knowledge of the Greek language. Among his works are, I.-“Dissertatio de miraculo Piscinae Bethesdae,” Leipsic, 1706, 4to. 2 “Dissert, de adoratione Dei Patris per Jesum Christum,” ibid. 1709, 4to, against the Socinians. 3. “Introduction to the Roman and German history, from the foundation of Rome to the year 1699,” ibid. 1699, 8vo, in German. 4. A Latin translation of sir Peter King’s “History of the Apostles’ Creed,” 1708, 8vo. 5. An edition, reckoned the best, of “Philostratus,” Gr. & Lat. Leipsic, 1709, fol. 6. A translation of Stanley’s “History of Philosophy,” ibid. 1712, 4to, with valuable notes and corrections, which were consulted in the reprint of the original at London in 1743, 4to. 7 “Observationes sacrae in Evangelium Matthaei,” Leipsic, 1713, 4to. He left various Mss. 2

, a learned Portuguese Dominican of the sixteenth century, was born at Azambaja. In 1545 he attended the council of Trent, as Theologian from John III. king of Portugal. He refused a bishopric at his return; but consented to the appointment of inquisitor of the faith, and held the principal offices of the Dominican order in his province. He died in 1563. He has Jeft “Commentaries on the Pentateuch,” Lisbon, 1556, 1558$ 5 parts in one volume, fol. and on “Isaiah,” Paris, 1628, fol. from which it appears that he was an able Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar.

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

, so called, because he was bishop of that diocese in the twelfth century, was son of Leopold, marquis of Austria, and Agnes, daughter of the emperor Henry IV. He studied in the university at Paris, and retiring afterwards to the Cistertian monastery of Morimond in Burgundy, became abbot there. In 1138, he was made bishop of Frisingen, accompanied the emperor Conrad to the Holy Land, and died at Morimond, September 21, 1158, leaving a “Chronicle” in seven books, from the creation to. 1146. This work, which is principally to be consulted for the history of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, was continued to 1210, by Otho de St. Blaise. Otho of Frisingen, who was an able Aristotelian, also wrote a treatise on the end of the world, and on Anti-Christ, and two books of the “Life of the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa.” Each of these works may be found in the collections by Pistorius, Muratori, &c. and also separately.

, a learned French Jesuit, was born November 1, 1673, at Vignory, in Champagne. He was carefully educated at Langres, by an uncle, who was an ecclesiastic, and began his noviciate among the Jesuits in 1691, His uncle bequeathed him an annuity of 400 livres on condition of his residing either at Paris or Dijon. Accordingly he settled at Dijon, where he taught rhetoric fifteen years, and theology fifteen years more, with great applause. Besides Greek and Latin, he understood Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and English, and had particularly studied antiquities, both sacred and profane. Father Oudin undertook to write commentaries on the whole Bible, but could not finish them, being employed by father Francis Retz, general of his order, in a general history, or Bibliotheque of authors belonging to the Jesuits. This important work had been begun by father Ribadeneira, and carried on to 1618. Alegambe continued it to 1643, and Sotwel to 1673. Other Jesuits were afterwards successively employed to carry it on; but as they had published nothing, and only collected some undigested materials, it was thought that father Oudin would acquit himself better in the undertaking. The learned Jesuit did indeed apply himself to it with indefatigable ardour during the rest of his life, and drew up 1928 articles, but they still remain in ms. He died at Dijon, of a dropsy in his breast, April 28, 1752, aged seventy-nine. The principal among his printed works are, 1. An excellent little poem in Latin, which he wrote at the age of twenty-two, entitled “Somnia,” 8vo and 12mo; and some other poems in the same language, most of which are in “Poemata Didascalica,” 3 vols. 12mo; 2. Harangues in Latin, and several Dissertations on different literary subjects, printed in the abbe le Boeuf 's “Dissertations,” 3 vols. 12mo; 3. Some of the Lives of learned men in* Niceron’s “Memoires;” 4. A Memoir, 4to, “in answer to the Ordinance of M. the bishop of Auxerre,” September 18, 1725, against some propositions dictated by father le Moyne, a Jesuit; 5. “A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” 1743, 12mo, in Latin; 6. An edition of “Publius Syrus,” with notes, Dijon, 1734, 8vo, &C.

This he printed, among others, in 1606, at London; and the book, coming into the inquisitor’s hands at Rome, was put into the “Index Expurgatorius” on which the uncle struck him out of his will, and resolved to take no more notice of him. He often, however, experienced the kindness of his relation and countryman Williams, bishop of Lincoln, and lord keeper of the great seal, who contributed to support him several years during his life; and, after his death, which happened in 1622, erected a monument to his memory, with his bust in brass, crowned with laurel, on the pillar next to the consistory stairs at St. Paul’s cathedral, London, where he was interred. Under the bust was an epigram, intimating that his person was little as well as his fortune, and both less than his fame.

On the death of the rev. Joseph Caryl, in 1673, Dr. Owen was invited to succeed him in the charge of a very numerous congregation in Leadenhall- street, and as he had already a charge of the sme kind, the congregations agreed to unite. In the following year he published “A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit;” in 1677, his “Doctrine of Justification by Faith;” and in 1679, his “Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ;” all which, at least the genuine editions of them, are still in considerable request. Dr. Owen was in most of his works rather prolix, which has given rise to abridgments of some of them, but as these are executed sometimes by men not exactly according in his principles, little reliance can be placed on their accuracy. In his own days, we are told that his works procured him. the admiration and friendship of many persons of rank, who took great delight in his conversation. Among these are enumerated the earl of Orrery, the earl ofAnglesea, lord Willoughby of Parham, lord Wharton, lord Berkley, sir John Trevor, one of the principal secretaries of state, &c. Even Charles II. and the duke of York paid particular respect to him. It is said that when he was at Tunbridge, drinking the waters, the duke sent for him to his tent, and entered into a long conversation on the subject of nonconformity. The king went yet farther; for, after his return to London, his majesty conversed with him for the space of two hours together, and after assuring him of his favour and respect, told him he might have access to his person as often as he pleased; said that he was sensible of the wrong he had done to the dissenters; declared himself a friend to liberty of conscience, and concluded all by giving Dr. Owen a thousand guineas to distribute among those who had suffered most by the late severities. Whether the professions of the king and the duke were sincere or not, or whether this was an act of policy, or an involuntary respect paid to the talents and amiable private character of Dr. Owen, it appears that he was not afterwards molested in the exercise of his ministry.

, a learned English divine, was born in Derbyshire in 1625, and in 1641 was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1645, and according to his epitaph, seems to have been fellow of that college, as he was afterwards of Christ’s. In this last he took the degree of M. A. in 1649, and that of D. D. in 1660. His first preferment was in Lincolnshire, and he appears to have succeeded Dr. Josias Shute in the rectory of St. Mary Woolnoth, which he resigned in 1666. On July 30, 1669, he was installed archdeacon of Leicester, to which he was collated by Dr. William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln. In July 1670 he was also installed prebendary of Westminster, and was some time rector or minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He died August 23, 1679, aged fifty-four, and was interred in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin inscription. In this he is recorded as “a complete divine in all respects, a nervous and accurate writer, and an excellent and constant preacher.” It is also noticed that intense application to study brought on the stone, which at last proved fatal to him. He was an accomplished scholar in the Oriental languages, as appears by his excellent work “De Sacrifices,” Loud. 1677. This is divided into two books: in the first he treats of the origin of sacrifices; the places for sacrificing, and the tabernacle and temple of the Jews. His object is to defend the doctrine of vicarious punishment, and of piacular or expiatory sacrifices, in opposition to the Socinian notions. In the second book he treats of the priesthood of Christ; proves that Christ is a priest properly so called; that his sacrifice is an expiatory sacrifice, which takes away the sins of mankind; that his death is a vicarious punishment, or, that he suffered for, and in the stead of, sinful men, &c. &c. Some of his sermons having been surreptitiously printed, his relations selected twenty from his Mss. which were published by Dr. James Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Of these a second edition appeared in 1697, 8vo, with a preface by the editor, in which he gives a high character of Dr. Ovvtram. Baxter also speaks highly of him, Peck has published, in his “Desiderata,” a fragment of one of Dr. Owtram’s sermons.

Mr. Paciaudi was an excellent man: religious, disinterested, and cordial; and although not without personal vanity, and often chargeable with severity of criticism on his antagonists, was always kind and polite, beloved by the great, consulted by the learned, and esteemed by people of every description. He was intimately connected with the greatest literary men of his age, among whom, besides Caylus, it is sufficient to mention the illustrious Winkelmann, and the author of the Travels of Anacharsis, to whom he stood indebted for the academical honours which he received at Paris.

, a French Protestant divine, was born in 1626, and studied, with great success and approbation, at Saumur; after which he became minister of a place called Marchenoir in the province of Dunois. He was an able advocate against the popish party, as appears by his best work, against father Nicole, entitled “Examen du Livre qui porte pour titre, Prejugez legitimes centre les Calvinistes,” 2 vols. 1673, 12mo. Mosheim therefore very improperly places him in the class of those who explained the doctrines of Christianity in such a manner as to diminish the difference between the doctrines of the reformed and papal churches; since this work shews that few men. wrote at that time with more learning, zeal, and judgment against popery. Pajon, however, created some disturbance in the church, and became very unpopular, by explaining certain doctrines, concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the Arminian way, and had a controversy with Jurieu on this subject. The consequence was, that Pajon, who had been elected professor of divinity at Saumur, found it necessary to resign that office after which he resided at Orleans, as pastor, and died there Sept. 27, 1685, in the sixtieth year of his age. He left a great many works in manuscript; none of which have been printed, owing partly to his unpopularity, but, perhaps, principally to his two sons becoming Roman Catholics. A full account of his opinions may be seen in Mosheim, or in the first of our authorities.

, an eminent cardinal, was the son of the marquis Alexander Pallavicini and Frances Sforza, and born at Rome in 1607. Although the eldest son of his family, yet he chose the ecclesiastical life, and was very early made a bishop by pope Urban VIII. to whom his conduct was so acceptable, that he was appointed one of those prelates who assist in the assemblies called congregations at Rome. He was also received into the famous academy of the Humoristi, among whom he often sat in quality of president. He was likewise governor of Jesi, and afterwards of Orvietto and Camerino, under the above pontiff. But all these honours and preferments were insufficient to divert him from a design he had for some time formed of renouncing the world, and entering into the society of the Jesuits, where he was admitted in 1638. As soon as he had completed his noviciate he taught philosophy, and then theology. At length Innocent X. nominated him to examine into divers matters relating to the pontificate; and Alexander VII. created him a cardinal in 1657. This pope was an old friend of Pallavicino, who had been serviceable to him when he came to Rome with the name of Fabio Chigi. Pallavicino had even contributed to advance his temporal fortune, and had received him into the academy of the Humoristi; in gratitude for which, Chigi addressed to him some verses, printed in his book entitled “Philomathi Museb juveniles.” When Pallavicino obtained a place in the sacred college, he was also appointed at the same time examiner of the bishops; and he was afterwards a member of the congregation of the holy office, i. e. the inquisition, and of that of the council, &c. His promotion to the cardinalate wrought no change in his manner of life, which was devoted to study or to the duties of his office. He died in 1667, in his sixtieth year.

, a dissenting writer of the last century, was born in Southwark, where his father was an undertaker, and of the Calvinistic persuasion. Under whom he received his classical education is not known. In 1746 he began to attend lectures, for academical learning, under the rev. Dr. David Jennings, in Wellclose square, London. Soon after, leaving the academy, about 1752, he was, on the rev. James Read’s being incapacitated by growing disorders, chosen as assistant to officiate at the dissenting meeting in New Broad-street, in conjunction with Dr. Allen; and on the removal of the latter to Worcester, Mr. Palmer was ordained sole pastor of this congregation in 1759. He continued in this connection till 1780, when the society, greatly reduced in its numbers, was dissolved. For a great part of this time he filled the post of librarian, at Dr. Williams’s library, in Red- Cross-street. After the dissolution of his congregation he wholly left off preaching, and retired to Islington, where he lived privately till his death, on June 26, 1790, in the sixty-first year of his age. He married a lady of considerable property, and during the latter years of his life kept up but little connection with the dissenters. He was a man of considerable talents, and accounted a very sensible and rational preacher. His pulpit compositions were drawn up with much perspicuity, and delivered with propriety. He allowed himself great latitude in his religious sentiments, and was a determined enemy to any religious test whatever. Tests, indeed, must have been obnoxious to one who passed through all the accustomed deviations from Calvinism, in which he had been educated, to Socinianism.

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

, a learned scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Verona in 1529. He discovered an attachment to history and antiquities in his earliest years, and entered into the order of the Augustins. As soon as he had made profession, the general of his order sent him to Rome to complete his studies, and in 1553 he was appointed to instruct the novices. He then taught scholastic theology at Florence for some time, but his chief residence was at Rome, where he was patronized by cardinal Marcello Cervini, afterwards pope Marcel 1 us II. From thence he passed into the court of cardinal Alexander Farnese, with whom he travelled into Sicily in 1568, where he died in his thirty-ninth year. One of his first labours was an edition of the “Fasti Consulares,” first brought to light by Sigonius, which he published, illustrated with notes, at Venice in 1557. He published treatises also, “De Antiquis Romanorum Nominibus;” “De Principibus Romanis;” “De Republica;” “De Triumphis et Ludis Circensibus;” and “Topographia Romae.” These valuable works are founded in a great measure upon ancient inscriptions, of which he had collected and copied nearly three thousand. Some time after, this collection, which had come into the hands of cardinal Savelli, disappeared, and Maffei is of opinion that the collection published at Antwerp by Martin Sanctius, in 1588, and which served as a foundation for Gruterus’s great work, was in reality that of Panvinius. Panvinius was also a profound investigator of sacred or Christian antiquities, as appears by his works, “. De Ritu sepeliendi mortuos apud veteres Christianos” “De antiquo Ritu baptizandi Catechumenos;” “DePrimatu Pein;” “Chronicon Ecclesiasticum;” “De Episcopatibus Titulis, et Diaconis Cardinalium” “Annotationes et Supplementa ad Platinam de Vitis Pontificnm;” “De Septem pnrcipuis Urbis Romse Basilicis;” “De Bibliotheca Vaticana.” He had undertaken a general ecclesiastical history, for which he collected matter sufficient to fill six large -manuscript volumes, which are preserved in the Vatican. He wrote a chronicle of his own order, and a history of his native city, Verona, including an account of its antiquities, printed many years after his death.

When the French revolution took place, the national convention passed a decree by which Corsica was numbered among the departments of France, and entitled to all the privileges of the new constitution, and Paoli was induced, by the promising appearance of affairs, and the solicitations of the French assembly, to return to the island. Accordingly he resigned his pension from the English court, took a grateful leave of the country in which he had been so hospitably entertained, and in the month of April 1790, presented himself at the bar of the national assembly at Paris, together with the Corsican deputies. Soon after this he embarked for Corsica, where he was received with an extraordinary degree of attachment and respect. He was elected mayor of Bastia, commander-in-chief of the national guard, and president of the department; and, in short, he at once acquired more authority in the island, than before its subjugation by the French. He was, however, not quite contented; he was ambitious of seeing Corsica wholly independent, which, upon the execution of Louis XVI. was the prevailing wish of the Corsicans. The French convention, however, meant nothing less, and at length declared Paoli a traitor. On this he resolved upon an expedient which, though it was a renunciation of independence, promised to secure all the advantages of real liberty. This was an union of Corsica with the crown of Great Britain; after effecting which, he returned to England, having unfortunately lost all his property, by the failure of a mercantile house at Leghorn, and passed the remainder of his life in great privacy. He died in London, February. 5, 1807, in the eighty-first year of his age. Few foreigners, however distinguished, have been so much caressed in England as general Paoli. By living in habits of familiarity with men of letters, his name and exploits acquired high celebrity: and Goldsmith, Johnson, and many others, equally eminent in the literary world, although differing in almost every thing else, cordially united in his praise. On the continent his reputation was greatly respected: it was usual to compare Paoli to Timoleon and Epaminondas. He was unquestionably a great man; but it is the opinion of those who have enjoyed the opportunity of studying his character, that he was a politician rather than a soldier: that he shone more in council than inarms; and that the leading feature of his public conduct was a certain degree of Italian policy, which taught him to refine and speculate on every event.

, an Italian comic writer, born at Placentia, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was an author of some eminence in his time. His comedies have a certain character of originality, which still, in some degree, supports their credit. They are six in number, five in prose, and one in verse. The best edition is that printed at Venice, in 1560, in two small volumes, duodecimo. There is a volume of letters by him, entitled “Lettere Amorose di M. Girolamo Parabosco,” printed also at Venice in 154-5. These were republished in 1548, “con alcune Novelle e Rime” and there is a volume of “Rime” alone, printed by Giolito at Venice, in 1547, 8vo. He composed also, novels in the style of Boccacio and Bandelli, which were published at Venice in 1552, under the title of “I Diporti di M. Girolamo Parabosco,” and reprinted in 1558, 1564, 1586, and 1598, and lately inserted in the collection entitled “Novelliero Italiano,” 1791, 26 vols. 8vo, with the imprint of Londra for Livorno. The work consists of three days, or “Giornate;” the first and second of which comprise sixteen tales, and four curious questions. The third contains several “Motti,” or bon-mots, with a few madrigals, and other short poems. There is also a volume by him entitled “Oracolo,” the oracle, published at Venice, in 1551, in 4to. In this the author gives answers to twelve questions proposed in the beginning of the book; which answers are given and varied according to some rules laid down in the preface. It appears that Parabosco lived chiefly, if not entirely, at Venice, as all his books were published there. His “Diporti,” or Sports, open with a panegyric upon that city.

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

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

It must have been as the last effort of a desperate cause when he sent a “Discourse” to James, persuading him to embrace the protestant religion, with a “Letter” to the same purpose, which was printed at London in 1690, 4to. His works have but few readers at this day; and Swift observes, that “MarvelPs remarks on Parker continued to be read when the book which occasioned them was long ago sunk.” He left a son of his own name, who was an excellent scholar, and a man of singular modesty. He never took the oaths after the revolution. He married a bookseller’s daughter at Oxford, where he resided with a numerous family of children to support which he published some books, particularly, 1 “An English Translation of Tully de finibus, 1702,” 8vo, in the preface to which he has some animadversions upon Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding. 2. “An abridgment of the Ecclesiastic Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozornen, and Theotloret,” 1729. He also published a Latin manuscript of his father, containing the history of his own time, under this title, “Reverendi admodum in Christo patris Samuelis Parkeri episcopi de rebus sui temporis commentariorum libri quatuor,” 1726, 8vo, of which,' two English translations were afterwards published, one by the rev. Thomas Newlin, fellow of Magdalen college. But Mr. Parker’s last and greatest work was entitled “Bibliotheca Biblica,” printed at Oxford in 5 vols. 4to, the first of which appeared in two parts in 1720, and the fifth in 1735, with an account of the other writings of the author, and some particulars of his life, drawn up by Dr. Thomas Haywood, of St. John’s college, to whom were attributed most of the dissertations in the work. He describes it as “being a new Comment upon the five Books of Moses, extracted from the ancient fathers, and the most famous critics both ancient and modern, with occasional annotations or dissertations upon particular difficulties, as they were often called for.” Mr. Parker died July 14, 1730, in his fiftieth year, leaving a widow and children. The metrical paraphrase of Leviticus xi. 13, &c. in vol. Hi. was written by Mr. Warton, of Magdalen college, father to the late learned brothers, Joseph and Thomas Warton; and the “Fragment of Hyppolitus, taken out of two Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian,” in the fourth vol. was translated by the late Dr. Hunt. Mr. Parker never was in orders, as he could not reconcile his mind to the new government; but he associated much and was highly respected by many divines, particularly nonjurors, as Dr. Hickes, Mr. Collier, Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Nelson, and Dr. Grabe, whose liberality lessened the difficulties which a very large family occasioned. He appears to have had a place in the Bodleian library, as Mr. Wheatly, in a letter to Dr. Rawlinson, dated Dec. 1739, says, “Sam. Parker’s son I had heard before was apprenticed to Mr. Clements: but the account you give me of his extraordinary proficiency is new. If it be true also, I hope some generous patron of learning will recall him from the bookseller’s shop, and place him in his father’s seat, the Bodleian library.” This son, Sackville Parker, was afterwards for many years an eminent bookseller at Oxford, and one of the four Octogenarian booksellers, who died in 1795 and 1796, namely, James Fletcher, at eighty-six; Sackville Parker, at eightynine; Stephen Fletcher, at eighty -two, and Daniel Prince, at eighty-five. They were all born at Oxford, except James Fletcher. The present worthy bookseller, Mr. Joseph Parker, is nephew and successor to Mr. Sackville Parker.

, a learned Frenchman, was born in 1528 at Paris; of which city he was an advocate in parliament, afterwards a counsellor, and at last advocate-general in the chamber of accounts. He pleaded many years with very great success before the parliament, where he was almost constantly retained in the most difficult causes, and every day consulted as an oracle. He did not, however, confine his studies to the law; but was esteemed a general scholar. Henry III. gave him the, post of advocate of the chamber of accounts, which he filled with his usual reputation, and resigned it some time after to Theodore Paquier, his eldest son. He was naturally beneficent and generous; agreeable and easy in conversation his manner sweet, and his temper pleasant. He died at Paris, at the advanced age of eighty -seven, Aug. 31, 1615, and was interred in the church of St, Severin.

, a celebrated professor of eloquence in the royal college at Paris, and one of the politest writers of his time, was born Oct. 18, 1534, atTroyes in Champagne. His uncle, who undertook to educate him, placed him at the college of his native city, where some harsh conduct of his master induced him to run away. Arriving at Bourges, he entered first into the service of a farrier, and afterwards waited upon a monk; but, growing in time sagacious enough to see his folly, he returned to his uncle, who pardoned him, and maintained him for three years at college, where he proceeded in his studies with so much diligence, that he became in a short time able to teach irv public. In that capacity his first post was master of the second class in the college of Du Plessis, from which he removed to that of cardinal Le Moine but being obliged to retire for some time from Paris on account of the plague, on his return he engaged in the business of teaching Latin. At length he took up a resolution to study the law; for which purpose he went to Bourges, and spent three years under Cujacius; but at last became professor of eloquence, having obtained that chair in 1572, on the vacancy which happened by the assassination of Ramus. In the discharge of this post he grew so eminent, that the most learned men of the time, and the counsellors of the supreme courts at Paris, went to hear his lectures. He was an indefatigable student, passing frequently whole days without taking any food; yet to an extraordinary erudition he joined an uncommon politeness of manners, having nothing of the mere scholar, except the gown and hood. These accomplishments brought him acquainted with all the people of quality but he contracted an intimacy only with M. de Mesmes, in whose house he lived for thirty years, till his death, which was occasioned by a palsy, Sept. 14, 1602.

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

, a French physician, wit, and free-thinker, was born Aug. 31, 1601, at Hodenc en Bray, a village jiear Beauvais. He appears to have been at first a corrector of the press at Paris, and in that capacity was noticed by the celebrated Riolan, who became his friend and adviser; and Patin having applied to the study of medicine, acquitted himself so ably in all his academic trials, that he received the degree of doctor in the Paris school of medicine in 1627. in this city he began practice, but became more noted for his wit and humour, both of the most sarcastic kind, while he laid himself open to the wit of others by the peculiarity of his opinions, by his censure of every thing modern, and his utter aversion to all improvement in medicine. Notwithstanding these singularities, his entertaining conversation procured him access to many families of distinction; and the president Lamoignon often diverted the cares of his professional life by the sallies and bon-mots of Patin.' Patin was an excellent Latin scholar, and expressed himself with such elegance in that language, that all Paris flocked to his theses as to a comedy. Some fancied he had the air and countenance of Cicero, but he won more upon them by having the disposition of Rabelais.

In 1661, he was elected, by a majority of the fellows, master of Queen’s college, in opposition to a royal mandamus, appointing Mr. Anthony Sparrow for that place; but the affair being brought before the king and council, was soon decided in favour of Mr. Sparrow; and some of the fellows, if not all, who had sided with Patrick, were ejected. His next preferment was the rectory of St. Paul’s, Covent- Garden, London, *in room of the celebrated nonconformist, Dr. Manton. This was given him by William earl of Bedford, in 1662. He endeared himself much to the parishioners by instruction and example, and particularly by continuing all the while among them during the plague in 1665. It is said further, that, out of a special regard to them, he refused the archdeaconry of Huntingdon. His remaining in London, however, during the plague was an instance of pious heroism which ought not to be slightly passed over. He was not indeed the only clergyman who remained at his post on this occasion; but their number was not great. We shall now present our readers with a few extracts from some letters which he wrote to his friends who importuned him to leave London, as they give a more faithful and pleasing picture of his real character than is elsewhere to be found.

, a polite scholar, and memorable for being one of the first polishers and refiners of the French language, was born in 1604 at Paris, where his father was procurator to the parliament. After studying the law, and being received an advocate, he went into Italy; and, on his return to Paris, frequented the bar. “He was the first,” says Voltaire, “who introduced correctness and purity of language in pleadings.” He obtained the reputation of a most exact speaker and excellent writer, and was esteemed so perfectly knowing in grammar and in his own language, that all his decisions were submitted to as oracles. Vaugelas, the famous grammarian, to whom the French language was greatly indebted, for much of its perfection, confesses that he learned much from Patru and Boileau applied to him to review his works, and used to protit by his opinion. Patru was an extremely rigid censor, though just; and when Racine made some observations upon the works of Boileau a little too subtle and refined, Boileau, instead of the Latin proverb, “Ne sis mihi patruus,” “Do not treat me with the severity of an uncle,” replied, “Ne sis mihi Patru,” “Do not treat me with the severity of Patru.”

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

"In 1748 the bishopric of Bangor became vacant. The dean was then at Winchester, and received there a letter from Mr. Clark (afterwards sir Thomas, and master of the rolls) informing him, that lord chancellor Hardwicke wished to see dean Pearce thought of on that occasion, and that he hoped the dean would answer Mr. Clarke’s letter in such a way, as when seen, might be approved of by the ministry. Dean Pearce answered the letter with acknowledgment of the favour thought of for him; but assuring Mr. Clark, who, as he perceived, was to communicate the answer to lord Hardwicke, that he had long had no thoughts of desiring a bishopric, and that he was fully satisfied with his situation in the church and that as to the ministry, he was always used to think as favourably of them as they could wish him to do, having never opposed any of the public measures, nor designing so to do. In truth, the dean had then fixed upon a resolution to act no otherwise than as he had told the archbishop he should do, upon his father’s death. The dean received no answer to this letter written to Mr. Clark, and he thought that there was an end of that matter.

Our prelate was reckoned an excellent preacher, very judicious and learned, particularly accurate and exact in chronology, and well versed in the fathers and the ecclesiastical historians. Dr. Bentley used to say that bishop Pearson’s “very dross was gold.” In bishop Burnet’s opinion he “was in all respects the greatest divine of his age.” Bishop Huet also, to whom he communicated various readings on some parts of Origen’s works, gives him a high character. But, as Burnet reminds us, he was an affecting instance “of what a great man can fall to; for his memory went from him so entirely, that he became a child some years before he died.” He had a younger brother Richard, professor of civil law in Gresham college, and under-keeper of the royal library at St. James’s, of whom Ward gives some account, but there is nothing very interesting in his history.

1719, 8vo. 7. “An Answer to Mr. Enty’s Defence of the Assembly,” London, 1719, 8vo. 8. “The Western Inquisition,” London, 1720, 8vo. 9. “The Security of Truth, in answer to Mr. Enty,” London, 1721, 8vo. 10. “Inquisition-honesty displayed,” London, 1722, 8vo. On the doctrine of the Trinity he published, 1. “A Letter to a Dissenter in Exeter,” London, 1719, 8vo. 2. “Plain Christianity defended,” in four parts, London, 1719, 1720, 8vo. 3. “Thirteen Queries propounded to the Rev. Mr. Walrond, in an appendix to the Innocent vindicated,” London, 1719, 8vo. There was an Answer to these queries printed in 1721, under the title of “An Answer to some Queries printed at Exon, relating to the Arian Controversy,” and ascribed to Dr. Daniel Waterland. Mr. Peirce had some thoughts of writing a reply, but changing his purpose, Mr. Joseph Hallet, jun. wrote a defence of then), printed at London in 1736, 8vo, with this title: “The Truth and Importance of the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation demonstrated: in a defence of the late learned Mr. Peirce’s thirteen Queries, and a Reply to Dr. W 's, and a gentleman’s Answer to them,” &c. 4. “Propositions relating to the Controversy concerning the Trinity, in a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Enty,” London, 1720, 8vo. 5. “An Answer to a pamphlet, entitled Textf of Holy Scripture compared, &c.” London, 1721, 8vo. 6. “A Reply to Mr. Enty’s late piece, entitled Truth and Liberty consistent,” &c. London, 1721, 8vo. His most valuable works, however, are his commentaries on the Scripture: 1. “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians. With an Appendix upon Ephes. iv. 8.” London, 1725, 4to. 2. “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians,” Loud. 1725, 4to. 3. “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the, Hebrews,” 1727, 4to. Theological: 1. “An essay in favour of giving the Eucharist to Children,” 1728, 8vo. 2. “Fifteen Sermons, and a Scripture Catechism,” 1728, 8vo.

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

"The character of Dr. Percival was in every way calculated to secure for him that eminence in his profession, and that general respect, esteem, and attachment, which he every where obtained. A q:iick penetration, a discriminating judgment, a patient attention, a comprehensive knowledge, and, above all, a solemn sense of responsibility, were the endowments which so conspicuously fitted him at once to discharge the duties, and to extend the boundaries, of the healing art; and his external accomplishments and manners were alike happily adapted to the offices of his profession. In social discussion, he possessed powers of a very uncommon stamp, combining the accuracy of science, and the strictest precision of method, with the graces of a copious and unstudied elocution; and to these was superadded the polish of a refined urbanity, the joint result of innate benevolence, and of early and habitual intercourse with the most improved classes of society. In few words, he was an author without vanity, a philosopher without pride, a scholar without pedantry, and a Christian without guile. Affable in his manners, courteous in his conversation, dignified in his deportment, cheerful in his temper, warm in his affections, steady in his friendships, mild in his resentments, and unshaken in his principles; the grand object of his life was usefulness, and the grand spring of all his actions was religion.

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

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

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

Steele was also an admirer of Philips’s “Pastorals,” which had then obtained a great number of readers; and was about to form a critical comparison of Pope’s Pastorals with those of Philips, with a view of giving the preference to the latter. Pope, apprized of Steele’s design, and always jealous of his own reputation, contrived the most artful method to defeat it; vvhiqh was, by writing a paper for the Guardian, No. 40, after several others had been employed there on pastoral poetry, upon the merits. of Philips and himself; and so ordering it, as that himself was found the better versifier, while Philips was preferred as the best Arcadian. Upon the publication of this paper, the enemies of Pope exulted to see him placed below Philips in a species of poetry upon which he was supposed to value himself; but were extremely mortified soon after to find that Pope himself was the real author of the paper, and that the whole criticism was an irony. The next work Philips published, according to the common account, was “The Life of John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Bishop of Lincoln, and Archbishop of York, in the reigns of James and Charles I.” He is supposed to have undertaken this, for the sake of making known his political principles, which were those of the Whigs. But we doubt whether this, which was published in 1700, was not prior to the publication of his pastorals.

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

His works were first published in Greek by Turnebus, at Paris, in 1552; to which a Latin translation, made by Geleoius, was added in 1561, and printed several times with it. The Paris edition of 1640, in folio, was the best thai was published for a whole century; which made Cotelenus say, that “Philo was an author that deserved to have a better text and a better version.” This was accomplished in 1742, in a handsome edition published at London, by Dr. Mangey, in 2 vols. folio.

, an English painter, who flourished in the reigns of Charles I. and II. was eminent both in history and landscapes. He also drew architecture, perspective, &c. and was much esteemed in his time. But there is little of his work now remaining, the far greater part being destroyed in the fire of London, in 1666. It chiefly consisted of altar-pieces, ceilings of churches, and the like; of which last sort there was one lately remaining, in Covent-garden church, in which were many admirable qualities of a good pencil. He worked some time for Vandyke; and several pieces of his performing are to be seen at Belvoir castle in Leicestershire. He died in London about fifty years ago, leaving behind him three sons, who all became famous in their different ways. One was an excellent sculptor, as appears by a noble marble vase, executed by him, at Hampton-court, the statues of sir Thomas Gresham and Edward III. at the Royal Exchange, and of sir William Walworth at Fishmongers’-hatl; and the busts of Thomas Evans in Painters’-hall, and of sir Christopher Wren in the picture-gallery at Oxford, &c.

, a very celebrated architect and engraver, was a native of Venice, but resident for the greater part of his life at Rome. The time of his hirth is not known here, but it must have been about1711. He was remarkable for a bold and free style of etching; which, in general, he drew upon the plate at once, without any, or with very little previous sketch. He worked with such rapidity and diligence, that the magnitude and number of his plates almost exceed belief; and they are executed with a spirit and genius which are altogether peculiar to hi Ib. The earliest of his works appear to have been published in 1743, and consist of designs invented by himself, in a very grand style; with views of ruins, chiefly the work of imagination, and strongly characterizing the magnificence of his ideas. These are sometimes found in a volume, collected by Bourchard, in 1750: with views of Roman antiquities, not in Rome, among which are several of Pola, in Istria. The dedication to these views is dated 1748. Considering these as forming his first work, we may enumerate the rest from a catalogue print, published by himself many years after. 2. “Antichita Romane,” or Roman Antiquities, comprised in 218 plates of atlas paper, commencing by a topographical view of ancient Rome, made out from the fragments of a most curious antique plan of that city, found in the pavement of the temple of Romulus, and now preserved in the Museum at the Capitol. These, with the descriptions in Italian, form four volumes in folio. 3. “Fasti consulares triumphalesque Romanorum, ab urbe condita, usque ad Tiherium Csesarem.” 4. “Del Castello dell' acqua Giulia, e della maniera in cui anticamente si concedevano e distribuivano le acque,” 21 folio plates. 5. “Antichita d'Albano, e di Castel Gandolfo,” 55 plates. 6. “Campus Martins Antique urbis,” with descriptions in Italian and Latin, 54 plates. 7. “Arcbi trionfali antichi, Tempi, ed Anfiteatri, esistenti in Roma, ed in altre parti d'ltalia,” 31. plates. 8. “Tro.fei d'Ottaviano Augusto,” &c. 10 plates. 0. “Delia Magnificenza ed Architettura de' Romani,” 44 plates, with above 200 pages of letter- press, in Italian and Latin. This great work appears to have been occasioned, in great measure, by some dialogues published in London in 1755, but now forgotten here, and entitled, “The Investigator.” These, containing many foolish calumnies against the ancient Romans, had been interpreted to Piranesi, and inflamed his ardent spirit to this mode of vindication. 10. “Architetture diverse,” 27 plates. 11.“Carceri d'inventione,” 16 plates, full of the most wild, but picturesque conceptions. 12. About 130 separate views of Rome, in its present state; in the grandest style of design, and the boldest manner of etching. Besides these, there is also extant, in very few hands (as it was not published, but only given to particular friends), a small work of this author, containing letters of justification to lord Charlemont; in which he assigns the reasons why he did not dedicate his Roman antiquities to that nobleman, as had been intended. Piranesi here appears extremely irritated against his lordship, and his agents, for neglect and ill-treatment; but the most curious part of the work is, that he has taken the pains to etch, in a small quarto size, and with the utmost neatness, yet with all his accustomed freedom, exact copies of the four original frontispieces, in which the name of his intended patron was to hare been immortalized: with views of the inscriptions reengraved as they now stand; as if the first inscriptions had been cut out of the stones, and the new ones inserted on small pieces let into them, as the ancients sometimes practised. In this form they still remain in his frontispieces; a peculiarity which would not be understood without this key. There are also head-pieces and tail-pieces, all full of imagination, and alluding to the matters and persons involved in the dispute. This work is dated in 1757. Piranesi was well known to most of the English artists who Studied at Rome; among others, to Mr. Mylne, the architect of Blackfriars-bridge, with whom he corresponded for several years, and for whom he engraved a fine view of that structure, in its unfinished state; representing, with precision, the parts subservient to its construction; such as the centres of the arches, &c. for the sake of preserving a memorial of them. Some of his works are dedicated to another British architect, Robert Adam; and as Piranesi was an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries in, London, he always carefully subjoined that title to his name. He was also a member of the academy of the Arcadi, by the name of Salcindio Tiseio. as he has given it in one of his frontispieces, according to the fantastic custom of that society, of giving new names to the persons admitted. All who knew him agree that he was of a fiery and impetuous temper, but full of genius. He left a son, who has been employed in a diplomatic line. The exact time of his death we have not been able to learn; but it is supposed to have happened in or near the year 1780. Pijanesi has been accused, and not without reason, of suffering his imagination to embellish even the designs that were given as real views. He was employed, as an architect, to ornament a part of the priory of Malta, in Rome; in which place his son has erected a statue of him. It is thus mentioned by baron Stolberg, in his Travels: “Here is a fine statue of the architect Piranesi, as large as life, placed there by his son. It is the work of the living artist Angolini; and though it certainly cannot be compared with the best antiques, it still possesses real merit.” His portrait, engraved by Polanzani, in 1750, is in the style of a mutilated statue, and is very spirited. It is prefixed to some of his works.

The principal outlines of lord Chatham’s character, sagacity, promptitude, and energy, will be perceived in the foregoing narrative. The peculiar powers of his eloquence have been characterized since his death in language which will convey a forcible idea of it to every reader. “They who have been witnesses to the wonders of his eloquence, who have listened to the music of his voice, or trembled at its majesty; who have seen the persuasive gracefulness of his action, or have felt its force; they who have caught the flame of eloquence from his eye, who have rejoiced in the glories of his countenance, or shrunk from his frowns, will remember the resistless power with which he impressed conviction. But to those who have never seen or heard this accomplished orator, the utmost effort of imagination will be necessary, to form a just idea of that combination of excellence, which gave perfection to his eloquence. His elevated aspect, commanding the awe and mute attention of all who beheld him, while a certain grace in his manner, arising from a consciousness of the dignity of his situation, of the solemn scene in which he acted, as well as of his own exalted character, seemed to acknowledge and repay the respect which he received.—This extraordinary personal dignity, supported on the basis of his well-earned fame, at once acquired to his opinions an assent, which is slowly given to the arguments of other men. His assertions rose into proof, his foresight became prophecy.—No clue was necessary to the labyrinth illuminated by his genius. Truth came forth at his bidding, and realised the wish of the philosopher: she was seen, and beloved.”—We have omitted some parts of this spirited character because not written with equal judgment: but the result of the whole is, that while he sought, with indefatigable diligence, the best and purest sources of political information, he had a mind which threw new lights upon every topic, and directed him with more certainty than any adventitious aid. Another account of his extraordinary powers, more concise, but drawn with wonderful spirit, is attributed to the pen of Mr. Wilkes. “He was born an orator, and from nature possessed every outward requisite to bespeak respect, and even awe. A manly figure, with the eagle eye of the famous Condé, fixed your attention, and almost commanded reverence the moment he appeared; and the keen lightnings of his eye spoke the high spirit of his soul, before his lips had pronounced a syllable. There was a kind of fascination in his look when he eyed any one askance. Nothing could withstand the force of that contagion. The fluent Murray has faultered, and even Fox (afterwards lord Holland) shrunk back appalled, from an adversary, ‘ fraught with fire unquenchable,’ if I may borrow the expression of our great Milton. He had not the correctness of language so striking in the great Roman orator (we may add, and in his son), but he had the verba ardentia, the bold glowing words.”—Lord Chesterfield has given a more general picture of his character, in the following words: “Mr. Pitt owed his rise to the most considerable post and power in this kingdom, singly to his own abilities. In him they supplied the want of birth and fortune, which latter, in others too often supply the want of the former. He was a younger brother, of a very new family, and his fortune was only an annuity of one hundred pounds a-year. The army was his original destination, and a cornetcy of horse his first and only commission in it. Thus unassisted by favour or fortune, he had no powerful protector to introduce him into business, and (if I may use that expression) to do the honours of his parts; but their own strength was fully sufficient. His constitution refused him the usual pleasures, and his genius forbid him the idle dissipations of youth; for so early as at the age of sixteen he was the martyr of an hereditary gout. He therefore employed the leisure which that tedious and painful distemper either procured or allowed him, in acquiring a great fund of premature and useful knowledge. Thus by the unaccountable relation of causes and effects, what seemed the greatest misfortune of his life, was perhaps the principal cause of its splendor. His private life was stained by no vice, nor sullied by any meanness. All his sentiments were liberal and elevated. His ruling passion was an unbounded ambition, which, when supported by great abilities, and crowned with great success, makes what the world calls a great man. He was haughty, imperious, impatient of contradiction, and overbearing; qualities which too often accompany, but always clog great ones. He had manners and address, but one might discover through them too great a consciousness of his own superior talents. He was a most agreeable and lively companion in social life, and had such a versatility of wit, that he would adapt it to all sorts of conversation. He had also a most happy turn to poetry, but he seldom indulged, and seldom avowed it. He came young into parliament, and upon that theatre he soon equalled the oldest and the ablest actors. His eloquence was of every kind, and he excelled in the argumentative, as well as in the declamatory way. But his invectives were terrible, and uttered with such energy of diction, and such dignity of action and countenance, that he intimidated those who were the most willing and best able to encounter him. Their arms fell out of their hands, and they shrunk under the ascendant which his genius gained over theirs.” As a proof of this wonderful power, it is related that sir Robert Walpole scarcely heard the sound of his voice in the House of Commons, when he was alarmed and thunder-struck. He told his friends, that he would be glad at any rate, “to muzzle that terrible cornet of horse.” That minister would have promoted his rise in the army, if he would have given up his seat in the house.

, a man of taste in various pursuits, but chiefly known as an engraver, was the son of Mr. Rowland Place, of Dinsdale, in the county of Durham. He was at first intended for the law, and was placed as a clerk to an attorney in London, with whom he resided until 1665, when a house he had taken being shut up on account of the plague, he left London and quitted his profession at the same time. He now turned projector, and expended considerable sums of money in attempting to make porcelaine, which he put in practice at the manor-­house of York. In this it is probable he had not due perseverance; for one Clifton, of Pontefract, took the hint from him, and realized a fortune. Who was his teacher as an artist is not known, and his works are very rare, for he painted, drew, etched, and engraved, merely for his own amusement; and as his productions prove him a man of great abilities, it is to be lamented that he had not equal application, and left many valuable designs unfinished. In the reign of Charles II. it is said he was offered a pension of 500l. to draw the royal navy, but he refused this sum, large as it then was, from a dislike of confinement and dependence. He died in 1728, and his widow, on quitting the manor-house at York, disposed of his paintings; among which was an admired picture of fowls, others of fishes and flowers unfinished, together with his own portrait by himself. He left behind him a daughter, who was married to Wadham Wyndham, esq. This lady was living in 1764.

The restoration having been at last accomplished, Mr. Pocock was, in June 1660, replaced in, his canonry of Christ church, as originally annexed to the Hebrew professorship by Charles I. and on Sept. 20 took his degree of D. D. In the same year he was enabled by the liberality of Mr. Boyle, to print his Arabic translation of Grotius on the Truth of the Christian religion, which, we have already mentioned, he undertook with the full approbation of the author. His next publication, in 1661, was an Arabic poem entitled “Lamiato'l Ajam, or Carmen Abu Ismaelis Tograi,” with his Latin translation of it, and large notes upon it, with a preface by the learned Samuel Clarke, architypographus to the university, who had the care of the press, and contributed a treatise of his own on the Arabic prosody. This poem is held to be of the greatest elegance, answerable to the fame of its author, who, as Dr. Pocock gives his character, was eminent for learning and virtue, and esteemed the Phoenix of the age in which he lived, for poetry and eloquence. The doctor’s design in this work was, not only to give a specimen of Arabian poetry, but also to make the attainment of the Arabic tongue more easy to those who study it; and his notes, containing a grammatical explanation of all the words of this author, were unquestionably serviceable for promoting the knowledge of that language. These notes bei-ng the sum of many lectures, which, he read on -this poem, the speech, which he delivered, when entering on his office, is prefixed to it, and contains a succinct, but very accurate account of the Arabic tongue.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.

From this time, instead of lectures, it is said he turned his thoughts to publication; but before this, he had been a contributor to some of the literary journals, of articles which displayed his critical acumen. In the 3d vol. of Maty’s Review, he published a criticism on Schutz’s JEschylus“, dated from Trinity college, May 29, 1783. His other criticisms in that Review are, Brunck’s Aristophanes, vol. IV. Hermesianax, by Weston, vol. V. Huntingford’s Apology for” his Monostrophics, vol. VI. He also furnished Mr. Maty with a transcript of the letters of Bentley and Le Cierc, vol, IX. p. 253. He was an occasional contributor to the Monthly Review, the Gentleman’s Magazine, and, it is believed, to other publications. The account of Robertson’s Parian Chronicle, inthe Monthly Review, was written by him; and the review of Knight’s Essay on the Greek Alphabet, January 1. 1794, has, from internal evidence, been given to him. Of the ironical defence of Sir John Hawkinses Life of Johnson he was unquestionably the writer: this was comprised in three humourous letters inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1787, under the signature of Sundry Whereof. Some letters upon the contested verse, 1 John, v. 7, appeared subsequently in the same work; which at lengtn caused the publication of his letters to Archdeacon Travis, in which he is thought by many to have completely invalidated the authority of that much-disputed text. Not long after he had taken his first degree, it was in the contemplation of the syndics of the university press at Cambridge to publish Æschylus, with Stanley’s commentaries, in ms. in the public library of that university. Mr. Porson offered to undertake the work, if allowed to conduct it according to his own ideas of the duty of an editor but this offer was rejected, and in a manner so discouraging, that we are told it in a great measure operated, for a short period, to extinguish in him that ardent love of fame which is, generally speaking, the concomitant of learning and the emanation of genius. We shall find hereafter how much he had at heart the elucidation of this very difficult author, and in the mean time he was not reluctant to employ his pen in similar undertakings. In 1785, when Nicholson, the bookseller of Cambridge, was preparing a new edition of Xenophon’s ft Anabasis," he prevailed upon Mr. Porson to furnish him with some assistance, which he accordingly did to the extent of twenty-eight pages of addenda, which, although avowedly written in hatete, attest the hand of a master. In the year 1787, he communicated to the delegates of the Clarendon press some notes upon Toup’s Emendations on Suidas, which appeared with that important work in 1790. These notes were probably composed by him at the request of his friend Mr. Tyrwhitt; a gentleman of whose learning and genius he had the highest opinion, and not only used to mention the talents and acuteness of Mr. T. with approbation, but with reverence.

“The principal qualities,” says one of his biographers, * c in this great man’s mind, were his extraordinary acuteness of discernment, and solidity of judgment; and these, added to his intense application and stupendous memory, made him what the world, perhaps, never saw before, a complete critic, in the most honourable and extended sense of that appellation. His reading was immense: he was an excellent French scholar; but in his native language, in the Latin, and in the Greek, he was most familiarly and profoundly versed. He had, indeed, applied the knowledge which he had gained of the origin and structure of language in general, to all these dialects, if we may so express ourselves, of the universal language; and had not his eminence in classical literature, by its uncommon lustre, obscured other attainments, he would doubtless have been considered as one of the first English scholars. In Greek, however, we have no hesitation in pronouncing him the very first, not merely of his own age, but of every other. In him were conspicuous boundless extent of reading, a most exact and well-ordered memory unwearied patience in unravelling the sense of an author, and exploring the perplexities of a manuscript; perspicacity in discovering the corruptions of a text, and acuteness almost intuitive, in restoring the true reading. All this was tempered with a judgment which preserved him invariably from the rocks against which even the greatest of his critical predecessors have at some time or other split we mean precipitation in determining that to be unsound, which after all had no defect and rashness in applying remedies which only served to increase the disease." On the failings of this eminent man we have but gently touched: there is reason to think they have been exaggerated by vulgar report. Whatever they were, it is to his credit, that they who knew him most intimately, were most disposed to forget them in the splendour of his uncommon talents.

Mr. Porson left a sister, a most amiable and accomplished woman, the wife of Siday Hawes, esq. of Coltishall, Norfolk. Henry, his second brother, was settled in ti farm in Essex, and died young, leaving three children. His brother Thomas, the companion of his juvenile studies, was an excellent scholar he kept a boarding-school at Fakenham, and died in 1792 without issue. His father, Mr. Huggin Porson, died in 1805, in his seventy-fourth year. His mother died in 1784, aged fifty-seven.

, a dissenting divine, but more justly eminent as a philosopher, was born March 18, 1733, at Field-head, near Leeds. His father, a clothier, was a dissenter of the Calviriistic persuasion. In his youth he was adopted by an aunt, who provided for his education in several schools, in which he acquired some knowledge of the learned languages, particularly Hebrew. Being intended for the ministry, he went, in 1752, to Dr. Ash worth’s dissenting academy, at Daventry, whore he spent three years, and came out from it an adherent to the Arian system. Here too he became acquainted with Hartley’s Works, to whose opinions he was afterwards very partial. He first settled as a minister at Needham-market, in Suffolk and, after three years’ residence, removed' to Namptwich in Cheshire. Here he also kept a school, and, to the more common objects of instruction, added experiments in natural philosophy, to which he had already become attached. His first publication was, an “English Grammar,” printed in 1761, in which he pointed out errors in Hume’s language, which that author had the candour to rectify in his future editions of his celebrated history.

“To enumerate,” says Mr. Kirwan, “Dr. Priestley’s discoveries, would in fact be to enter into a detail of most of those that have been made within the last fifteen years. How many invisible fluids, whose existence evaded the sagacity of foregoing ages, has he made known to us The very air we breathe he has taught us to analyse, to examine, to improve a substance so little known, that even the precise effect of respiration was an enigma, until he explained it. He first made known to us the proper food of vegetables, and in what the difference between these and animal substances consisted. To him pharmacy is indebted for the method of making artificial mineral waters, as well as for a shorter method of preparing other medicines metallurgy for more powerful and cheap solvents; and chemistry for such a variety of discoveries as it would be tedious to recite discoveries which have new-modelled that science, and drawn to it, and to this country, the attention of all Europe. It is certain, that, since the year 1773, the eyes and regards of all the learned bodies in Europe have been, directed to this country by his means. In every philosophical treatise his name is to be found, and in almost every page. They all own that most of their discoveries are due either to the repetition of his discoveries, or to the hints scattered through his works.”

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

, an ancient Latin author, who gained great fame by his comic pieces called “Mimes,” is supposed from his name to have been a Syrian by birth. Having been made a slave and brought to Rome when young, he there obtained his liberty by his merit; and proved so excellent a composer of Mimes, that the Romans preferred him to the best of their own or the Greek dramatic writers. Julius Caesar first established his reputation, and gave him the 1 prize of poetry against Laberius, who was an eminent writer in that style, and contended with Syrus for it. He continued to flourish many years under Augustus. Cassius Severus was a professed admirer of him, and the two Senecas speak of him with the highest encomiums. Many moderns, and particularly the Scaligers, have launched out very much in his praise. They say, he stripped Greece of all her wit, fine turns, and agreeable raillery and that his “Sentential include the substance of the doctrine of the wisest philosophers. These” Sentences“were extracted from his mimic pieces some time under the Antonines, as the best editors say. They are generally 'printed with the” Fables of Phaedrus,“and are subjoined to thejn by Dr. Bentley, at the end of his edition of” Terence," in 1726, 4to. There is also a separate edition of them by Gruter, with copious notes, Leyden, 1708, 8vo.

Soon afterwards, Dr. Pulteney was acknowledged as a relation by the earl of Bath, who had imbibed a favourable opinion of his talents which circumstances induced him to attach himself to that nobleman as travelling physician. His lordship unfortunately died soon after, on which the subject of our memoir, becoming at a loss for a situation, hesitated whether to settle at London or elsewhere but he soon, decided in favour of Blandford, in Dorsetshire, where there happened to be a vacancy. Here he continued in great reputation, and extensive practice, till his death, which happened on the 13th of October 1801, to the deep regret of all who knew him, in the 72d year of his age. His disease was an inflammation in the lungs, of only a week’s duration.

, a learned French historian, was the younger son of Claude Du Puy, an eminent French lawyer, who died in 1594, aijd who was celebrated by all the learned of his time in eloges, published collectively under the title of “Amplissimi viri Claudii Puteani Tumulus,” Paris, 1607, 4to. His son was born at Agen, Nov. 27, 1582, and was in early life distinguished for his proficiency in the languages, but principally for his knowledge of civil law and history. His talents produced Trim the esteem and friendship of the president De Thou, who was his relation, and of Nicholas Rigault and he was concerned in the publication of those editions of De Thou, which appeared in 1620 and 1626. When that great work met with opponents, he wrote, in concert with Rigault, a defence of it, entitled “Memoires et Instructions pour servir a justifier Pinnocence de messire Franc.ois-Auguste de Thou,” which was reprinted in 1734, at the end of the 15th volume of the French edition of the history. Our author was appointed successively counsellor to the king, and librarykeeper. Having accompanied Thumeri de Boissise, whom the king had sent on a political mission to the Netherlands and to Holland, he became acquainted, through his father’s reputation, with the learned men of those countries. On his return he was employed in researches respecting the king’s rights, and in making a catalogue of the charters. These scarce and valuable papers gave him so extensive an insight into every thing relative to the French history, that few persons have made such curious discoveries on the subject. He was also employed with Messrs. Lebret and Delorme, to defend his majesty’s rights over the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and produced a great number of titles and memoirs in proof of those rights. His obliging disposition made him feel interested in the labours of all the literati, and willing to communicate to them whatever was most valuable, in a vast collection of memorandums and observations, which he had been gathering together during fifty years. He died at Paris, December 14, 1651, aged 69. Among his numerous works, the French critics select the following as the most important 1. “Traité des Droits et des Libertes l'Eglise Gallicane, avec les Preuves,” 1639, 3 vols. folio. In this, as in all his works, he was an able defender of the rights of the Gajlican church, in opposition to the encroachments of the see of Rome. In 1651 he published an edition of the “Proofs,” in 2 vok. folio. 2. “Traités concernant l‘histoire de France, savoir la condemnation des Templiers, l’histoire du schisme d'Avignon, et quelques proces criminels,” Paris, 1654, 4to. 3. “Traité de la Majorite de nos rois et du regences du royaume, avec les preuves,” Paris, 1655, 4to. 4. “Histoire des plus illustres Favoris anciens et modernes,” Leaden, 1659, 4to and 12mo. In this curious list of favourites, Jbe has recorded only five French. He published also separate treatises on the rights of the king to the provinces of Burgundy, Artois, Bretagne, the three bishoprics before mentioned, Flanders, &c. &c. the titles of which it would be uninteresting to repeat. His life was published by Nicholas Rigault, Paris, 1652, 4to, and is inserted in that very useful volume, Bates’s “Vitae Selectorum aliquot virorum.”

Peter Du Puy had two brothers the eldest Christopher, was also a friend of Thuanus, and when at Rome, had influence enough to prevent the first part of his history from being put on the list of prohibited books. He was an ecclesiastic, had obtained some promotion, and would have received higher marks of esteem from pope Urban VIII. had he not taken part with his brothers in resisting the usurpations of the court of Rome. He is the author of the “Perroniana,” published in 1669 by Daille. He died in 1654. The other brother, James Du Puy, who died in 1656, was prior of St. Saviour’s, and librarian to the king, and assisted his brother in some of his works. To the royal library he was an important benefactor, bequeathing to it his own and his brother’s collection, amounting to 9000 volumes of printed books, and about 300 manuscripts. He published a very useful list of the Latiliized names in Thuanus’ history, at Geneva, in 1614, 4to, which was reprinted under the title of “Resolutio omnium difficultatum,” Ratisbon, 1696, 4to. He published also a catalogue of Thuanus’s library, and an improved edition of “Instructions et missives des Rois de France et de leurs ambassadeurs au Concile de Trente,” Paris, 1654, 4to.

, lieutenant-general under Louis XIII. and XIV. was of a noble family in Armagnac, and was born in the year 1600. He is one of those Frenchmen of distinction who have written memoirs of their own time, from which so abundant materials are supplied to their history, more than are generally found in other countries. His memoirs extend from 1617 to 1658. - They were first published at Paris, and at Amsterdam in 1690, under the inspection of Du Chene, historiographer of France, in 2 vols. 12mo, and are now republished in the general collection of memoirs. The life of iPuy-Segur was that of a very active soldier. He entered into the army in 1617, and served forty-three years without intermission, rising gradually to the rank of lieutenantgeneral. In 1636, the Spaniards having attempted to pass the Somme, in order to march to Pans, Puy-Segur was ordered to oppose them with a small body of troops. The general, the count de Soissons, fearing afterwards that he would be cut off, which was but too probable, sent his aidde-camp to tell him that he might retire if he thought proper. “Sir,”“replied this brave officer,” a man ordered upon a dangerous service, like the present, has no opinion to form about it. I came here by the count’s command, and shall not retire upon his permission only. If he would have me return, he must command it." This gallant man is said to have been at one hundred and twenty sieges, in which there was an actual cannonade, and in more than thirty battles or skirmishes, yet never received a wound. He died in 1682, at his own castle of Bernouille, near Guise. His memoirs are written with boldness and truth; contain many remarkable occurrences, in which he was personally concerned; and conclude with some very useful military instructions.

From his earliest days Mr. Pye was devoted to reading. When he was about ten years old, his father put Pope’s Homer into his hand: the rapture which he received from this exquisite paraphrase of the Grecian bard was never to be forgotten, and it completely fixed him a rhymer for' life, as he pleasantly expressed it. To this early love of reading Mr. Pye was indebted for the various learning he possessed. His first literary production, probably, was an “Ode on the birth of the Prince of Wales,” published in the Oxford Collection and the following distinct publications have successively appeared from his prolific pen 1.“Beauty > a poetical essay,” 1766. 2. “'Elegies on different occasions,” 1768, 4to. 3. “The Triumph of Fashion, a vision,” 1771, 4to. 4. “Faringdon Hill, a poem in two books,” 1774, 4to. 5. “Six Olympic Odes of Pindar, being those omitted by Mr. West, translated into English verse, with notes,” 1775, 12mo. 6. “The Art of War, a poem, translated from the French of the king of Prussia,” written and published in 1778, at his leisure hours during the encampment at Coxheath. 7. “The Progress of Refinement, a poem, in three parts,” 1783, 4to; forming a history of the procedure of the human mind, in manners, learning, and taste, from the first dawnings of cultivated life to the present day. The poem displays the great knowledge of the author, the elegance of his genius, and the soundness of his judgment. His descriptions are just and beautiful, and his versification correct, polished, and harmonious. 8. “Shooting, a poem,” 1784, 4to. 9. “Poems on various Subjects,” in two vols. 8vo, in which several of the beforementioned pieces were collected, and a few new ones added, 1787. 10. “An elegant and very faithful English Translation of the Song of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, is to be found, among other excellent pieces, in this collection. 11.” A Translation of the Poetics of Aristotle, first published in an octavo volume in 1788, and afterwards prefixed to a Commentary on that Work, published in a quarto volume. 12. “Amusement, a poetical essay,” 1790. 13. “The Siege of Meaux, a tragedy, in three acts,” acted at Covent-Garden theatre, 1794, 8vo. 14. “The War Elegies of Tyrtseus imitated, and addressed to the people of Great Britain with some Observations on the Life and Poems of TyrtEeus,” 1795. 15. “The Democrat; interspersed with Anecdotes of well-known Characters,” 1795, 2 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lenore, a tale, translated from the German of Gottfried Augustus Burger,” 1796, 4to. Of the several translations of this tale which have appeared, Mr. Pye’s is esteemed the best but nei r ther English morals nor English taste are likely to be benefited by the translation of such poems as “Lenore.” 17. “Naucratia, or Naval dominion, a poem,” 2d edit. 1798. 18. “The Inquisitor, a tragedy in five acts, altered from the German by the late James Petit Andrews and Henry James Pye,” 1798, 8vo. 19. “The Aristocrat, by the author of the Democrat,” 1799, 2 vols. 12mo. 2O. “Carmen Seculare for the year 1800.” 21. “Adelaide, a tragedy,” acted at Drury-lane theatre, 1800, 8vo, but calculated rather for the closet than the stage. 22. “Alfred, an epic poem in six books,” 1802, 4to. 23. “Verses on several subjects, written in the vicinity of Stoke Park, in the summer and autumn of 1801,” 1802. sm. 8vo. 24. “A second Collection of his Poems, in two octavo volumes, comprising, besides several of those already mentioned, a volume of sketches on various subjects and a translation of Xenophon’s Defence of the Athenian Democracy, with, notes.” 25. “A Prior Claim, a comedy,” acted at Drurylane Theatre, 1805, 8vo, in which he was assisted by Mr. Samuel James Arnold, his son-in-law. 26. “Comments on the Commentators on Shakspeare with preliminary observations on his genius and writings, and on the labours of those who have endeavoured to elucidate them,” 1807, 8vo. 27. “A Translation of the Hymns and Epigrams of Homer,” 1810. He published also many occasional poems, besides his odes for the new year, for his majesty’s birthday, and for the anniversary of the Literary Fund, which are preserved in the magazines. Mr. Pye died Aug. 11, 1813, in the sixty-ninth year of his age.

, one of the greatest men of antiquity, was born most probably about the year B. C. 586, but this date has been much contested. His father, Mnemarchus, of Samos, who was an engraver by trade, and dealt in rings and other trinkets, went with his wife to Delphi a few days after his marriage, to sell some goods during the feast and, while he stayed there, received an oracular answer from Apollo, who told him that if he embarked for Syria, the voyage would be very fortunate to him, and that his wife would there bring forth a son, who should be renowned for beauty and wisdom, and whose life would be a blessing to posterity. Mnemarchus obeyed the god, and Pythagoras was born at Sidon and, being brought to Samos, was educated there answerably to the great hopes that were conceived of him. He was called “the youth with the fine head of hair;” and, from the great qualities which appeared in him early, was soon regarded as a good genius sent into the world for the benefit of mankind.

, an eminent painter, was born at Antwerp in 1607. He studied the belles-lettres and philosophy for some time; but his taste and inclination for painting forced him at length to change his pursuits. He learned his art of Rubens, and became a very good painter. History, landscape, and some architecture, were the principal objects of his application, and his learning frequently appeared in his productions. He painted several grand pictures in Antwerp, and the places thereabouts, for churches and palaces; and though he aimed at nothing more than the pleasure he took in the exercise of painting, yet when he died he left behind him a very great character for skill and merit in his art. He died in 1678, aged seventy-one. He left a son, John Erasmus Quellinus, called young Quellinus a painter whose works were esteemed, and may be seen in different parts of Flanders and a nephew, Artus Quellinus, who was an excellent artist in sculpture, and who executed the fine pieces of carved work in the town-hall at Amsterdam, engraved first by Hubert Quellinus. Young Quellinus was born in 1630, and died in 1715 and having studied at Rome, is generally thought to have surpassed his father.

, a brave French officer, was born in 1610, of a noble family in Normandy. He was trained up to the marine service under his father, who was an experienced captain, and distinguished himself from the age of seventeen. He went into Sweden in 1644, and was there made major-general of the fleet, and afterwards viceadmiral. In this last character, he engaged in the famous battle, when the Danes were entirely defeated, and took their admiral’s ship, called the Patience, in which the Danish admiral was killed. Being recalled to France in 1647, he commanded one of the squadrons sent on the Neapolitan expedition; and, in 1650, when the French navy was reduced to a very low state, fitted out several vessels, at his own expence, at the first commotions at Bourdeaux. The Spaniards arrived in the river at the same time, but be entered notwithstanding, to which circumstance the surrender of the town was principally owing and equal success attended him in the last wars of Sicily. He defeated the Dutch in three different engagements, in the last of which the famous Ruyter was killed by a cannon ball; and he disabled the Tripoli ships so as to compel that republic to conclude a peace very glorious for France. Some years after this he forced Algiers and Genoa to implore his majesty’s mercy, and set at liberty a great number of Christian slaves. In short, Asia, Africa, and Europe, were Witness to his valour, and resound still with his exploits. Though a protestant, the king rewarded his services by giving the territory of Bouchet, near d'Etampes, (one of the finest in the kingdom) to him and his heirs for ever, and raised it to a marquisate on condition that it should be called Du Quesne, to perpetuate this great man’s memory. He died February 2, 1688, aged 73, leaving four sons, who have all distinguished themselves. Henry, the eldest, published “Reflections on the Eucharist,” 1718, 4to, a work much valued by the Protestants. He died in 1722, aged 71 He had also several brothers, all of whom died in the service.

Soon after he quitted Drury-lane, an unfortunate transaction took place, which threatened to interrupt, if not entirely to stop his theatrical pursuits. This was an unlucky rencounter between him and Mr. Bowen, which ended fatally to the latter. From the evidence given at the trial it appeared, that on the 17th of April, 1718, about four or five o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Bowen and Mr. Quin met aecidentlly at the Fleece-tavern in Cornhill. They drank together in a friendly manner, and jested with each other for some time, until at length the conversation turned upon their performances on the stage. Bowen said, that Quin had acted Tamerlane in a loose sort of a manner; and Quin, in reply, observed, that his opponent had no occasion to value himself on his performance, since Mr. Johnson, who had but seldom acted it, represented Jacomo, in “The Libertine,” as well as he who had acted it often. These observations, probably, irritated them both, and the conversation changed, but to another subject not better calculated to produce good humour the honesty of each party. In the course of the altercation, Bowen asserted, that he was as honest a man as any in the world, which occasioned a story about his political tenets to be introduced by Quin and both parties being warm, a wager was laid on the subject, which was determined in favour of Quin, on his relating that Bowen sometimes drank the health of the duke of Ormond, and sometimes refused it at the same time asking the referee how he could be as honest a man as any in the world, who acted upon two different principles. The gentleman who acted as umpire then told Mr. Bowen, that if he insisted upon his claim to be as honest a man as any in the world, he must give it against him. Here the dispute seemed to have ended, nothing in the rest of the conversation indicating any remains of resentment in either party. Soon afterwards, however, Mr. Bowen arose, threw down some money for his reckoning, and left the company. In about a quarter of an hour Mr. Quin was called out by a porter sent by Bowen, and both Quin and Bowen went together, first to the Swan tavern, and then to the Pope’s-head tavern, where a rencounter took place, and Bowen received a wound, of which he died on the 20th of April following. In the course of the evidence it was sworn, that Bowen, after he had received the wound, declared that he had had justice done him, that there had been nothing but fair play, and that if he died, he freely forgave his antagonist. On this evidence Quin was, on the 10th of July, found guilty of manslaughter only, and soon after returned to his employment on the stage*.

"Mr. Quin was a man of strong, pointed sense, with strong passions and a bad temper yet in good-humour he was an excellent companion, and better bred than many who valued themselves upon good-manners. It is true, when he drank freely, which was often the case, he forgot himself, and there was a sediment of brutality in him when you shook the bottle; but he made you ample amends by his pleasantry and good sense when he was sober. He told a story admirably and concisely, and his expressions were strongly marked; however, he often had an assumed character, and spoke in blank verse, which procured him respect from some, but exposed him to ridicule from others, who had discernment to see through his pomp and affectation. He was sensual, and loved good eating, but not so much as was generally reported with some exaggeration; and he was luxurious in his descriptions of those turtle and venison feasts to which he was invited. He was in his dealing a very honest fair man, yet he understood his interest, knew how to deal with the managers, and nevef made a bad bargain with them in truth, it was not an easy matter to over-reach a man of his capacity and penetration, united with a knowledge of mankind. He was not so much an ill-natured as an ill-humoured man, and he was capable of friendship. His airs of importance and his gait was absurd so that he might be said to walk in blank verse as well as talk but his good sense corrected him, and he did not continue long in the fits. I have heard him represented as a cringing fawning fellow to lords and great men, bat I could never discover that mean disposition in him. I observed he was decent and respectful in high company, and had a very proper behaviour, without arrogance or diffidence, which made him more circumspect, and consequently less entertaining. He was not a deep scholar, but he seemed well acquainted with the works of Dryden, Milton, and Pope and he made a better figure in company, with his stock of reading, than any of the literary persons I have seen him with.

, an illustrious French poet, was born at La Ferte-Milon in 1639, and educated at Port Royal, where he gave the greatest proofs of uncommon abilities and genius. During three years’ continuance there, he made a most rapid progress in the Greek and Latin languages, and every species of polite literature. He was an early reader of Sophocles and Euripides and so fond of these authors, as to have committed their plays to memory, and delighted to repeat their striking beauties. While thus studying the models of antiquity, we are told that he accidentally met with the Greek romance of Heliodorus, “of the Loves of Theagenes and Chariclea,” and was reading it when his director, surprising him, took the book and threw it into the fire. Racine found means to get another copy, which underwent the same fate; and after that a third, which, having a prodigious memory, he got by heart; and then, carrying it to his director, said, “You may now burn this, as you have burned the two former.”

, a native of Perigueux, or, according to Menage, of Bourdeaux, was the son of an advocate in the last mentioned city. He was well skilled in the Roman law, philosophy, mathematics, and antiquities; and was appointed president of the parliament of Paris, after having been counsellor to that of Bourdeaux. His mode of life was singular. He seldom read in the daytime; but used to take a light supper, go to rest early, and rise, after his first sleep, about the time that the monks say matins; then, covering his head like a capuchin, he spent four hours in study, and, going to bed again, finished, after a quiet sleep, what he had meditated upon during the night. By this plan, he used to say that the most rapid progress might be made in learning. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar; and, if we may believe M. Pithou, it was be who composed the Dictionary which goes under the name of Charles Stephens. Pithou adds, that, when cardinal de Lorraine assembled the parliament of Paris to take their advice as to the punishment of heretics, Ranconet was so imprudent as to read that passage in which Sulpitius Severus touches upon the execution of Priscillian; and the cardinal being displeased, sent him to the Bastille, where he died of grief, 1558, aged above 60. Others say that Ranconet’s confinement proceeded from his having been falsely accused of a capital crime. He left in ms. “Le Tresor de la Langue Franchise, taut ancienne que nioderne;” which was the foundation of the Dictionaries of Nicot and Monet.

, the late bishop of London, was the younger son of the preceding, and was born July 6, 1749. He became a student of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and took his degrees at the usual periods that of M. A. in 1774; B. D. in 1782 D. D. by diploma, in 1783. In 1776 he was appointed prselector of poetry, and in 1782 regius professor of Greek. In the same year he was presented to a prebend of Salisbury; and in 1783 became canon of Christ church, regius professor of divinity, and rector of Ewelnoe. In the year 1799 he was elevated to the bishopric of Oxford; translated to that of Bangor in 1807; and thence to London in 1809. He was elected F. R. S. in 1811. He passed a great part of his life in the university of Oxford, and it was generally believed that when he was raised to the see of Oxford, the university was complimented with the nomination by the crown. His lordship was author of many single sermons, and charges delivered on different occasions: also of “De Grsecae Linguae Studio Prselectio habita in Schola Linguarum,” 1783, and “Concio ad Clerum in Synodo Provinciali Cantuariensis Provincial ad D. Pauli,” 1790. One of his last works was a report of the progress made by the National School Society, to which the general committee referred in terms of gratitude, at their first meeting after his lordship’s decease. They notice his lordship as one “whose latest employment had been to state, for the information qf the public, the progress of a work to which he had contributed his time, his labour, and his counsels. The committee therefore could not fail to entertain a common sentiment of profound regret for the loss which they have sustained, and to cherish in their minds the liveliest recollection of the service which has been so successfully fulfilled by him in this second report. They wish, therefore, to add to this document, designed for general circulation, their sense of what is due from the public, and themselves, to the. memory of one who was a constant and assiduous promoter of this salutary institution, from its first establishment to the last hour of his life. The committee trust, that this testimony, though limited to a single object in the large field of pastoral duty in which he was incessantly engaged, may serve to denote the benefits which have resulted from his prompt, unwearied, and effectual exertions.” The following is the character drawn of him by Mr. archdeacon Jefferson, and which alludes to his zeal for the church, of which he was an active member: “Fearless now of being censured for mercenary adulation, or reproved by unconscious merit, a just tribute may be paid to the character of that departed and exalted prelate, who is, and will be, most lamented where he was best and most entirely known. This opportunity, therefore, is willingly embraced of offering a heartfelt condolence to the ministry of the diocese on the affecting and important loss, which, in these perilous times of contending sects and unsettled opinion, has arisen to them, and to the church: To them, in the premature privation of a diocesan, firm in his support of ecclesiastical authority, but considerate in its application; eminently versed in the letter of ecclesiastical law, but liberal in its practical construction, reluctant in interference, but determined in duty, slow in the profes-. sion of service, but prompt in its execution; disinterested, in patronage, unwavering in measures, correct in judgment, attentive in council, and kind and compassionate to distress: To the church, in the premature privation of a father, diligent in her rites and services, but unostentatious in piety and devotion; sound and unrelaxing in her doctrines and faith, but discreet in zeal, and comprehensive in charity; ever vigilant in defending her interests, ever forward in asserting her privileges, and ever able in the assertion and the defence.” This high character, how-, ever, has been thought capable of abatement. It was perhaps unfortunate that he succeeded a prelate of the mild and conciliating temper of Dr. Porteus, and that he undertook the government of a diocese, which, above all others, requires such a temper. It was, perhaps, not less unfortunate that in his first charge to the clergy of this diocese, he betrayed no little ignorance of the state of religious opinions, and the creeds of those sectaries against whom he wished to warn his clergy.

, an eminent historian, was born at Castresin Languedoc, March 25, 1661. His family was originally from Savoy, and is supposed to have removed into France upon embracing the Protestant religion. Philibert de Rapin, his great-grandfather, who was of that persuasion, exposed himself so much to the indignation of the Roman catholics, and particularly to that of the parliament of Toulouse, that his head was struck off in 1563 by a sentence of theirs, at the very time that he came, by the king’s order, to have the treaty of peace registered there. Daniel the historian passes over this fact in silence; and his reason is supposed to have been, that he might exaggerate the disturbances raised by the Huguenots afterwards in the country about Toulouse. What then happened appears to have been the popular revenge for Philibert’s death, as the soldiers wrote on the ruins of the houses they had burned, “Vengeance for Rapin’s death.” James de Rapin, lord of Thoyras, was our author’s father. He applied himself to the study of the law, and was an advocate in the chamber of the edict of Nantes above fifty years. These chambers were courts of judicature erected in several towns of France, in behalf of the Huguenots, or Protestants; the judges of which were half of the Reformed, and half of the Roman catholic religion. Jane de Pelisson, his wife, was daughter to a counsellor of the chamber of Castres, and sister to George and Paul Pelisson; which lady, after having been Confined for some time in a convent, was at last sent, by the king’s order, to Geneva, where she died in 1705.

Reaumur also invented the art of preserving eggs, and of hatching them; this art had been long known and practised in Egypt, but to the rest of the world was an impenetrable secret: he found out and described many ways of producing an artificial warmth in which chickens might be hatched, and some by the application of fires used for other purposes; he shewed how chickens might be hatched in a dunghill, he invented long cages in which the callow brood were preserved in their first state, with fur cases to creep iinder instead of the hen, and he prescribed proper food for them of things every where to be procured in great plenty. He found also that eggs might be kept fresh and fit for incubation many years, by washing them with a varnish of oil, grease, or any other substance, that would effectaally stop the pores of the shell, and prevent the contents from evaporating; by this contrivance eggs may not only be preserved for eating or hatching in the hotest climates, but the eggs of birds of every kind may be transported from one climate to another, and the breed of those that could not survive a long voyage, propagated in the most distant part of the world.

, a native of Avignon, and exJesuit, was an advocate, but compelled to quit his profession for want of health. He died in 1752. Reboulet wrote the “Mernoires de Forbin,” 2 vols. 12mo, and the “Hist, de l'Enfance,” 2 vols. compiled from memoirs with which the Jesuits furnished him, of whom he was too servile a flatterer to express any doubt concerning what they related. This work, however, was burnt as calumnious and defamatory, by a sentence of the parliament of Toulouse. His other works are, “A History of Pope Clement XI.” in 2 small volumes, 4to, which the king of Sardinia suppressed; as his father did not love the Jesuits, and could not therefore be a great man in the opinion of Reboulet. A “History of Louis XIV.” 3 vols. 4to, or 9 vols. 12mo, his best work, is tolerably accurate as to facts, but the narration is dry.

Dodd says that, as to Dr. Redman’s religion, “though” he was no friend to the doctrine of the reformers, yet he was very complaisant to them, in point of discipline, and went so far away wiih them, as to be an assistant in compiling the book of Common Prayer. In a word, he divided himself between both religions.“We have better authority, however, for asserting that if he did so divide himself, the reformed religion had the larger share. That he was at first attached to the religion in which he had been educated, appears by his letter to Latimer reproving that reformer for his innovations; but he soon found reason to change his opinion. He had applied his maturer judgment and learning, with equal piety and patience, for the space of twenty years, to the study of the Scriptures and the early writers of the church, intending to compose a work on the subject of transubstantiation; but the result of his studies was, that there was no foundation for that absurd dogma, either in Scripture, or in the primitive fathers. He therefore relinquished this, and other errors of the Romish creed, and” with constant judgment and unfeigned conscience descended into that manner of belief,“which he held, when he assisted in compiling the first liturgy of Edward VI. published in 1549*. We have still more proof of his relinquishing his old creed, in Mr. archdeacon Churton’s” Life of Newell.“Nowell waited upon Redman in his last illness, desirous to know what was his opinion and belief concerning the” troublous controversies of those days,“professing himself willing to” receive and approve his words as oracles sent from heaven.“The dying confessor, possessing a” quiet mind and perfect remembrance,“took a day or two to consider of the matters propounded to him by Nowell; and then sent for him, declaring himself ready to converse with him on those points, and to answer truly as he thought, to whatever question should be asked him, as in the presence of God. These articles were fourteen in number, the sum of which was, that purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, and tran­*” Afterwards I conferred with Dr. Prayer was an holy book, and agreeRedman, in whom I reposed much able to the Gospel." Bernard Gilpin’s

, an extraordinary scholar, and equally extraordinary man, who has furnished us with very curious memoirs of his life, was born Dec. 25, 1716, at Zorbig, a small town near Leipsic, of ancestors of whom he knew nothing, except that his grandfather was an innkeeper. He was educated at the school of Zorbig until ten years old, then was removed to Soschen, where a gentleman, to whom he afterwards in gratitude dedicated his remarks on the “Tusculan questions,” brought him very forward. Thence he went to school at Halle, where he complains of the length of the prayers, and of the ignorance of his teacher, who knew nothing of Latin. In 1733 he removed to the university of Leipsic; but instead of attending to Greek, mathematics, and polite literature, gave himself, “in an evil hour,” to Rabbinical learning, and Arabic. Such, however, was his oeconomy, that although during the five years he remained here, he received from home only two hundred dollars, he contrived not only to live, but to purchase most of the Arabic books then extant, and in 1736 he had read them all. The last year, indeed, he obtained a scholarship of twenty dollars a-year, which he might have enjoyed longer, had he not in 1738 determined to visit Holland, without ever considering how he was to travel without money. He set out, however, from Leipsic to Lunenburg in the common waggon, and thence by the Elbe to Hamburgh, where he visited Reimarus, who at first received him coolly, but on discovering his learning, gave him letters, and became his fast friend; nor, he adds, did the worthy men of Hamburgh send him penniless on the way.

, called Anglicus, was an English physician, who flourished about 1230. He is said to have studied first at Oxford, and then at Paris, and attained a high degree of eminence in his profession. Tanner gives a list of his works, none of which appear to have been published. Some of his Mss. are in the New college library, Oxford.

, an Irish prelate, was born at Carrington in Cheshire, about 1562, and was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, in 1576, where he took his degrees in arts, and continued some years in the university, teaching grammar chiefly. His first preferment in the church appears to have been to the living of Waterstock in Oxfordshire, in 1580, which he resigned in 158!. In 1583, he was admitted to that of South Wokingdon, which he resigned in 1590. He was also rector of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, and of Winwick in Lancashire. He was afterwards made archdeacon of Meath in Ireland, thence preferred to the deanery of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, and in 1612 to the bishopric of Killaloe. He died in 1632, and was buried in his cathedral. To this dry catalogue of preferments, we can only add generally that he was much respected for piety and learning; but there are no particulars of his life and progress from a state of comparative obscurity to the bishopric. As he was an eminent tutor, he might owe some of his preferments to the gratitude of his pupils. He published “A Letter concerning the News out of Ireland, and of the Spaniards landing, and the present state there,” Lond. 1601, 4to; and “Claim of antiquity in behalf of the Protestant Religion,” ibid. 1608, 4to; a tract written in controversy with Fitz Simon the Jesuit, whose answer is entitled “A catholic confutation of Mr. John Rider’s Claim of Antiquity, and a calming comfort against his caveat,” Roan, 1608, 8vo. To this was added a “Reply to Mr. Rider’s postscript, and a discovery of puritan partiality in his behalf.” But this prelate is most remembered on account of his dictionary, “A Dictionary, English and Latin, and Latin and English,” Oxon. 1589, 4to. This must have been at that time a work of great utility, although Fuller accuses him of borrowing from Thomasius. Wood says it was the first that had the English before the Latin, which is not correct, as this was the case in the “Promptorium parvulum,” printed by Pynson in 1499, and the “Ortus Vocabulorum,” by W. de Worde, in 1516 but it certainly was the first Latin Dictionary in which the English part was placed at the beginning of the book, before the Latin part.

, an English artist of very considerable merit, was born at London, in 1646, and, instructed in the art of painting by Fuller and Zoust. Lord Orford asserts, that he was one of the best native painters that had flourished in England; and that there are draperies and hands painted by him that would do honour either to Lely or Kneller; the portrait of the lord-keeper North, at Wroxton, being in every respect a capital performance. After the death of sir Peter Lely, he advanced in the esteem of the public, and had the honour to paint the portraits of king Charles II. king James and his queen, and was appointed state painter. He made nature his principal study, without adopting the manner of any master, and as far as he thought it prudent he improved or embellished it in his pictures; and, like many other men of parts, he seems to be more respected by posterity, than by the age in which he flourished. He was, in truth, humble, modest, and of an amiable character. He had the greatest diffidence of himself, and was easily disgusted with his own works, the source probably, says lord Orford, of the objections made to him. With a quarter of Kneller’s vanity, he might have persuaded the world he was as great a master. The gout put an end to his progress, for he died in 1691, at the age of forty-five, and was buried in Bishopsgate church, in which parish he was born. One Thomas Riley was an actor, and has a copy of verses in Randolph’s Poems. This, lord Orford thinks, might be the painter’s father. In the same place are some Latin verses by Riley, whom the same biographer takes to be our painter himself. Richardson married a near relation of Riley, and inherited about SOOl. in pictures, drawings, and effects.

, a chemist and poet in the time of Henry VII. was a canon of Bricllington, and accomplished in many branches of erudition; and still maintains his reputation as a learned chemist of the lower ages. He was a great traveller, and studied both in France and Italy. At his return from abroad, pope Innocent VIII. absolved him from the observance of the rules of his order, that he might prosecute his studies with more convenience and freedom. But his convent not concurring with this very liberal indulgence, he turned Carmelite at St. Botolph’s in Lincolnshire, and died in that fraternity in 1490. His chemical poems are nothing more than the doctrines of alchemy cloathed in plain language, and a very rugged versification. His capital performance is the “Compound of Alchemic,” written in 1471, in the octave metre, and dedicated to Edward IV. He has left a few other compositions on his favourite science, printed by Ashmole, who was an enthusiast in this abused species of philosophy; and some lives of saints in ms.

, an English topographer, was the son of Thomas Risdon, bencher of the Inner Temple, afterwards treasurer of that society, and lastly, recorder of Totness, who published some law “Readings,” and died in 1641. His son was educated at Great Torrington, Devonshire, previous to his studying at Exeter college, Oxford, which he left without a degree, in consequence, as Prince supposes, of his coming to some family property which required his presence, and rendered him independent. On this, which was an estate at Winscot, be appears to have lived in retirement, and died in 1640. He drew up an account of Devonshire, which remained in ms. of which there were several copies, until 1714, when it was printed, under the title of “The Chorographical Description or Survey of the County of Devon, &c.” William Chappie, of Exeter, intended a new edition of this work, and actually issued proposals; but dying in 1781, his design was not completed, although in 1785 a portion of it, printed at Exeter, appeared in 4to, with many notes and additions. There is a “continuation” of Risdon’s Survey, which is paged on from the first part, and very rarely to be met with, but there are copies in the Bodleian and in the library of St. John’s, given by Dr. Rawlinson.

, a poetical critic and editor, was born Oct. 2, 1752, at Stockton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, and was bred to the profession of the law, which he practised chiefly in the conveyancing branch. In 1785 he purchased the office of high bailiff of the liberties of the Savoy, and retained it until his death. These seem the only particulars of Mr. Ritson’s progress in his profession, which have been recorded by his friends. He became, however, far better known for his researches into the antiquities of English literature, particularly poetry; and these he was enabled to carry on for many years, by dint of memory and extraordinary industry. In recovering dates, assigning anonymous fragments to their authors, and those other minute particulars which are important to poetical antiquaries, Mr. Ritson had perhaps few superiors; but all he performed was disgraced by a harsh, rugged, and barren style, and an affectation of a new orthography, and yet more by the contempt, approaching to malignity, with which hfe treated Mr. Warton, Mr. Malone, and his other contemporaries who had acquired any name in the world. Although not absolutely incapable of civility, his conversation partook much of the harshness of his writings; and giving the lie was not uncommon with him, even when the subject in dispute had nothing in it to excite passion. His wretched temper seems also to have been exasperated by the state of public affairs, his hatred of the reigning family, and his attachment to republicanism. Many instances might be given of his unhappy prejudices, but it appeared at last that the whole might be traced to a diseased mind, which was completely overthrown by insanity. When this became too visible to be neglected, he was removed to a receptacle for insane persons at Hoxton, where he died a few days after, Sept. 3, 1803, leaving many works which will prove useful and interesting to poetical antiquaries long after the peculiarities of his temper are forgotten. His first publication was an anonymous quarto pamphlet of “Observations on the three volumes of Warton’s History of English Poetry;” one of the most illiberal productions that had then appeared. He wrote, also anonymously, three sets of. remarks on the editors of Shakspeare: I. On Mr. Sieevens’s edition, 1773, entitled “Remarks, critical and illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the last edition of Shakspeare,” 8vo; 2. “The Quip modest,” &c. on Mr. Reed’s republication of that edition, particularly illiberal 3. “Cursory Criticisms,” &c. on Mr. Malone’s edition. He published also a select collection of English Songs, in 3 vols. 8vo. Ancient Songs, from the time of Henry III. to the Revolution, 8vo. A volume of pieces of ancient popular poetry, 8vo. “The English Anthology,” a selection of poetry, in 3 small octavo volumes. “Robin Hood; a collection of all the ancient Poems, Songs, affd Ballads, now extant, relative to that celebrated Outlaw. To which are added, Historical Anecdotes of his Life,” 1795, 2 vols. 8vo. A collection of Scotch Songs, with the genuine Music, 2 vols. 12mo. “Biographia Poetica a Catalogue of English Poets of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries; with a short Account of their Works.” 1801, 12mo. He put his name to “Ancient English Metrical Romances; selected and published by Joseph Ritson,” 1802, 3 vols. 12mo. This last publication is perhaps the least interesting of the list.

It was during the same time that he formed his fine collection of coins, which is now in the British museum, having been purchased by the trustees with consent of parliament. This collection was begun to be formed when Barre was very young. He accidentally saw a few Roman coins in his father’s possession, which he presently got transferred to his own. They were hoarded by him with infantine care, and esteemed by him as invaluable property. The occasional presents of friends, and such specimens as a child’s pocket-money could procure, soon increased the store, which he would display and comment upon with the air and importance of a connoisseur. As he advanced in age, however, he perceived that to form a complete and universal collection of coins was an object only in the power of individuals possessed of larger means than he could ever expect to enjoy. He therefore relinquished it in this character, and confined his attention only to those connected with his own country. His father encouraged the pursuit, as he followed it in the light of a science, which illustrated and confirmed him in his historical studies; and his name as a collector soon became known among the dealers, who did not fail to bring him whatever could be discovered most rare and curious in their line of search.

, a learned English divine and miscellaneous writer, was descended from a reputable family, which from time immemorial possessed a considerable estate at Mutter, in tae parish of Appleby, in Westmoreland. His father was an eminent maltster; and his mother, the only daughter of Mr. Edward Stevenson, of Knipe, in the same county, cousin to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London. He was born at this latter place, August 28, 1726; but his father soon afterwards removing to Rutter, he was sent, at a proper age, to the free-school at Appleby, where he received the rudiments of classical learning under Mr. Richard Yates, a man of eminent abilities, and distinguished character in his profession. From thence, in 1746, he went to Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts, with considerable reputation for his ingenuity and learning. On his receiving orders he was, for some time, curate to the celebrated Dr. Sykes, at Rayleigh in Essex, and in 1758 he was instituted to the vicarage of Herriard in Hampshire; in 1770, to the rectory of Sutton in Essex; and in 1779, to the vicarage of Horucastle in Lincolnshire, to which he wns prcseuteU by his relation, Dr> Edtnund Law, bishop of Carlisle. In 1761 he published a sermon, entitled “The subversion of ancient Kingdoms considered,” preached at St. John’s, Westminster, Feb. 13, the day appointed for a general fast. In 1772, he revised and corrected for the press Dr. Gregory Sharpens posthumous sermons; and the same year completed a new edition of Algernon Sidney’s Discourses on Government, with historical notes, in one volume quarto, at the persuasion of Thomas Hollis, esq. who highly approved his performance.

Mr Robertson’s health had been considerably impaired, owing to some fits of apoplexy which attacked him about 1799. During 1801 he seemed to have, in some measure, recovered; but on Jan. 18, 1802, he was seized with violent effusion of blood, which occasioned his death, on the very next day, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. He was tall, stout, and handsome, of a ruddy complexion, prepossessing look, gentle and unassuming manner?, and exceedingly polite in conversation: he was an accomplished moral character in every sense of the word. Without violently condemning any of the Christian persuasion, he was enthusiastically devoted to the church of England; and without indulging in any illiberal animadversions on foreign governments, he was duly sensible of the unrivalled advantages and the invaluable blessings of the British Constitution. As to his domestic virtues, one of his biographers thinks he cannot exhibit a more finished picture of them than by stating what Mrs. Robertson told him, “During the forty-four years we have lived together, never, for a single night, did he desert the domestic society, to seek elsewhere for amusement!”

, an eminent modern artist, was born at Dalton, in Lancashire, Dec. 26, 1734, where his father was a merchant, builder, and farmer, but derived from none of his occupations more than what yielded a bare maintenance to his numerous family. In his twelfth year, George was taken from the village school, and engaged to superintend his father’s workmen; his leisure hours he employed in carving; and being fond of music, made a violin for himself, which be preserved till his death. He was first tempted to draw, from seeing some ordinary prints in a magazine, which he imitated with considerable success: and his first attempt at portrait was from memory, when endeavouring to describe the features of a stranger whom he had seen at church. After some attempts by his father to place him in trade, he consented to let him become a painter, and his first master was an artist of the name of Steele, who taught him, to a certain extent, the knowledge and use of the materials of the art. Leaving this master, he began to practise portrait-painting in the country, and being ambitious to try his fate in the metropolis, as soon as he had acquired nearly an hundred guineas, he took thirty for his travelling expences, and leaving the remainder with his wife, set out for, and arrived in London in 1762.

, an eccentric genius of our own times, has enabled us to give an account of him by a publication which himself left behind him, under the title of “Les Confessions de J. J. Rousseau, suivies des Reveries du Promeneur Solitaire,” Geneve, 1783, 2 volumes, 8vo. He was born at Geneva in 1711; his parents were, Isaac Rousseau, an ingenious watch-maker, and Susannah Bernard, the daughter of a clergyman, who was more rich than her husband (he having fifteen brothers and sisters). She had also wisdom and beauty, so that she was no easy prize; but a love, which commenced in their childhood, at length, after many difficulties, produced a happy marriage. And at the same time his mother’s brother, Gabriel, an engineer, married one of his father’s sisters. After the birth of one son, his father went to Constantinople, and was watch-maker to the seraglio; and ten months after his return our author was born, infirm and sickly, and cost his mother her life. The sensibility which was all that his parents left him, constituted (he says) their happiness, but occasioned all his misfortunes. He was “born almost dying,” but was preserved and reared by the tenderness of an aunt (his father’s sister). He remembers not how he learned to read, but only recollects that his first studies were some romances left by his mother, which engaged his father, as well as himself, whole nights, and gave him a very early knowledge of the passions, and also wild and romantic notions of human life. The romances ended with the summer of 1719. Better books succeeded, furnished by the library of his mother’s father, viz. “Le Sueur’s History of the Church and the Empire;” “Bossuet’s Discourses on Universal History;” “Plutarch’s Lives;” ' Nani’s History of Venice;“”Ovid’s Metamorphoses;“”La Bruyere;“ ”Fontenelle’s Worlds, and Dialogues of the Dead“and some volumes of” Moliere.“Of these” Plutarch“were his favourite; and he soon preferred Agesilaus, Brutus, and Aristides, to Oroondates, Artamenes, aud Juba; and to these lives, and the conversations that they occasioned with his father, he imputes that free and republican spirit, that fierce and intractable character, which ever after was his torment. His brother, who was seven years older, and followed his father’s business, being neglected in his education, behaved so ill, and was so incorrigible, that he fled into Germany, and was never heard of afterwards. On the contrary, the utmost attention was bestowed on John James, and he was almost idolized by all. Yet he had (he owns) all the faults of his age he was a prater, a glutton, and sometimes a liar; he stole fruit, sweetmeats, and victuals but he never delighted in being mischievous or wasteful, hi accusing others, or in tormenting poor animals. He re^ Jates, however, an indelicate trick he played one Madame Clot while she was at prayers, which still, he says, diverts him, because” she was the most fretful old woman he ever knew.“His” taste, or rather passion, for music“he owed to his aunt Susan, who sang most sweetly; and he paints her in most pleasing colours. A dispute, which his father had with a French captain obliging him to quit Geneva, our author was left under the care of his uncle Bernard, then employed on the fortifications, who having a son of the same age, these cousins were boarded together at Bossey, at M. Lambercier’s, a clergyman, to learn Latin, and other branches of education. In this village he passed two happy years, and formed an affectionate friendship with his cousin Bernard. A slight offence, the breaking the teeth of a comb, with which he was charged, but denied it, and of which now, fifty years after, he avows his innocence, bub for which he was severely punished, and a like chastisement, which, for a like offence, was also unjustly inflicted on his cousin, gave both at last a distaste for this paradise, and great pleasure in being removed from it. This incident made a deep and lasting impression upon him, as did another about planting a willow and a walnut tree, for which we must refer to his own account. At his return to Geneva he continued two or three years wiih his uncle, losing his time, it not being determined whether he should be a watch-maker, an attorney, or a minister. To the last he was most inclined, but that the small remains of his mother’s fortune would not admit. In the mean time he learned to draw, for which he had a taste, and read” Euclid’s Elements“withes Cousin. Thus they led an idle, but not a vicious life, making cages, flutes, shuttle-cocks, drums, houses, cross-bows, and puppets, imitating Punch, acting plays, and at last makiog sermons. He often visited his father, wlxo was then settled at Nion, a small town in the country of Vaud, and there he recounts two amours (as he calls them) that he had, at the age of eleven, with two grown misses, whom he archly describes. At last he was placed with M. Massiron, register of the city, to learn his business; but, being by him soon dismissed for his stupidity, he was bound apprentice, not, however, to a watch-maker, but to an engraver, a brutal wretch, who not only treated him most inhumanly, but taught him to lie, to be idle, and to steal. Of the latter he gives some instances. In his sixteenth year, having twice on a Sunday been locked out of the city-gates, and being severely threatened by his master if he stayed out a third time, by an unlucky circumstance this event happening, he swore never to return again, sending word privately to his cousin Bernard of what he proposed, and where he might once more see him; which he did, not to dissuade him, but to make him some presents. They then parted with tears, but never met or corresponded more,” which was a pity, as they were made to love each other.“After making some reflections on what would have been his fate if he had fallen into the hands of a better master, he informs us that at Consignon, in Savoy, two leagues from Geneva, he had the curiosity to see the rector, M. de Pontverre, a name famous in their history, and accordingly went to visit him, and was well received, and regaled with such a good dinner as prevented hisreplyingto his host’s arguments in favour of holy mother Church, and against the heresy of Geneva. Instead of sending him back to his family, this devout priest endeavoured to convert him, and recommended him to mad. de Warens, a good charitable lady, lately converted, at Annecy, who had quitted her husband, her family, her country, and her religion, for a pension of 1500 Piedmontese livres, allowed her by the King of Sardinia. He arrived at Annecy on Palm- Sunday, 1728 and saw madam de Warens. This epoch of his life determined his character. He was then in the middle of his 16th year; though not handsome, he was well made, had black hair, and small sparkling eyes, &c. charms, of which, unluckily, he was not unconscious. The lady too, who was then 28, he describes as being highly agreeable and engaging, and having many personal charms, although her size was small, and her stature short. Being told she was just gone to the Cordeliers church, he overtook her at the door, was struck with her appearance, so different from that of the old crabbed devotee which he had imagined, and was instantly proselyted to her religion. He gave her a letter from M. de Pontverre, to which he added one of his own. She glanced at the former, but read the latter, and would have read it again, if her servant had not reminded her of its being church-time. She then bade John James go to her house, ask for some breakfast, and wait her return from mass. Her accomplishments he paints in brilliant colours; considers her as a good Catholic; and, in short, at first sight, was inspired by her with the strongest attachment, and the utmost confidence. She kept him to dinner, and then inquiring his circumstances, urged him to go to Turin, where, in a seminary for the instruction of catechumens, he might be maintained till his conversion was accomplished; and engaged also to prevail on M. de Bernet, the titular bishop of Geneva, to contribute largely to the expence of his journey. This promise she performed. He gave his consent, being desirous of seeing the capital, and of climbing the Alps. She also reinforced his purse, gave him privately ample instructions; and, entrusting him to the care of a countryman and his wife, they parted on AshWednesday. The day after, his father” came in quest of him, accompanied by his friend M. Rixal, a watch-maker, like himself, and a good poet. They visited madam de Warens, but only lamented with her, instead of pursuing and overtaking him, which they might, they being on horseback, and he on foot. His brother had been lost by a like negligence. Having some independent fortune from their mother, it seemed as if their father connived at their flight in order to secure it to himself, an idea which gave our author great uneasiness. After a pleasantjourney with his two companions, he arrived at Turin, but without money, cloaths, or linen. His letters of recommendation admitted him into the seminary; a course of life, and a mode of instruction, with which he was soon disgusted. In two months, however, he made his abjuration, was baptized Ht the cathedral, absolved of h f eresy by the inquisitor^ and then dismissed, with about 20 livres in his pocket; thus, at once, made an apostate and a dupe, with all his hopes in an instant annulled. After traversing the streets, and viewing the buildings, he took at night a mean lodging, where he continued some days. To the king’s chapel, in particular, he was frequently allured by his taste for music, which then began to discover itself. His purse, at last, being almost exhausted, he looked out for employment, and at last found it, as an engraver of plate, by means of a young woman, madame Basile, whose husband, a goldsmith, was abroad, and had left her under the care of a clerk, or an jEgisthus, as Rousseau styles him. Nothing, he declares, but what was innocent, passed betwixt him and this lady, though her charms made great impression on him; and soon after, her husband returning, and finding him at dinner with her confessor, the clerk, &c. immediately dismissed him the house. His landlady, a soldier’s wife, after this procured him the place of footman to the countess dowager of Vercullis, whose livery he wore; but his business was to write the letters which she dictated, a cancer in her breast preventing her writing them herself; letters, he says, equal to those of madam de Sevigne. This service terminated, in three months, with his lady’s death, who left him nothing, though she had great curiosity to know his history, and to read his letters to madam de Warens. He saw her expire with many tears her life having been that of a woman of wit and sense, her death being that of a sage. Her heir and nephew, the count de la Roque, gave him 30 livres and his new cloaths; but, on leaving this service, he committed, he owns, a diabolical action, by falsely accusing Marion, the cook, of giving him a rosecoloured silver ribbon belonging to one of the chambermaids, which was found upon him, and which he himself had stolen. This crime, which was an insupportable load on his conscience, he says, all his life after, and which he never avowed before, not even to Madam de Warens, was one principal inducement to his writing his “Confessions,” and he hopes, “has been expiated by his subsequent misfortunes, and by forty years of rectitude and honour in the most difficult situations.” On leaving this service, he returned to his lodgings, and, among other acquaintances that he had made, often visited M. Gaime, a Savoyard abbé, the original of the “Savoyard Vicar,” to whose virtuous and religious instructions, he professes the highest obligations. The count de la Roque, though he neglected to call upon him, procured him, however, a place with the count de Gouvon, an equerry to the queen, where he lived much at his ease, and out of livery. Though happy in this family, being favoured by all, frequently waiting on the count’s beautiful grand -daughter, honoured with lessons by the abbe“, his younger son, and having reason to expect an establishment in the train of his eldest son, ambassador to Venice, he absurdly relinquished all this by obliging the count to dismiss him for his attachment to one of his countrymen, named Bacle, who inveigled him to accompany him in his way back to Geneva; and an artificial fountain, which the abbe* de Gouvon had given him, helped, as their purse was light, to maintain them till it broke. At Annecy he parted with his companion, and hastened to madam de Warens, who, instead of reproaching, lodged him in her best chamber, and” Little One“(Petit) was his name, and” Mama“hers. There he lived most happily and innocently, he declares, till a relation of” Mama,“a M. d'Aubonne, suggested that John-James was fit for nothing but the priesthood, but first advised his completing his education by learning Latin. To this the bishop not only consented, but gave him a pension. Reluctantly he obeyed, carrying to the seminary of St. Lazarus no book but Clerambault’s cantatas, learning nothing there but one of his airs, and therefore being soon dismissed for his insufficiency. Yet madam de Warens did not abandon him. His taste for music then made them think of his being a musician, and boarding for that purpose with M. le Maitre, the organist of the cathedral, who lived near” Mama,“and presided at her weekly concerts. There he continued for a year, but his passion for her prevented his learning even music. Le Maitre, disgusted with the Chapter, and determined to leave them, was accompanied in his flight, as far as Lyons, by John-James; but, being subject to fits, and attacked by one of them in the streets, he was deserted in distress by his faithless friend, who turned the corner, and left him. This is his third painful” Confession.“He instantly returned to Annecy and” Mama; but she, alas! was gone to Paris. After this, he informs us of the many girls that were enamoured of him: of his journey with one of them, on foot, to Fribourg; of his visiting his father, in his way, at Nion; and of his great distress at Lausanne, which reduced him to the expedient of teaching music, which he knew not, saying he was of Paris, where he had never been, and changing his name to Voussore, the anagram of Rousseau. But here his ignorance and his imprudence exposed him to public shame, by his attempting what he could not execute. Being thus discomfited, and unable to subsist at Lausanne, he removed to Neufchatel, where he passed the winter. There he succeeded better, and, at length, by teaching music, insensibly learned it.

, in Latin Regius, a learned professor, was born at Constance, in Normandy, about the beginning of the 16th century. In the course of his studies he not only became a good Greek and Latin scholar, but particularly cultivated his native language, the French, which he endeavoured to polish and refine. After passing several years in Italy and at court, he settled at Paris, where, in 1570, he was appointed to the professorship of Greek. After this he studied the law four years at Toulouse; and frequented the bar at the parliament of Paris, in which he exercised some kind of magistracy; but his inattention to domestic affairs reduced him at last to depend upon the liberality of others for his daily subsistence, a misery almost insupportable in him who was naturally of a haughty temper, would never admit of a superior, and treated many of his learned contemporaries with great disdain. He died July 2, 1577. One of his best performances was an elegantly written life of the learned Budieus. His others were good translations into French of part of the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthenes, which he enriched with learned commentaries, and proved his intimate acquaintance with the original language.

, bishop of St. David’s in the fifteenth century, was, according to Fuller, a native of Hertfordshire, and took his name from Rudborne, a village near St. Alban’s; but Wood says he was born at Rodburne in Wiltshire. He studied at Merton college, Oxford, and became one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, and an able architect. He built the gateway and fine tower of Merton college, and probably the chapel, for that seems improperly given to bishop Rede. He was so much esteemed, that Henry V. who became acquainted with him when a student at Queen’s college, afterwards appointed him his chaplain, on his going to Franc previous to the battle of Agincourt. He received some ecclesiastical preferments, as the prebend of Horton in the church of Salisbury, the living of East Deping in Lincolnshire, and the archdeaconry of Sudbury. He served the office of proctor in the university, and was elected chancellor, but Wood thinks that if he accepted this office, he did not retain it long. In 1426 he was admitted warden of Merton college, which he appears to have resigned the following year. In 1433 he was promoted to the see of St. David’s, from which the king, Henry VI. would have translated him to Ely; but Wood says, “could not effect it.” He died about 1442. The tower and chapel of Merton will long remain monuments of his skill and taste. He was also a benefactor to the first public library in Oxford. Like the majority in his day, he was an opponent of the first attempts at reformation in religion, and in 1411 was one of the commissioners for suppressing Wickliff’s doctrines and writings. He wrote, according to Bale, a “Chronicle,” and some epistles “ad Thomam Waldenem et alios.” He must be distinguished from the Thomas Rudborne, whose “Historia Major Wintoniensis” is printed by Wharton in vol. I. of his “Anglia Sacra,” who was, however, a monk of Winchester about the middle of the same century, but survived bishop Rudborne.

, a Scotch painter, was born at Edinburgh in 1736, where his father, who was an architect, probably taught him some of the principles of his art. Mr. Fuseli says he served an apprenticeship to a coachpainter, and “acquired a practice of brush, a facility of penciling, and much mechanic knowledge of colour, be^ fore he had attained any correct notions of design.” The Scotch account, on the other hand, says he was placed as an apprentice to John and Robert Norries, the former of whom was a celebrated landscape painter (no-where upon record, however,) and under his instructions Runciman made rapid improvement in the art. From 1755 he painted landscapes on his own account, and in 1760 attempted historical works. About 1766 he accompanied or soon followed his younger brother John, who had excited much livelier expectations of his abilities as an artist, to Rome; where John, who was of a delicate and consumptive habit, soon fell a victim to the climate, and his obstinate exertions in art. Alexander continued his studies under the patronage and with the support of sir James Clerk, a Scottish baronet, and gave a specimen of his abilities before his departure, in a picture of considerable size, representing Ulysses surprising Nausica at play with her maids: it exhibited, with the defects and manner of Giulio Romano in style, design, and expression, a tone, a juice, and breadth of colour, resembling Tintoretto. At his return to Scotland in 1771, Runciman was employed by his patron to decorate the hall at Pennecuik, with a series of subjects from Ossian; in the course of some years he was made master of a public institution for promoting design, and died Oct. 21, 1785. Jacob More, the landscape-painter, who died at Rome, was his pupil; and John Brown, celebrated for design, his friend. One of his capital pictures is the Ascension, an altar-piece in the episcopal chapel, Edinburgh; another a Lear, which, with his Andromeda and “Agrippina landing with the ashes of Germanicus,” are highly praised by his countrymen. Edwards mentions having seen two etchings by this artist, the one “Sigismunda weeping over the heart of Tancred;” the other riew of Edinburgh, which is executed with great spirit and taste.

The earliest of Rupert’s engravings in mezzotinto, that is now extant, is dated in 1658. It is an half length figure from Spagnoletto: the subject, an executioner holding a sword in one hand, and in the other a head, which is probably intended for that of John the Baptist, and upon the sword are the initials R. P. F. surmounted with a coronet. It is further distinguished by the following inscription on a tablet beneath, “Sp in Rvp. P. fecit. Francofurti. anno 1658 M. A. P. M.” Prince Rupert died at his house in Spring Gardens, Nov, 29, 1682, and was interred in Henry the Vllth’s chapel, regretted as one whose aim in all his actions and all his accomplishments was the public good. He was a great promoter of the trade to Africa, and a principal protector of the Royal African Company; as a proof of which, before the first Dutch war in this reign, he offered his majesty to sail with a squadron to the coast of Guinea, in order to vindicate the honour of the crown, assert the just rights of the company, and redress the injuries done to the nation; but the king, unwilling to hazard his person at such a distance, and in so sickly a climate, though he received the motion kindly, would not consent to it, but contented himself with taking an officer of his recommendation (captain Holmes), under whom the squadron was sent. He was an active member of the council of trade. It was owing to his solicitations, after being at great expence, not only in the inquiry into the value, but in sending ships thither, that the Hudson’s Bay Company was erected, of which he was the first governor appointed by the charter. In memory of him, a considerable opening on the east side of that bay, in Terra de Labrador, is called Rupert’s river. In general, his highness was a great friend to seamen, and to all learned, ingenious, and public-spirited persons, and assisted them with his purse, as well as afforded them his countenance. He was concerned in the patent for annealed cannon, in a glass-house, and other undertakings for acquiring or improving manufactures. Strict justice has been done to his highness’s many virtues, and amiable qualities, in that excellent character of him by bishop Sprat. In respect to his private life, he was so just, so beneficent, so courteous, that his memory remained dear to all who knew him. “This,” observes Campbell, “I say of my own knowledge; having often heard old people in Berkshire speak in raptures of prince Rupert.”

Dr. Russel, without exhibiting the graces of polished life, was an agreeable companion, and possessed a considerable fund of general knowledge, and a zeal for literature and genius, which approached to enthusiasm. In all his undertakings, he was strictly honourable, and deserved the confidence reposed in him by his employers.

Ruysch was appointed professor of physic in 1685, a post which he filled with honour and reputation until 1728, when he unhappily broke his thigh by a fall in his chamber. He was also nominated superintendant of the mid wives at Amsterdam, in the exercise of which office he introduced some improvements. He was a member of the royal society of London, and of the academy of sciences of Paris, having succeeded sir Isaa Newton in the latter body in 1727. In the same year he had the misfortune to lose his son, Henry Ruysch, also doctor of physic, who, like himself, was an able practitioner, well skilled in anatomy and botany, and was supposed to have materially assisted him in his publications, inventions, and experiments. This loss deprived him of his best assistance in completing the second collection of rarities, which he was occupied in making. His youngest daughter, however, who was still unmarried, and had been initiated into all the mysteries of his anatomical experiments, was fully qualified to assist him, and he proceeded with his new museum, retaining his general health until the commencement of 1731, when he was carried off by a fever, in the ninety-third year of his age.

, a very eminent French surgeon, was born at Paris in October 1732, and after studying there, acquired the first rank in his profession, and in every situation which he filled, his knowledge, skill, and success, were equally conspicuous. He became censor-royal of the academy of sciences, professor and demonstrator of the surgical schools, secretary of correspondence, surgeon-major of the hospital of invalids, and a member of the institute. His education had been more liberal and comprehensive than usual. He not only was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, but was well acquainted with the English, Italian, and German languages. Besides his public courses of lectures on anatomy and surgery, he instructed many private pupils, not only of his own country, but those of foreign nations who were attracted to Paris by his fame as a teacher, and were delighted with his unaffected politeness and candour. In his latter days Bonaparte appointed him one of his consulting surgeons, and he was one of the first on whom he bestowed the cross of the legion of honour. Sabatier died at Paris July 21, 1811. He retained his faculties to the last, but we are told became ashamed of his bodily weakness. “Hide me,” he said to his wife and son, “from the world, that you may be the only witnesses of this decay to which I must submit.” A little before his death he said to his son, “Contemplate the state into which I am fallen, and learn to die.” His humane attention to his patients was a distinguished feature in his character. During any painful operation he used to say, “Weep! weep! the more you express a sense of your sufferings, the more anxious I shall be to shorten them.”

In 1562, he presided at a national synod at Orleans, and then went to Berne, and finally to Geneva, where he was associated with the ministers of that place. Henry IV. who had a great respect for him, gave him an invitation to his court, which, after some hesitation, from his aversion to public life, he accepted, and was chaplain at the battle of Courtray, and had the charge of a mission to the pro^ testant princes of Germany; but unable at length to bear the fatigues of a military life, which he was obliged to pass with his royal benefactor, he retired to Geneva in 1589, and resumed his functions as a preacher, and undertook the professorship of Hebrew until his death, Feb. 23, 1591, Besides his sermons, which were highly popular and persuasive, he aided the cause of reformation by taking an active part in the controversies which arose out of it, and by writings of the practical kind. One French biographef tells us that Sadeel was an assumed name, but in all other authorities, we find him called by that name only with the addition of Chandæus, which alluded to his ancestors, who were barons of Chandieu. Accordingly his works are entitled “Antonii Sadeelis Chandaei, nobilissimi viri, opera theologica,” Geneva, 1592, folio; reprinted 1593, 4to; and 1599 and 1615, folio. They consist, among others, of the following treatises published sepa-r rately, “De verbo Dei scripto,” Gen, 1592. “De vera peccatorum remissione,” ibid. 1591. “De unico Christi sacerdotio et sacrincio,” ibid. 1692. “De spirituali et sacramentali manducatione Corporis Christi;” two treatises, ibid. 1596. “Posnaniensium assertionum refutatio,” ibid. 1596. “Refutatio libelli Claudii de Sainctes, intitulati, Examen doctrinae Calvinianae et Bezanae de ccena Domini,” ibid. 1592. He wrote also, in French, “Histoire des persecutions et des martyrs de Peglise de Paris, depuis Fan 1557, jusqu'au regne de Charles IX.” printed at Lyons, in 1563, 8vo, under the name of Zamariel. He wrote also “Metamorphose de Ronsard en pretre,” in verse, part of a controversy he had with that writer, who in his work on the troubles during the minority of Charles IX. had attributed them to the reformers. His life, by James Lectius, was prefixed to his works, and published separately at Geneva in 1593, 8vo. The substance of it is given in our first authority.

, or Salvianus, an elegant and beautiful writer, was one of those who are usually called fathers of the church, and began to be distinguished about 440. The time and place of his birth cannot be settled with any exactness. Some have supposed him to have been an African, but without any reasonable foundation: while others have concluded, with more probability, that he was a Gaul, from his calling Gallia his “solum patrium;” though perhaps this may prove no more than that his family came from that country. His editor Baluzius infers from his first epistle, that he was born at Cologne in Germany; and it is known, that he lived a long time at Triers, where he married a wife who was an heathen, but whom he easily brought over to the faith. He removed from Triers into the province of Vienne, and afterwards became a priest of Marseilles. Some have said, that he was a bishop; but this is a mistake, which arose, as Baluzius very well conjectures, from this corrupt passage in Gennadius, “Homilias scripsit Episcopus multas:” whereas it should be read “Episcopis” instead of “Episcopus,” it being known that he did actually compose many homilies or sermons for the use of some bishops. He died very old towards the end of the fifth century, after writing and publishing a great many works; of which, however, nothing remains but eight books “De Providentia Dei” four books “Adverstis avaritiam, praesertim Clericorum et Sacerdotum” and nine epistles. The best edition of these pieces is that of Paris 1663, in 8vo, with the notes of Baluzius; re-printed elegantly in 1669, 8vo. The “Commonitorium” of Vincentius Lirinensis is published with it, with notes also by Baluzius.

, a learned physician, was born March 7, 1766, at Penna-Macor, in Portugal. His father, who was an opulent merchant, and iritended him for the bar, gave him a liberal education; but, being displeased at finding him, at the age of eighteen, obstinately bent on the profession of physic, withdrew his protection, and he was indebted to Dr. Nunés Ribeiro, his mother’s brother, who was a physician of considerable repute at Lisbon, for the means of prosecuting his medical studies, which he did, first at Coimbra, and afterwards at Salamanca, where he took the degree of M. D. in 1724; and the year following procured the appointment of phvsician to the town of Benevente in Portugal; for which, as is the custom of that country, he had a small pension, His stay at this place, however, was hut short. He was desirous of seeing more of the world, and of improving himself in his profession. With this view he came and passed two years in London, and had even an intention of fixing there; but a bad state of health, which he attributed to the climate, induced him to return to the continent. Soon after, we find him prosecuting his medical studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Boerhaavc; and it will be a sufficient proof of his diligence and merit to observe, that in 1731, when the Empress of Russia (Anne) requested Boerhaave to recommend -to her three physicians, the professor immediately fixed upon Dr. Sanches to be one of the number. Just as he was setting out for Russia, he was informed that his father was lately dead; and that his mother, in an unsuccessful law-suit with the Portuguese admiralty, had lost the greater part of her fortune. He immediately assigned over his own little claims and expectations in Portugal for her support. Soon after his arrival at St. Petersburg, Dr. Bidloo (son of the famous physician of that name), who was at that time first physician to the empress, -ave him an appointment in the hospital at Moscow, where he remained till 1734, when he was employed as physician to the army, in which capacity he was present at the siege of Asoph, where he was attacked with a dangerous fever, and, when he began to recover, found himself in a tent, abandoned by hjs attendants, and plundered of his papers and effects. In 1740, he was appointed one of the physicians to the court, and consulted by the empress, who had for eight years been labouring under a disease, the cause of which had never been satisfactorily ascertained Dr. Sanches, jn a conversation with the prime minister, gave it us his opinion, that the complaint originated from a stone in one of the kidneys, and admitted only of palliation. At the end of six: months the empress died, and the truth of his opinion was confirmed by dissection. Soon after the death of the empress, Dr. Sanche*s was advanced by the regent to the office of first physician; but the revolution of 1742, which placed Elizabeth Petrowna on the throne, deprived him of all his appointments. Hardly a day passed that he did not hear of some of his friends perishing on the scaffold; and it was not without much difficulty that he obtained leave to retire from Russia. His library, which had cost him 1200 pounds sterling, he disposed of to the academy of St. Petersburg, of which he was an honorary member; and, in return, they agreed to give him a pension of forty pounds per annum. During his residence in Russia, he had availed himself of his situation at court, to establish a correspondence with the Jesuits in China, who, in return for books of astronomy and other presents, sent him seeds or plants, together with other articles of natural history. It was from Dr. Sanche*s that the late Mr. Peter Cqllinson first received the seeds of the true rhubarb, but the plants were destroyed by some accident; and it was not till several years afterwards that rhubarb was cultivated with success in this country, from seeds sent over by the late Dr. Mounsey. In 1747, he went to reside at Paris, where he remained till his death. He enjoyed the friendship of the celebrated physicians and philosophers of that capital, and, at the institution of a Royal Medical Society, he was chosen a foreign associate. He was likewise a member of the royal academy of Lisbon, to the establishment of which his advice had probably contributed, as he drew up, at the desire of the court of Portugal, several memorials on the plans necessary to be adopted for the encouragement of science. Some of these papers, relative to the establishment of an university, were printed during his lifetime in Portuguese, and the rest have been found among. his manuscripts. His services in Russia remained for sixteen years unnoticed but, when the late empress Catherine ascended the throne, Dr. Sanches was not forgotten. He had attended her in a dangerous illness when she was very young; and she now rewarded him with a pension of a thousand roubles, which was punctually paid till his death. He likewise received a, pension from the court of Portugal, and another from prince Gallitzin. A great part of this income he employed in acts of benevolence. Of the liberality with with he administered to the wants of his rela T tions and friends, several striking instances, which our limits will not permit us to insert, have been related by Mr. de Magellan. He was naturally of an infirm habit of body, and, during the last thirty years of his life, frequently voided small stones with his urine. The disposition to this disease increased as he advanced in years, and for a considerable time before his death, he was confined to his apartments. The last visit he mad was, in 1782, to the grand duke of Russia, who was then at Paris. In September 1783, he perceived that his end was approaching, and he died on the 14th of October following. His library, which was considerable, he bequeathed to his brother, Dr. Marcello Sanches, who was likewise a pupil of Boerhaave", and who resided at Naples. His manuscripts (amorig which, besides a considerable number of papers on medical subjects, are letters written by him to Boerhaave. Van Swiften, Gaubius, Halter, Werlhof, Pringle, Fothergill, and other learned men) are in. the possession of Dr. An dry. His printed works, on the origin of the venereal disease and other subjects, are well known to medical readers; but his knowledge, it seems, was not confined to his own profession; he possessed a fund of general learning, and is said to have been profoundly versed in politics.

Sanctorius unquestionably conferred a benefit on medical science, by directing the observation of medical men to the functions of the skin but unfortunately, the doctrines were extended much too far and, coinciding with the mechanical principles, which were coming into vogue after the discovery of the circulation, as well as with the chemical notions, which were not yet exploded, they contributed to complete the establishment of the humoral pathology, under the shackles of which the practice of medicine continued almost to our own times. Sanctorius was also the author of several inventions. Besides his statical chair, he invented an instrument for measuring the force of the pulse; and several new instruments of surgery. He was the first physician who attempted to measure the heat of the skin by a thermometer, in different diseases, and at different periods of thesanie disease; and it is to his credit that he was an avowed enemy to empirics and empirical nostrums, as well as to all occult remedies.

Sandys distinguished himself also as a poet; and his productions in that way were greatly admired in the times they were written. In 1632 he published “Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished, mythologized, and represented in figures,” Oxford, in folio. Francis Cleyn was the inventor of the figures, and Solomon Savary the engraver. He had before published part of this translation; and, in the preface to this second edition, he tells us, that he has attempted to collect out of sundry authors the philosophical sense of the fables of Ovid. To this work, which is dedicated to Charles I. is subjoined “An Essay to the translation of the jEneis.” It was reprinted in 1640. In 1636, he published, in 8vo, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms of David, and upon the Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testament,” 1636, 8vo, reprinted in 1638, folio; with a title somewhat varied, This was a book which, Wood tells us, Charles I. delighted to read, when a prisoner in Carisbrooke castle. There was an edition of J 640, with the Psalms set to music, by Lawes. In this last year he published, in 12rno, a sacred drama, written originally by Grotius, under the title of “Christus Patiens,” and which Mr. Sandys, in his translation, has called “Christ’s Passion,” on which, and “Adamus Exul,” and Masenius, is founded Lauder’s impudent charge of plagiarism against Milton. This translation was reprinted, with cuts, in 1688, $vo. The subject of it was treated before in Greek by Apollinarius bishop of Hierapolis, and after him by Gregory Nazianzen; but, according to Sandys, Grotius excelled all others. Langbaine tells us, with regard to Sandys’ translation, that “he will be allowed an excellent artist in it by learned judges; and he has followed Horace’s advice of avoiding a servile translation, * nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres’ so he comes so near the sense of his author, that nothing is lost; no spirits evaporate in the decanting of it into English; and, if there be any sediment, it is left behind.” He published also a metrical paraphrase of “The Song of Solomon,” London, 1641, 4to, dedicated to the King, and reprinted in 1648 with his “Psalms.” There are but few incidents known concerning our author. All who mention him agree in bestowing on him the character, not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety. For the most part of his latter days he lived with sir Francis Wenman, of Caswell, near Witney in Oxfordshire, to whom his sister was married; probably chusing that situation in some measure on account of its proximity to Burford, the retirement of his intimate acquaintance and valuable friend Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who addressed some elegant poems to him, preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” with several by Mr. Sandys, who diejl at the house of his nephew, sir Francis Wyat, at Boxley in Kent, in 1643; and was interred in the* chancel of that parish-church, without any inscription but in the parish register is this entry “Georgius Sandys poetarum Anglorum sui sseculi facile princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7, Stilo Angliae, ann. Dom. 164$.” His memory has also been handed down by various writers, with the respect thought due to his great worth and abilities. Mr. Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age, but objects to his “Ovid,” as too close and literal; and Mr. Pope declared, in his notes to the Iliad, that English poetry owed much of its present beauty to his translations. Dr. Warton thinks that Sandys did more to polish and tune the English versification than Den ham or Waller, who are usually applauded on this subject; yet his poems are not now much read. The late biographer of his father observes, that “the expressive energy of his prose will entitle him to a place among English classics, when his verses, some of which arebeautiful, shall be forgotten. Of the excellence of his style, the dedication of his travels to prince Henry, will afford a short and very conspicuous example.”

Cardinal Perron gave his opinion of father Paul in these terms “I see nothing eminent in that man he is a man of judgment and good sense, but has no great learning I observe his qualifications to be mere common -ones, and little superior to an ordinary monk’s.” But the learned Morhoff has justly remarked, that “this judgment of Perron is absurd and malignant, and directly contrary to the clearest evidence; since those who are acquainted with the great things done by father Paul, and with the vast extent of his learning, will allow him to be superior, not only to monks, but cardinals, and even to Perron himself.” Courayer, his French translator, says, that “in imitation of Erasmus, Cassander, Thuanus, and other great men, Paul was a Catholic in general, and sometimes a Protestant in particulars. He observed every thing in the Roman religion, which could be practised without superstition; and, in points which he scrupled, took great care not to scandalize the weak. In short, he was equally averse to all extremes: if he disapproved the abuses of the Catholics, he condemned also the too great heat of the reformed; and used to’say to those who urged him to declare himself in favour of the latter, that God had not given him the spirit of Luther.” Courayer likewise observes, that Paul wished for a reformation of the Papacy, and not the destruction of it; and was an enemy to the abuses and pretences of the popes, not their place.“We see by several of Paul’s letters, that he wished well to the progress of the reformation, though in a gentler manner than that which had been taken to procure it; and, if he himself had been silent on this head, we might have collected his inclinations this way, from circumstances relating to Fulgentio, the most intimate of his friends, and who was best acquainted with his sentiments. Burnet informs us, that Fulgentio preaching upon Pilate’s question,” What is Truth“told the audience, that at last, after many searches, he had found it out and holding forth a New Testament, said, it was there in his hand but, adds he, putting it again in his pocket,” the book is prohibited."

, in Latin Sarravius, a learned French lawyer, was born towards the close of the sixteenth century, of a noble family, and educated by his father, who was a man of letters, with the greatest care. To the study of the law, he joined a taste for polite literature, philosophy, and criticism, wrote elegantly in Latin, and was an excellent Greek scholar. He had perused the classics with great attention; and some Latin and French verses which he wrote, show that he had formed his taste on the best models. He practised at the bar at Rouen, but was an enemy to litigious suits, and always endeavoured to prevent his clients from corning into court, while reconciliation was possible. He lived in intimacy and correspondence with the most learned men of his time, particularly Salmasius, Grotius, and our archbishop Usher. It is not much praise to add after this, that he had Christina queen of Sweden for a correspondent. He was of the protestant religion, and appears to have been displeased with some symptoms of what he thought lukewarm ness in his friend Grotius, and wished him to be more decided. Sarrau died May 30, 1651, advanced in years, and was lamented in poems and eloges by many learned contemporaries. He published the collection of Grotius’s correspondence entitled “Grotii epistolsc ad Gallos,” and his own Latin letters were published in 1654, 8vo, and reprinted at Utrecht with the letters of Marquard Gudius, in 1697, 4to, and again at Leyden by Peter Burman in 1711, who has inserted some of them in his valuable “Sylloge.” They contain many particulars of the literary history of the times. He appears to have been an exceeding admirer of Salmasius.

As he was instructing the academical youth in the principles of the Newtonian philosophy, it was not long before he became acquainted with the incomparable author, although he had left the university several years; and enjoyed his frequent conversation concerning the more difficult parts of his works. He lived in friendship also with the most eminent mathematicians of the age? with Halley, Cotes, De Moivre, &c. Upon the removal of Whiston from his professorship, Saunderson’s mathematical merit was universally allowed so much superior to that of any competitor, that an extraordinary step was taken in his favour, to qualify him with a degree, which the statutes require. Upon application made by the heads of colleges to the duke of Somerset, their chancellor, a mandate was readily granted by the queen for conferring on him the degree of master of arts: upon which he was chosen Lucasian professor of the mathematics, Nov. 1711, sir Isaac Newton all the while interesting himself very much in the affair. His first performance, after he was seated in the chair, was an inauguration-speech made in very elegant Latin, and a style truly Ciceronian; for he was well versed in the writings of Tully, who was his favourite in prose, as Virgil and Horace were in verse. From this time he applied himself closely to the reading of lectures, and gave up his whole frime to his pupils. He continued among the gentlemen of Christ’s college till 1723; when he took a house in Cambridge, and soon after married a daughter of the rev. Mr. Dickens, rector of Boxworth in Cambridgeshire, by whom he had a son and a daughter. In 1728, when George II. visited the university, he was pleased to signify his desire of seeing so remarkable a person; and accordingly the professor waited upon his majesty in the senatehouse, and was there created doctor of laws by royal favour. Saunderson was naturally of a strong healthy constitution; but being too sedentary, and constantly confining himself to the house, he became at length a valetudinarian. For some years he frequently complained of a numbness in his limbs, which, in the spring of 1739, ended in an incurable mortification of his foot. He died April 19, aged fifty-seven, and was buried, according to his request, in the chancel at Boxworth. He was a man rather to be admired than loved. He had much wit and vivacity in conversation, and many reckoned him a good companion. He had also a great regard to truth, but was one of those who think it their duty to express their sentiments on men and opinions, without reserve or restraint, or any of the courtesies of conversation, which created him many enemies; nor was he less offensive by a habit of profane swearing, and the obtrusion of infidel opinions, which last he held, notwithstanding the kindness of providence towards him throughout his extraordinary life*. He is said, however, to have received the notice of his approaching death with great calmness and serenity; and after a short silence, resuming life and spirit, talked with as much composure as usual, and at length, we are told, appointed to receive the sacrament the evening before his death, which a delirium that never went off prevented him from doing.

Sauvages was much loved by his pupils, to whom he communicated freely all that he knew, and received with equal readiness whatever information any one was enabled to give him. He was an able mathematician, an. accurate observer of phenomena, and ingenious in devising experiments; but had too much bias to systems, so that he did not always consult facts uninfluenced by prepossession. He was a member of the most learned societies of Europe, viz. of the Royal Society of London, of those of Berlin, Upsal, Stockholm, and Montpellier, of the Academy “Naturae Curiosorum,” of the Physico-Botanical Academy of Florence, and of the Institute of Bologna. He obtained the prizes given by many public bodies to the best essays oil given subjects; and a collection of these prize-essays was published at Lyons in 1770, in two volumes, with the title of.“Chef d'Œuvres de M. de Sauvages.”

The first effort of his uncultivated genius was a poem against Hoadly, bishop of Bangor; of which the author was afterwards ashamed. He then attempted to write for the stage, but with little success: yet this attempt was attended with some advantage, as it introduced him to the acquaintance of sir Richard Sieele and Mr. Wilks. Whilst he was in dependence on these gentlemen, he was an assiduous frequenter of the theatres, and never absent from a play in several years. In 1723 he brought a tragedy on the stage, in which himself performed a part, the subject of which was “Sir Thomas Overbury.” If we consider the circumstances under which it was written, it will afford at once an uncommon proof of strength of genius, and an evenness of mind not to be ruffled. Whilst he was employed upon this work, he was without a lodging, and often without food nor had he any other conveniences for study than the fields or the street and, when he had formed a speech, he would step into a shop, and beg the use of pen, ink, and paper. The profits of thjs play amounted to about 200l.; and it procured him the notice and esteem of many persons of distinction, some rays of genius glimmering through all the clouds of poverty and oppression. But, when the world was beginning to behold him with a more favourable eye, a misfortune befel him, by which not only his reputation, but his life, was in danger. In a night-ramble he fell into a coffee-house of ill-fame, near Charing-Cross; when a quarrel happened, and one Mr. Sinclair was killed in the fray. Savage, with his companion, was taken into custody, tried for murder, and capitally convicted of the offence. His mother was so inhuman, at this critical juncture, as to use all means to prejudice the queen against him, and to intercept all the hopes he had of life from the royal mercy; but at last the countess of Hertford, out of compassion, laid a true account of the extraordinary story and sufferings of poor Savage before her majesty; and obtained his pardon.

After Dr. Schomberg had practised some years as a physician in London, he received a notice from the college of their intention to examine him in the usual form, and to admit him a licentiate. This notice he was thought to have treated with contempt; for, instead of submitting tothe examination, he objected to the names of some persons vyho were to be examined at the same time, and behaved, it is said, with some haughtiness to those of the college who, he complained, had used him ill, in ordering him to be examined in such company. The college considering themselves the sole judges of what persons they should upon, refused to attend to the doctor’s objection, but examined the persons against whom he seemed most to except; but this not tending to make up the dispute, they proceeded to interdict the doctor from practice until he had given such satisfaction as his conduct required. In the mean time the doctor submitted to be examined, and in 1750 procured the degree of doctor of physic to be conferred on him by the university of Cambridge; and, thus supported, demanded his admittance a second time, not as a licenciate, but one of the body. This demand was refused to be complied with, and it was objected, that the doctor, though naturalized, could not hold the office of censor of the college, which was an office of trust; and this refusal brought the determination of the business to the decision of the lawyers. A petition was presented to the king, praying him, in the person of the lord chancellor, to exercise his visitatorial power over the college, and restore the licenciates to their rights, which, by their arbitrary proceedings, the president and fellows had for a succession of ages deprived them of. This petition came on to be heard at Lincoln’s Inn hall, before the lord chief justice Willis, baron Smythe, and judge Wilmot, lords commissioners of the great seal; but the allegations therein contained not being established, the same was dismissed. This attack on the college was the most formidable it erer sustained.

, was born Feb. 15, 1749, at Herborn (where his father was at that time divinityprofessor), and was educated at the university at Leyden, where he applied himself with great diligence to the Arabic, under his father’s instructions, and those of Scheidius, who then lodged in his house. By his father’s advice, he commenced his study of the eastern languages by learning the Arabic, to which he applied during two years, before he began the Hebrew. This, among other reasons, may account for the preference which he always gave to the Arabic literature, and which was so great that he was often heard to wish that the duties of his station would allow him to devote the whole of his time to it. He, however, studied the Greek and Latin classics with the utmost diligence under Hemsterhuis, Rhunkenius, and Valkenaar. He also cultivated an acquaintance with the best modem writers, among whom he in general gave the preference to the English; he was remarkably fond of Pope; and of Shakspeare he was an enthusiastic admirer.

, a most learned German lady, was the daughter of parents who were both descended from noble Protestant families, and was born at Cologne, in 1607. She discovered from her infancy an uncommon facility in acquiring various accomplishments, as cutting with her scissors upon paper all sorts of figures, without any model, designing flowers, embroidery, music vocal and instrumental, painting-, sculpture, and engraving; and is said to have succeeded equally in all these arts. Mr. Evelyn, in his “History of Chalcography,” has observed, that “the very knowing Anna Maria a Schurman is skilled in this art with innumerable others, even to a prodigy of her sex.” Her hand-xvriting in all languages was inimitable; and some curious persons have preserved specimens of it in their cabinets. M. Joby, in his journey to Minister, relates, that he was an eye-witness to the beauty of her writing, in French, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic; and of her skill in drawing in miniature, and making portraits upon glass with the point of a diamond. She painted her own picture by means of a looking-glass; and made artificial pearls so like natural ones, that they could not be distinguished but by pricking them with a needle.

Her father, who had settled at Utrecht while she was an infant, and afterwards removed to Franeker for the more convenient education of his children, died there in 1623. His widow then returned to Utrecht, where Anna Maria continued her studies very intensely; which probably prevented her from marrying, as she might have done advantageously v.ith Mr. Cats, pensionary of Holland, and a celebrated poet, who wrote verses in her praise when she was only fourteen. Her modesty, which was as great as her knowledge, would have kept her in obscurity, if Rivetus, Spanheim, and Vossius, had not made her merit known. Salmasius also, Beverovicius, and Huygens, maintained a literary correspondence with her; and, by shewing her letters, spread her fame into foreign countries. This procured her a correspondence with Balzac, Gassendi, Mersennus, Bo chart, Conrart, and other eminent men; persons of the first rank paid her visits, and cardinal Richelieu likewise shewed her marks of his esteem. About 1650, a great alteration took place in her religious system. She performed her devotions in private, without frequenting any church, upon which it was reported that she was inclined to popery; but she attached herself to the famous mystic Labadie, and embracing his principles and practice, lived some time with him at Altena, in Holstein, and attended him at his death there in 1674. She afterwards retired to Wiewart, in Friseland, where the famous Penn, the Quaker, visited her in 1677; she died at this place in 1678. She took for her device these words of St. Ignatius: “Amor meus crucifixus est.”

Mrs. Scott, his widow, survived him about fifteen years, and died at Catton, near Norwich, in Nov. 1795. She was sister to the late celebrated Mrs. Montagu, of Portmansquare. From the pen of a very intelligent and equally candid writer, we have the following account of this lady “She was an excellent historian, of great acquirements, extraordinary memory, and strong sense; and constantly employed in literary labours; yet careless of fame, and tree from vanity and ostentation. Owing to a disagreement of tempers, she soon separated from her husband; but in every other relation of life she was, with some peculiarities, a woman of exemplary conduct, of sound principles, enlivened by the warmest sense of religion, and of a charity so unbounded, so totally regardless of - herself, as to be almost excessive and indiscriminate. Her talents were not so brilliant, nor her genius so predominant, as those of her sister, Mrs. Montagu: but in some departments of literature she was by no means her inferior. When she left her husband she united her income with that of her intimate friend, lady Bab Montagu, the sister of lord Halifax, and they continued to live together to the death of the latter. From that period Mrs. Scott continually changed her habitation, for restlessness was one of her foibles. Her intercourse with the world was various and extensive; and there were few literary people of her day with whom she had not either an acquaintance or a correspondence. Yet when she died, not one of her contemporaries who knew her literary habits came forward to preserve the slightest memorial of her; and she went to her grave as unnoticed as the most obscure of those who have done nothing worthy of remembrance. Under these circumstances, the writer of this article trusts to a candid reception of this imperfect memoir, while he laments that Mrs. Scott herself shut out some of the best materials, by ordering all her papers and voluminous correspondence, which came into the hands of her executrix, to be burnt; an order much to be lamented, because there is reason to believe, from the fragments which remain in other hands, that her letters abounded with literary anecdote, and acute observations on character and life. Her style was easy, unaffected, and perspicuous; her remarks sound, and her sagacity striking. Though her fancy was not sufficiently powerful to give the highest attraction to a novel, she excelled in ethical remarks, and the annals of the actual scenes of human nature. In dramatic effect, in high-wrought passion, and splendid imagery, perhaps she was deficient.”

Nor was his concern for the Protestant cause confined to his own country he was well known as the great patron and protector of it in various parts of Europe from whence he had frequent applications for assistance, which never failed of being favourably received. To several foreign Protestants he ailowed pensions, to others he gave occasional relief, and to some of their universities was an annual benefactor.

, a French historian, was born January 8, 1691, at Paris. He began to study the law in obedience to his father’s desire, who was an able advocate; but losing both his parents shortly after, he quitted the bar, for which he had not the least taste, and devoted himself wholly to the belles lettres, and French history. His unwearied application to books, which no other passion interrupted, soon made him known among the learned; and he was admitted into the academy of inscriptions in 1723, and chosen by chancellor d'Aguesseau five years after, to continue the great collection of statutes, made by the French kings, which M. de Laurier had begun. As Secousse possessed every talent necessary for such an important undertaking, the voiumes which he published were received with universal approbation. He died at Paris, March 15, 1754, aged sixty-three, leaving a library, the largest and most curious, in French history, that any private person had hitherto possessed. His works are, the continuation of the collection of statutes before mentioned, to the ninth volume inclusively, which was printed under the inspection of M. de Villevault, counsellor to the court of aids, who succeeded M. Secousse, and published a table, forming a tenth volume, and since, an eleventh and twelfth. Secousse also wrote many dissertations in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions editions of several works, and of several curious pieces “Memoirs for the History of Charles the Bad,” 2 vols. 4to,

, one of the most learned men of the seventeenth century, wasthe son of John Selden, a yeoman, by Margaret his wife, only daughter of Mr. Thomas Baker of Rushington, descended from the family of th Bakers in Kent. He was born Dec, 16, 1584, at a house called the Lacies at Salvinton, near Terring in Sussex, and educated at the free-school at Chichester, where he made a very early progress in learning. In 159$, at fourteen years of age, as some say, but according to Wood, in 1600, he was entered of Hart-hall, Oxford, where under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Barker (brother to his schoolmaster at Chichester) and Mr. John Young, both of that hall, he studied about three years, and then removed to Clifford’s Inn, London, for the study of the law, and about two years afterwards exchanged that situation for the Inner Temple. Here he soon attained a great reputation for learning, and acquired the friendship of sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, Camden, and Usher. In 1606, when only twentytwo years of age, he wrote a treatise on the civil government of Britain, before the coming in of the Normans, which was esteemed a very extraordinary performance for his years. It was not printed, however, until 1615, and then very incorrectly, at Francfort, under the title “Analects Anglo-Britannicwv Hbri duo, de civile administratione Britanniae Magnae usque ad Normanni adventum,” 4to. Nicolson is of opinion that these “Analecta” do not so clearly account for the religion, government, and revolutions of state among our Saxon ancestors, as they are reported to do. It was an excellent specimen, however, of what might be expected from a youth of such talents and application.

Notwithstanding all this, the royalists were unwilling to believe that a man so learned and so well informed as Selden could be seriously hostile, and there were even some thoughts of taking the great seal from the lord keeper Littleton, and giving it to him. Clarendon tells us, that lord Falkland and himself, to whom his majesty referred the consideration of this measure, “did not doubt of Mr. Selden’s affection to the king; but withal they knew him so well, that they concluded he would absolutely refuse the place, if it were offered to him. He was in years, and of a tender constitution be had for many years enjoyed his ease, which he loved was rich, and would not have made a journey to York, or have lain out of his own bed, for any preferment, which he had never affected.” But in all probability his majesty’s advisers savy that his want of iirmness, and his love of safety, were the real impediments. When the king found him opposing in parliament the commission of array, he desired lord Falkhad to write to Selden on the subject, who vindicated his conduct on that point, but declared his intention to-be equally hostile to the ordinance for the militia, which was moved by the factious party, and which he justly declared to be without any shadow of law, or pretence of precedent, and most destructive to the government of the kingdom. Accordingly he performed his promise, but tins remarkable difference attended his efforts, that his opposition to the commission of array did the king great injury among many of his subjects, while the ordinance which armed the parliamentary leaders against the crown was carried: and, according to Whitelocke, Selden himself was made a deputy -lieutenant under it. There was an equally remarkable difference in the treatment he received for this double opposition. The king and his friends, convinced that he acted honestly, bore no resentment against him; but the popular leaders, most characteristically, inferred from this, that he must be hostile to their cause, and made vain endeavours to induce Waller to implicate him in the plot which he disclosed in 1643. Nor was his exculpation sufficient: for he was obliged, by an oath, to testify his hostility against the traitorous and horrible plot for the subversion of the parliament and state,

, was an ancient Latin poet of the Augustan age, whose “Ætna” was published with notes and a prose interpretation by Le Clerc, at Amsterdam, 1703, in 12mo, but some copies have the date 1715. It is annexed to “Petri Bembi jEtna,” and is also in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poet.” It had been before inserted among the “Catalecta Virgilii,” published by Scaliger; whose notes, as well as those of Lindebrogius and Nicolas Heinsius, Le Clerc has mixed -.nth his own. Quintilian calls Severus “a versificator,” rather than a poet; yet adds, that “if he had finished the Sicilian war,” probably, between Augustus and Sextus Pompeius, “in the manner he had written the first book, he might have claimed a much higher rank. But though an immature death prevented him from doing this, yet his juvenile works shew the greatest genius.” Ovid addresses him, not only as his friend, but as a court favourite and a great poet.

About 1754, Mr. Seward removed with his family to Liehfield, which continued ever afterwards to be his daughter’s residence, although varied, during her father’s life, by occasional visits to his rectory at Eyam. For the first ten years of Miss Seward’s residence here, she was^rather checked than encouraged in the cultivation of her poetical talents. Her mother possessed no taste for her daughter’s favourite amusements, and even her father withdrew his countenance from them, under the apprehension that his continued encouragement might produce in his daughter that dreaded phenomenon, a learned lady. Poetry was therefore prohibited, and Miss Seward resorted to other amusements, and to the practice of ornamental needlework, in which she is said to have excelled. When, however, she arrived at an age to select her own society and studies, her love of literature was indulged, and the sphere in which she moved was such as to increase her taste for its pursuits. Dr. Darwin, the enthusiast Mr. Day, Mr. Edgeworth, sir Brooke Bootbby, and other names, well known in the literary world, then formed part of the Lichfield society. Dr. Johnson was an occasional visitor in their circles, but not much of a favourite with Dr. Darwin or Miss Seward. He neither agreed with the one, nor flattered the other.

, an English poet and physician, was born at Windsor, where his father was treasurer and chapter-clerk of the college; received his education at Eton-school, and Peter-house, Cambridge; where having taken the degree of B. M. he went to Leyden, to study under Boerhaave, and on his return practised physic in the metropolis with reputation. In the latter part of his life he retired to Hampstead, where he pursued his profession with some degree of success, till three other physicians came to settle at the same place, when his practice so far declined as to yield him very little advantage. He kept no house, but was a boarder. He was much esteemed, and so frequently invited to the tables of gentlemen in the neighbourhood., that he had seldom occasion to dine at home. He died Feb. 8, 1726; and was supposed to be very indigent at the time of his death, as he was interred on the 12th of the same month in the meanest manner, his coffin being little better than those allotted by the parish to the poor who are buried from the workhouse; neither did a single friend or relation attend him to the grave. No memorial was placed over his remains; but they lie just under a hollow tree which formed a part of a hedge-row that was once the boundary of the church-yard. He was greatly esteemed for his amiable disposition; and is represented by some writers as a Tory in his political principles, but of this there is no other proof given than his writing some pamphlets against bishop Burnet. It is certain, that a true spirit of liberty breathes in many of his works; and he expresses, on many occasions, a warm attachment to the Hanover succession. Besides seven controversial pamphlets, he wrote, 1. “The Life of John Philips.” 2, “A vindication of the English Stage, exemplified in the Cato of Mr. Addison, 1716;” 3. “Sir Walter Raleigh, a tragedy, acted at Lincoln’s-inn-fields, 1719;” and part of another play, intended to be called “Richard the First,” the fragments of which were published in 1718, with “Two moral Essays on the Government of the Thoughts, and on Death,” and a collection of “Several poems published in his life-time^” Dr. Sewell was an occasional assistant to Harrison in the fifth volume of “The Tatler; was a, principal writer in the ninth volume of” The Spectator; and published a translation of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses, in opposition to the edition of Garth and an edition of Shakspeare’s Poems. Jacob and Gibber have enumerated a considerable number of his single poems; and in Mr. Nichols’s” Collection" are some valuable ones, unnoticed by these writers.

, the historian of the Quakers, was the son of Jacob Williamson Sewell, a citizen of Amsterdam, and a surgeon, and appears to have been born therein 1650. His grandfather, William Sewell, was an Englishman, and had resided at Kidderminster; but being one of the sect of the Brownists, left his native country for the more free enjoyment of his principles in Holland, married a Dutch woman of Utrecht, and settled there. The parents of the subject of this article both died when he was young, but had instructed him in the principles of the Quakers, to which he steadily adhered during life. His education in other respects appears to have been the fruit of his own application; and the time he could spare from the business to which he was apprenticed (that of a weaver) he employed with good success in attaining a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, English, French, and High Dutch, languages. His natural abilities being good, his application unwearied, and his habits strictly temperate, he soon became noticed by some of the most respectable booksellers in Holland; and the translation of works of credit, chiefly from the Latin and English tongues, into Low Dutch, seems to have been one of the principal sources from which his moderate income was derived, in addition to the part he took, at different times, in several approved periodical publications. His modest, unassuming manners gained him the esteem of several literary men, whose productions, there is reason to believe, were not unfrequently revised and prepared for the press by him. His knowledge of his native tongue was profound: his “Dictionary,” “Grammar,” and other treatises on it, having left very little room for succeeding improvement: and he assisted materially in the compilation of Halma’s French and Dutch Dictionary. His “History of the people called Quakers,” written first in Low Dutch, and afterwards, by himself, in English (dedicated to George I.) was a very laborious undertaking, as he was scrupulously nice in the selection of his materials, which he had been during many years engaged in collecting. Of the English edition, for it cannot properly be called a translation, it may be truly said, that as the production of a foreigner, who had spent only about ten months in England, and that above forty years before, the style is far superior to what could have been reasonably expected. One principal object with the author was, a desire to correct what he conceived to be gross misrepresentations in Gerard Croese’s “History of Quakerism.” The exact time of SewelPs death does not appear; but in, a note of the editor’s to the third edition of his “Dictionary,” in 1726, he is mentioned as being lately deceased. His “History of the Quakers” appears to have been first published in 1722, folio, and reprinted in 1725.

, an English dramatic poet, was descended of a good family in the county of Stafford, but born at Stanton-hail, in Norfolk, a seat of his father’s, about 1640. He was educated at Cains college in Cambridge, and afterwards placed in the Middle Temple; where he studied the law some time, and then went abroad. Upon his return from his travels he applied himself to the drama, and wrote seventeen plays, with a success which introduced him to the notice of several persons of wit and rank, by whom he was highly esteemed. At the Revolution he was, by his interest with the earl of Dorset, made historiographer and poet-laureat; and when some persons urged that there were authors who had better pretensions to the laurel, his lordship is said to have replied, " that he did not pretend to determine how great a poet Shadwell might be, but was sure that he was an honest man.' 7 He succeeded Dryden as poet-laureat; for Dryden had so warmly espoused the opposite interest, that at the Revolution he was dispossessed of his place. This, however, Dryden considered as an indignity, and resented it very warmly. He had once been on friendly terms with Shadwell, but some critical differences appear to have first separated them, and now Dryden introduced Shadwell in his Mac-Fleckno, in these lines:

On his arrival in London, which was probably in 1586, when he was twenty -two years old, he is said to have made his first acquaintance in the play-house, to which idleness or taste may have directed him, and where his necessities, if tradition may be credited, obliged him to accept the office of call-boy, or prompter’s attendant. This is a menial, whose employment it is to give the performers notice to be ready to enter, as often as the business of the play requires their appearance on the stage. Pope, however, relates a story, communicated to him by Rowe, but which Rowe did not think deserving of a place in the life he wrote, that must a little retard the advancement of our poet to the office just mentioned. According to this story, Shakspeare’s first employment was to wait at the door of the play-house, and hold the horses of those who had no servants, that they might be ready after the performance. But “I cannot,” says his acute commentator, Mr. Steevens, “dismiss this anecdote without observing, that it seems to want every mark of probability. Though Shakspeare quitted Stratford on account of a juvenile irregularity, we have no reason to suppose that he had forfeited the protection of his father, who was engaged in a lucrative business 3 or the love of his wife, who had already brought him two children, and was herself the daughter of a substantial yeoman. It is unlikely, therefore, when he was beyond the reach of his prosecutor, that he should conceal his plan of life, or place of residence, from those who, if he found himself distressed, could not fail to afford him such supplies as would have set him above the necessity of holding horses for subsistence. Mr. Malone has remarked in his ‘Attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays of Shakspeare were written,’ that he might have found an easy introduction to the stage; for Thomas Green, a celebrated comedian of that period, was his townsman, and perhaps his relation. The genius of our author prompted him to write poetry; his connexion with a player might have given his productions a dramatic turn; or his own sagacity might have taught him that fame was not incompatible with profit, and that the theatre was an avenue to both. That it was once the general custom to ride on horse-back to the play, I am likewise yet to learn. The most popular of the theatres were on the Bank-side; and we are told by the satirical pamphleteers of that time, that the usual mode of conveyance to these places of amusement was by water, but not a single writer so much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or at the practice of having horses held during the hours of exhibition. Some allusion to this usage (if it had existed) must, I think, have been discovered in the course of our researches after contemporary fashions. Let it be remembered too, that we receive this tale on no higher authority than that of Gibber’s Lives of the Poets, vol. I. p. 130. Sir Win. Davenant told it to Mr. Betterton, who communicated it to Mr. Howe, who, according to Dr. Johnson, related it to Mr. Pope.” Mr. Malone concurs in opinion that this story stands on a very slender foundation, while he differs from Mr. Steevens as to the fact of gentlemen going to the theatre on horseback. With respect likewise to Shakspeare’s father being “engaged in a lucrative business,” we may remark, that this could not have been the case at the time our author came to London, if the preceding dates be correct. He is said to have arrived in London in 1586, the year in which his father resigned the office of alderman, unless, indeed, we are permitted to conjecture that his resignation was not the consequence of his necessities.

Mr. Sharp died July 6, 1813, and like Cato, though advanced to the age of 79, he pursued his studies with all the ardour of youth. He was an able linguist, deeply read in theology, and was well acquainted with the scriptures in the original tongues. He was pious and devout, without gloom, strictly moral and temperate, a great lover of music, and cheerful in conversation. His services to humanity were very distinguished, and few persons in private life have deserved a higher or more honourable commemoration. He possessed a very extensive library, in which the theologian, lawyer, classical scholar, politician, antiquary, and orientalist, might find almost every thing of which they could stand in need; and his collection of bibles was esteemed the best in the kingdom; some of these last he gave to the library of the British and Foreign Bible society, of which he was a zealous promoter. The rest, and remaining part of his library, were sold by auction by Messrs. Leigh and Sotheby.

, not related, as we have been told, to the preceding family, was an able and distinguished surgeon in the middle of the last century. He was a pupil of the celebrated Cheselden, and afterwards studied his profession with great zeal at the hospitals of Paris. He is said to have commenced his profession rather late in lire; yet after settling in London, and obtaining an appointment as surgeon of Guy’s hospital, his genius and assiduity soon obtained for him a high degree of celebrity, and extensive practice. He speaks of having known Voltaire early in life, and of being sometimes his conductor when that extraordinary genius was in London. He saw him likewise at Paris in 1749, and visited him for the last time during his travels in 1765. In the beginning of 1749 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and a foreign member of the Academy of Surgery at Paris; and he contributed to the improvement of his art by two valuable publications, which passed through many editions, and were translated into several foreign languages. The first of these was “A Treatise on the Operations of Surgery, with a Description and Representation of the Instruments; and an Introduction on the Nature and Treatment of Wounds, Abscesses, and Ulcers;” first printed in 1739. The edition printed in 1751, is the sixth. The second work was entitled “A critical Inquiry into the present State of Surgery;” first printed, we believe, in 1750. The edition of 1761 is the founh. In 1765 Mr. Sharp visited the continent for the sake of health, if we mistake not; and on his return published “Letters from Italy, describing the Manners and Customs of that Country,” an 8vo volume, written in a lively pleasant style, but giving such an account of Italy as roused the indignation of Baretti (See Baretti, vol. III. p. 465.) and produced his “Account of the Manners and Customs of Italy;” and a reply afterwards from each of the parties. Some time before his death Mr. Sharp retired from business, and died March 24, 1778.

In the foregoing poems are many allusions to the misery of their author, independent of the circumstances which gave rise to them. He was at this period afflicted with disease, which put on its most disgraceful form, and rendered him an object almost offensive to sight. He had possessed no small portion of vanity about his person, and this alteration added pungency to his afflictions. He however still continued to write, and in 1769 published “Corruption, a Satire, inscribed to the Right Hon. Richard Grenville, Karl Temple,” 4to. He afterwards is supposed to have written many political as well as poetical performances, and is recollected to have been a contributor, if not the editor of “The Freeholder’s Magazine.” One of his last pieces was an Elegy on the death of Charles Yorke, the Lord Chancellor, which was generally suspected to have been suppressed on the family’s paying a sum of money to the author: it even has been insinuated that it was written with that view, and it is to be feared that the morals of the author would not discountenance the opinion. At length, overwhelmed with complicated distress, he died at his house in Titchfield-street, Ox ford -market, Sept. 1, 1771, having exhibited to the world a miserable example of genius, extravagance, vanity, and imprudence genius to be commended, vices to be avoided, and follies to be despised.

, a physician of the last century, was the author of several works which enjoyed a considerable reputation in their day. His first professional publication, was entitled “New Practice of Physic,” in two volumes, and first printed in 1726: it contained a brief description of diseases and the methods of treating them, and was often reprinted, the 7th edition in 1763. His next work was an “Enquiry into the Virtues of Scarborough Spaw Waters,” which he visited during the season; it was printed in 1734-. In the same year he published also “Chymical Lectures publicly read in London 1731, 1732, and Scarborough 1733.” This was deemed a scientific and valuable work, and was translated into French. He published some minor works: “A Portable Laboratory,” 1731; “On Scurvy,” 1736; “Essays on Artificial Philosophy,” 1731 “On the Juice of the Grape,” 1724; and he edited the “Dispensatory of the College of Physicians of Edinburgh,” in 1727. Dr. Shaw was elected F. R. S. in 1755, an honour which he seems to have merited by his “Abridgment of Boyle’s Philosophical works,” 3 vols. 4to. and of “Lord Bacon’s” in the same form: he translated also Hoffman on Mineral Waters, Strahl’s Chemistry, and Boerhaave’s Elementa Chemica, in conjunction with Chambers. Notwithstanding these multifarious labours, he had an extensive share of practice, and was physician in ordinary to his present majesty, but resigned in favour of his son-in-law, Dr. Richard Warren, some time 'before his death, which happened March 15, 1763. He also left Dr. Warren his fortune.

, a notorious political writer, was born at Biddeford in Devonshire in 1709. His father was an attorney, but having small practice and little fortune, he carried on also the business of a corn-factor. Of his children, John was the eldest, and was educated at the free-school of Exeter, then conducted by the learned Mr. Zachary Mudge. Of his progress at school, it is recorded that he had a tenacious memory, much application, some wit, and a temper quarrelsome, dissatisfied, and irritable. In his fifteenth or sixteenth year he was bound apprentice to a surgeon in his native town, and acquired a considerable share of medical knowledge. To this situation he brought the unamiable disposition of his earlier years; no one could give him the slightest offence with impunity, and almost every person avoided his acquaintance. When out of his time he set up in trade for himself, and then shewed a taste for chemistry; but having little business, removed in 1736 to Bristol.

, an English dramatic writer and poet, was of an antient family, and born about 1594, in the parish of St. Mar) Wool-church, London. He was educated at Merchant-Taylors school, and thence removed to St. John’s college in Oxford; where Laud, then president of that college, had a good opinion of his talents, yet would often tell him, as Wood relates, that “he was an unfit person to take the sacred function upon him, and should never have his consent;” 'because Shirley had then a large mole upon his left cheek, which appeared a great deformity. Afterwards, leaving Oxford without a degree, he went to Katherine-hall, Cambridge, where he formed a close attachment with Bancroft, the epigrammatist, who has recorded their friendship in one of his epigrams. At Cambridge, Wood supposes he took the degree in arts, as he soon after entered into orders, and took a cure at or near St. Alban’s, in Hertfordshire; but, becoming unsettled in his principles, changed his religion for that of Rome, left his living, and taught a grammar school in the town of St. Alban’s. This employment being after some time uneasy to him, he retired to London, lived in Gray’s-inn, and commenced dramatic writer, which recommended him to the patronage of various persons of rank, especially Henrietta Maria, Charles the First’s queen, who made him her servant. His first comedy is dated 1629, after which he wrote nine or ten, between that year and 1637, when he went to Ireland, under the patronage of George earl of Kildare, to whom he dedicated his tragi-comedy of the “Royal Master,” and by whose influence that comedy was acted in the castle at Dublin, before the lord deputy. From Ireland he returned to England in 1638; but Wood says, that when the rebellion broke out, he was obliged to leave London and his family (for he had a wife and children), and, being invited by his patron, William earl of Newcastle, to accompany him in the wars, he attended his lordship. Upon the decline of the king’s cause, he retired to London; where, among other of his friends, he found Thomas Stanley, esq. author of the “Lives of Philosophers,” who supported him for the present. The acting of plays being now prohibited, he returned to his old occupation of teaching school, which he carried on in White Friars; and educated many youths, who afterwards proved eminent men. At the Restoration, several of his plays were brought upon the theatre again; and it is probable he subsisted very well, though it does not appear how. In 1666 he was forced, with his second wife Frances, by the great fire in September, from his house near Fleet-street, in the parish of St. Giles’s in the fields, where, being extremely affected with the loss and terror that fire occasioned, they both died within the space of twentv-four hours, and were both interred in the same grave, Oct. the 29th.

, a Florentine artist, born at Corfcona in 1439, was the scholar of Piero della Francesca. He was an artist of spirit and expression, and one of the first in Tuscany, who designed the naked with anatomical intelligence, though still with some dry ness of manner, and too much adherence to the model: the chief evidence of this is in the Duomo of Orvieto, where in the mixed imagery of final dissolution and infernal punishment, he has scattered original ideas of conception, character, and attitude, in copious variety, though not without remnants of gothic alloy. The angels, who announce the impending doom or scatter plagues, exhibit, with awful simplicity, bold fore-shortenings; whilst the St. Michael presents only the tame heraldic figure of a knight all cased in armour. In the expression of the condemned groups and daemons, he chiefly dwells on the supposed perpetual renewal of the pangs attending on the last struggles of life with death, contrasted with the inexorable scowl or malignant grin of fiends methodizing torture; a horrid feature, reserved by Dante for the last pit of his Inferno. It has been first said by Vasari, who exulted in his relation to Luca, that Michael Angelo, in certain parts of his Last Judgment, adopted something of the conduct and the ideas of his predecessor. This is true, because Michael Angelo could not divest himself of every impression from a work he had so often seen: his originality consisted in giving consequence to the materials of Luca, not in changing them; both drew from the same sources, with the same predilections and prejudices, and differed less in the mode than the extent of their conception.

, a late learned physician, and physician extraordinary to the king, was born March 17, 1750, at Sandwich, in Kent, where his father, who followed the profession of the law, was so respected, that, at the coronation of their present majesties, he was deputed by the cinque ports one of their barons to support the king’s canopy, according to ancient custom. His mother, whose maiden name was Foart, and whose family was likewise of Sandwich, died when he was an infant. He was educated at a seminary in France, where he not only improved himself in the learned languages, but acquired such a perfect knowledge of the French tongue, as to be able to write and speak it with the same facility as his own. He pursued his medical studies for nearly three years at Edinburgh, and afterwards went to Holland, and studied during a season at Leyden, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of physic: he chose the measles for the subject of his inaugural discourse, which he inscribed to Cullen, and to Gaubius, both of whom hud shewn him particular regard. After taking his degree at Leyden, he visited and became acquainted with professor Camper in InesKuul, who had at that time one of the finest anatomical museums in Kurope. From thence he proceeded to Aix-lct-Chapelle and the Spa, and afterwards visited different parts of Germany; stopped for some time at the principal universities; and wherever he went cultivated the acquaintance of learned men, especially those of his own profession, in which he was ever anxious to impr >ve himself. At Berne, in Switzerland, he became known to the celebrated Haller, who afterwards ranked him among his friends and correspondents. He came to reside in London towards the close of 1778, being then in his 2Stii year, and was admitted a member of the College of Physicians, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society 1779, and of the Society of Antiquaries 1791, as he had been before of different foreign academies at Nantz, Montpellier, and Madrid: he was afterwards admitted an honorary member of the Literary and Philosophical Society at Manchester, and of the Royal Society of Medicine at Paris, at which place he was elected one of the Associes Etrangers de l‘Ecole de Medicine; and in 1807, Correspondant de la Premiere Classe de I’Institut Imperial. Previous to 1778, he had written an elementary work on Anatomy, which was greatly enlarged and improved in its second edition, 1781: and he had communicated to the Royal Society the History of a curious case, which was afterwards published in their Transactions, “Phil. Trans.” vol. LXIV. He became also the sole editor of the London “Medical Journal;” a work which, after going through several volumes, was resumed under the title of “Medical Facts and Observations’.” these two works have ever been distinguished for their correctness, their judicious arrangement, and their candour. About this time he published an account of the Tape-worm, in which he made known the specific for this disease, purchased by the king of France. This account has been enlarged in a subsequent edition. — He likewise distinguished himself by a practical work on “Consumptions,” which, at the time, became the means of introducing him to considerable practice in pulmonary complaints. In 1780, he was elected physician to the Westminster General Dispensary; a situation he held for many years, and which afforded him ample scope for observation and experience in the knowledge of disease. These opportunities he did not neglect; and though, from his appointment soon after to St. Luke’s Hosr he was led to decline general practice, and to attach himself more particularly to the diseases of th mi-.;, continued to communicate to the publick such facts and remarks as he considered likely to promote the extension of any branch of professional science. With this view, he published some remarks on the treatment of Hydrocephalus internus (“Med. Comment, of Edinburgh, vol. V.”), and in the same work a case of Ulceration of the Œsophagus and Ossification of the Heart. He wrote also an account of a species of Hydrocephalus, which sometimes takes place in cases of Mania (London Med. Journal, vol. VI.) and an account of the Epidemic Catarrh of the year 1788, vol. IX. He had given an account also of the “Life of Dr. William Hunter,” with whom he was personally acquainted, a work abounding in interesting anecdote, and displaying an ingenuous and impartial review of the writings and discoveries of that illustrious anatomist. From the time of his being elected physician to St. Luke’s Hospital to the period of his death, he devoted himself, nearly exclusively, to the care and treatment of Insanity; and his skill in this melancholy department of human disease, became so generally acknowledged, that few, if any, could be considered his superiors. In the year 1803, it was deemed expedient to have recourse to Dr. Simmons, to alleviate the mournful malady of his sovereign, of whom he had the care for nearly six months, assisted by his son: the result was as favourable as the public could have wished; and on taking their leave, his majesty was pleased to confer a public testimony of his approbation, by appointing Dr. Simmons one of his physicians extraordinary, which took place in May 1804. — In the unfortunate relapse, which occurred in 1811, Dr. Simmons again attended; and, in conjunction with the other physicians, suggested those remedies and plans which seemed most likely to effect a cure. In February of that year he resigned the office of physician to St. Luke’s, in a very elegant letter, in which he assigned his age and state of health as the reasons for his resignation. The governors were so sensible of the value of his past services, and the respect due to him, as immediately to elect him a governor of the charity. They also proposed his being one of the committee; and, expressly on his account, created the office of Consulting Physician, in order to have the advantage of his opinion, not merely in the medical arrangement, but in the domestic ceconomy of the hospital. His last illness began on the evening of the 10th. of April, 1813, when he was seized with sickness, and a violent vomiting of bile, accompanied with a prostration of strength so sudden, and so severe, that on the second day of the attack he was barely able to stand; and a dissolution of the powers of life seeming to be rapidly coming on, he prepared for his departure with methodical accuracy, anticipated the event with great calmness, and, on the evening of the 23d of the same month, expired in the arms of his son. He was buried May 2, at Sandwich in Kent, and, according to the directions expressed in his will, his remains were deposited in a vault in the church-yard of St. Clement, next to those of his mother. In private life, Dr. Simmons was punctiliously correct in all his dealings; mild and unassuming in his manners, and of rather retired habits, passing Ins time chiefly in his study and in his professional avocations. He was one of the earliest proprietors of the Roy;d Institution and, in 1806, became an hereditary governor of the British Institution for the promotion of the Fine Arts. He has left one son, who is unmarried, and a widow, to deplore his loss.

, a French critic and divine of great learning, was born at Dieppe, May 13, 1638, and commenced his studies among the priests of the oratory, whom he quitted for some time, and went to Paris, where he applied himself to divinity, and made a great progress in Oriental learning, for which he had always a particular turn. About the end of 1662, he returned to the oratory and became a priest of it. On the death of father Bourgouin, general of this congregation, some cause of displeasure inclined him to leave them, and join the society of the Jesuits; but from this he was diverted by the persuasions of father Bertad, the superior of the oratory. He was then sent to the college of Juilly, in the diocese of Meaux, to teach philosophy; but other business occurring, he was ordered to go to Paris. In the library of the oratory there was a valuable collection of Oriental books, of which Simon was employed to make a catalogue, which he executed with great skill, and perused at the same time those treasures with great avidity. M. de Lamoignon, first president of the parliament of Paris, meeting with him one day in the library, was so pleased with his conversation, that he requested of Senault, the new general of the oratory, that he might be permitted to remain in Paris; but this being unaccompanied by any advantages, Simon, who had much of an independent spirit, petitioned to go back to Juilly, to teach philosophy, as before. He accordingly arrived there in 1668, and, in 1670, his first publication appeared, a defence of the Jews against the accusation of having murdered a Christian child, “Factum pour les Juifs de Metz,” &c. In the following year, with a view to shew that the opinion of the Greek church is not materially different from that of the church of Rome, with respect to the sacrament, he published “Fides Ecclesiae Orientalis, seu Gabrielis Metropolitae Philadelphiensis opuscula, cum interpretatione Latina et notis,” Paris, 1671, quarto, reprinted 16S6. When the first volume of the “Perpetuity of the faith respecting the Eucharist” appeared, our author, who from his youth was an original, if not always a just thinker, expressed some opinions on that work, and on the subject, which involved him in a controversy with the gentlemen of Port-Royal; and this seems to have laid the foundation of the opposition he afterwards met with from the learned of his own communion. His next publication came out under the name of Recared Simeon (for he often used fictitious names), and was a translation from Leo of Modena, entitled “Ceremonies et Coutumes qui s’observent aujourdui parmi les Juifs,” &c. 1674, 12mo. This was republished in 1681, under the name of the Sieur de Semonville; with the addition of a “Comparison between the ceremonies of the Jews and the discipline of the church.” In this edition, and perhaps in the subsequent ones of 1682 and 1684, the reader will find a great number of parentheses and crotchets, which Bayle thus accounts for: The work having been submitted in ms. to M. Perot, a doctor of the Sorbonne, for examination, he added some passages, which the author being obliged to retain, and yet unwilling that they should pass for his own, inclosed in crotchets; but had afterwards to complain, that the printers, who were not in the secret, had omitted some of these. In 1675, Simon published a “Voyage duMontLiban,” from the Italian of Dandini, with notes; and, about the same time, a “Factum du Prince de Neubourg, abbe de Feschamps, centre les religieux de cette abbay” and, as was usual with him, took an opportunity to attack the Benedictines.

It has been mentioned, that an ardent curiosity was an eminent feature in his character. It contributed essentially to his success in the mathematical investigations, and it displayed itself in the small and even trifling occurrences of common life. Almost every object and event excited it, and suggested some problem which he was impatient to resolve. This disposition, when opposed, as it often necessarily was, to his natural modesty, and to the formal civility of his manners, occasionally produced an embarrassment, which was amusing to his friends, and sometimes a little distressing to himself.

1. Two general propositions of Pappus, in which many of Euclid’s Porisms are included, vol. Xxxij. ann. 1723. These two propositions were afterwards incorporated into the author’s large posthumous works, published by earl Stanhope. 2. On the Extraction of the Approximate Roots of Numbers by Infinite Series, vol.XLVIII. ann. 1753. The separate publications in his life-time, were, 3. “Conic Sections,” 1735, 4to. 4. “The Loci Plani of Apollonius, restored,” 1749, 4to. 5. “Euclid’s Elements,” 1756, 4to, of which there have been since many editions in octavo, with the additions of Euclid’s Data. In 1776, earl Stanhope printed, at his own expence, several of Dr. Simson’s posthumous pieces: 1. Apollonius’s determinate section. 2. A treatise on Porisms. 3. A tract on Logarithms. 4. On the limits of quantities and ratios; and, 5. Some geometrical problems. Besides these. Dr. Simson’s Mss. contained a great variety of geometrical propositions and other interesting observations on different parts of the mathematics: though not in a state fit for publication. Among other designs, was an edition of the works of Pappus, in a state of considerable advancement, and which, had he lived, he might perhaps have published. What he wrote is in the library of the college of Glasgow, and a transcript was obtained by the delegates of the Clarendon press.

In the place of such judges as were inclined to lenity, he substituted others of a more austere disposition, and appointed commissaries to examine not only their conduct, but also that of other governors and judges for many years past; promising rewards to those who could convict them of corruption, or of having denied justice to any one at the instance or request of men in power. All the nobility, and persons of the highest quality, were strictly forbidden, on pain of displeasure, to ask the judges any thing in behalf of their nearest friends or dependants; at the same time the judges were to be fined in case they listened to any solicitation. He further commanded every body, “on pain of death, not to terrify witnesses by threats, or tempt them by hopes or promises. He ordered the syndics and mayors of every town and signiory, as well those that were actually in office, as those who had been for the last ten years, to send him a list of all the vagrants, common debauchees, loose and disorderly people in their districts, threatening them with the strappado and imprisonment, if they omitted or concealed any one.” In consequence of this ordinance, the syndic of Albano, leaving his nephew, who was an incorrigible libertine, out of the list, underwent the strappado in the public market-place, though the Spanish ambassador interceded strongly for him. He par ticularly directed the legates and governors of the ecclesiastical state to be expeditious in carrying on all criminal processes; declaring, “he had rather have the gibbets and gallies full, than the prisons.” He aUo intended to have shortened all other proceedings in law. It had been usual, and was pleasing to the people, as often as his holiness passed by, to cry out, “Long live the pope:” but Sixtus, having a mind to go often unexpectedly to the tribunals of justice, convents, and other public places, forbade this custom in regard to himself; and punished two persons who were ignorant of this edict, with imprisonment, for crying out, “Long live pope Sixtus.” Adultery he punished with death: nor was he less severe to those who voluntarily permitted a prostitution of their wives; a custom at that time very common in Rome. The female sex, especially the younger part, attracted, in a very particular manner, the attention of Sixtus; not only the debauching of any of them, whether by force or artifice, but even the attempting of it, or offering the least offence against modesty, was very severely punished. For the more effectual prevention, as well of private assassinations, as public quarrels, he forbade all persons, on pain of death, to draw a sword, or to carry arms specified in the edict; nor would he be prevailed on to spare any who transgressed this order: even to threaten another with an intended injury was sufficient to entitle the menacer to a whipping and the gallies; especially if the nature of their profession furnished the means of carrying their threats into execution. The banditti, who were numerous when Sixtus was advanced to the papacy, were rendered still more so by the junction of many loose and disorderly people; who, conscious of their demerits, and terrified at the severities they daily saw practised, had fled from justice. Their insolence increased with their numbers; insomuch, that no one could live in the ecclesiastical state with saiety to his person or fortune, nor could strangers travel without imminent danger of being robbed or murdered. The public security more especially required the extirpation of these plunderers, which, by the prudence, vigilance, and resolution of this pope, was effectually performed in less than six months. He obliged the nobility of Rome, and the country round it, to an exact payment of their debts. He abolished all protections and other immunities, in the houses of ambassadors, cardinals, nobles, or prelates. To this purpose, he sent for all the ambassadors, and ordered them to acquaint their respective masters, “that he was determined nobody should reign in Rome but himself; that there should be no privilege or immunity of any kind there, but what belonged to the pope; nor any sanctuary or asylum but the churches, anil that only at such times, and upon such occasions, as he should think proper.”

This extraordinary man, who was an encourager of arts as well as arms, died, not without a suspicion of being poisoned by the Spaniards, Aug. 27, 1500, having enjoyed the papacy little more than five years.

The father of Mr. Stneaton was an attorney, and wished to bring him up to the same profession. Mr. Smeaton therefore, came up to London in 1742, and attended the courts in Westminster-hull; but, finding that the law did not suit the bent of his genius, he wrote a strong memorial on the subject to his father, who had the good sense to allow him from that time to pursue the path which nature pointed for him. Early in 1750 he had lodgings in Turnstile, Holborn, and was commencing the business of a mathematical-instrument-maker. In 1751 be invented a machine to measure a ship’s way at sea, and a compass of peculiar construction, touched by Dr. Knight’s artificial magnets: and made two voyages with Dr. Knight, to ascertain the merit of his contrivances. In 1753 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and the number of his papers inserted in the Transactions of that body sufficiently evinces how highly he deserved that distinction. In 1759 he received, by an unanimous vote, their gold medal, for his pape/ entitled “An Experimental Enquiry concerning the natural Powers of Wind and Water to turn Mills, and other MacJiines depending on a circular Motion.” This paper, he says, was the result of experiments made on working models, in 1752 and 1753, but not communicated to the society till 1759; before which time he had not an opportunity of putting the effect of these experiments into real practice, in a variety of cases, and for various purposes, so as to assure the society that he had found them to answer. These experiments discovered that wind and water could be made to do one-third more than was before known, and they were made, we may observe, in his 27th anil 28th years.

He died in 1710, in his forty-second year, at the seat of George Ducket, esq. called Hartham, in Wiltshire; and was buried in the parish church there. Some time before his death, he engaged in considerable undertakings; and raised expectations in the world, which he did not live to gratify. Oldisworth observes, that he had seen of his about ten sheets of Pindar, translated into English; which, he says, exceeded any thing in that kind he could ever hope for in our language. He had drawn out a plan for a tragedy of Lady Jane Grey, and had written several scenes of it; a subject afterwards nobly executed by Mr. Rowe. But his greatest undertaking was a translation of Longinus, to which he proposed a large addition of notes and observations of his own, with an entire system of the art of poetry in three books, under the titles of “thoughts, diction, and figure.” He intended also to make remarks upon all the ancients and moderns, the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and English poets; and to animadvert upon their several beauties and defects. Oldisworth has represented Smith as a man abounding with qualities both good and great; and that may perhaps be true, in some degree, though amplified by the partiality of friendship. He had, nevertheless, some defects in his conduct one was an extreme carelessness in the particular of dress which singularity procured him the name of “Captain Rag.” The ladies, it is said, at once commended and reproved him, by the name of the “handsome sloven.” It is acknowledged also, that he was much inclined to intemperance which was caused perhaps by disappointments, but led to that indolence and loss of character, which has been frequently destructive to genius, even of a higher order than he appears to have possessed. Dr. Johnson thus draws up his character: “As his years advanced, he advanced in reputation; for he continued to cultivate his mind; but he did not amend his irregularities, by which, he gave so much offence, that, April 24, 1700, the dean and chapter declared ' the place of Mr. Smith void, he having been convicted of riotous misbehaviour in the house of Mr. Cole, an apothecary; but it was referred to the dean when and upon what occasion the sentence should be put in execution. Thus tenderly was he treated; the governors of his college could hardly keep him, and yet wished that he would not force them to drive him away. Some time afterwards he assumed an appearance of decency; in his own phrase, he whitened himself, having a desire to obtain the censorship, an office of honour and some profit in the college; but when the election came, the preference was given to Mr. Foulkes, his junior; the same, I suppose, that joined with Freind in an edition of part of Demosthenes; it not being thought proper to trust the superintendance of others to a man who took so little care of himself. From this time Smith employed his malice and his wit against the dean, Dr. Aldrich, whom he considered as the opponent of his claim. Of his lampoon upon him, I once heard a single line too gross to be repeated. But he was still a genius and a scholar, and OxtV-rd was unwilling to lose him: he was endured, with all his pranks and his vices, two years longer; but on December 20, 1705, at the instance of all the canons, the sentence declared five years before was put in execution. The execution was, I believe, silent and tender; for one of his friends, from whom I learned much of his life, appeared not to know it. He was now driven to London, where he associated himself with the whigs, whether because they were in power, or because the tories had expelled him, or because he was a whig by principle, may perhaps be doubted. He was, however, caressed by tnen of great abilities, whatever were their party, and was supported by the liberality of those who delighted in his conversation. There was once a design, hinted at by Oldisvvorih, to have made him useful. One evening, as he was sitting with a friend at a tavern, he was called down by the waiter, and, having stayed some time below, came up thoughtful. After a pause, said he to his friend, ‘ He that wanted me below was Addison, whose business was to tell me that a history of the revolution was intended, and to propose that I should undertake it. I said, ’ What shall I do with the character of lord Sunderland?‘ And Addison immediately returned, ’ When, Rag, were you drunk last?' and went away. Captain Rag was a name that he got at Oxford by his negligence of dress. This story I heard from the late Mr. Clark, of Lincoln’s Inn, to whom it was told by the friend of Smith. Such scruples might debar him from some profitable employments; but as they could not deprive him of any real esteem, they left him many friends; and no man was ever better introduced to the theatre than he, who, in that violent conflict of parties, had a prologue and epilogue from the first wits on either side. But learning and nature will now-and-then take different courses. His play pleased the critics, and the critics only. It was, as Addison has recorded, hardly heard the third night. Smith had, indeed, trusted entirely to his merit; had insured no band of applauders, nor used any artifice to force success, and found that naked excellence was not sufficient for its own support. The play, however, was bought by Lintot, who advanced the price from fifty guineas, the current rate, to sixty; and Halifax, the general patron, accepted the dedication. Smith’s indolence kept him from writing the dedication, till Lintot, after fruitless importunity, gave notice that he would publish the play without it. Now, therefore, it was written; and Halifax expected the author with his book, and had prepared to reward him with a place of three hundred pounds a year. Smith, by pride, or caprice, or indolence, or bashful ness, neglected to attend him, though doubtless warned and pressed by his friends, and at last missed his reward by not going to solicit it. In 1709, a year after the exhibition of Phaedra, died John Philips, the friend and fellow-collegian of Smith, who, on that occasion, wrote a poem, which justice must place among the best elegies which our language can shew, an elegant mixture of fondness and admiration, of dignity and softness. There are some passages too ludicrous; but every human performance has its faults. This elegy it was the mode among his friends to purchase fora guinea-, and, as his acquaintance was numerous, it was a very profitable poem. Of his ‘ Pindar,’ mentioned by Oldisworth, I have never otherwise heard. His ‘ Longinus’ he intended to accompany with some illustrations, and had selected his instances of * the false Sublime,’ from the works of Blackmore. He resolved to try again the fortune of the stage, with the story of * Lady Jane Grey.' It is not unlikely that his experience of the inefficacy and incredibility of a mythological tale might determine him to choose an action from English history, at no great distance from our own times, which was to end in a real event, produced by the operation of known characters. Having formed his plan, and collected materials, he declared that a few months would complete his design; and, that he might pursue his work with fewer avocations, he was, in June, 1710, invited by Mr. George Ducket, to his house at Hartham in Wiltshire. Here he found such opportunities of indulgence as did not much forward his studies, and particularly some strong ale, too delicious to be resisted. He ate and drank till he found himself plethoric: and then, resolving to ease himself by evacuation, he wrote to an apothecary in the neighbourhood a prescription of a purge so forcible, that the apothecary thought it his duty to delay it till he had given notice of its danger. Smith, not pleased with the contradiction of a shopman, and boastful of his own knowledge, treated the notice with rude contempt, and swallowed his own medicine, which, in July 1710, brought him to the grave. He was buried at Hartham. Many years afterwards, Ducket communicated to Oldmixon, the historian, an account, pretended to have been received from Smith, that Clarendon’s History was, in its publication, corrupted by Aldrich, Smalridge, and Atterbury; and that Smith was employed to forge and insert the alterations. This story was published triumphantly by Oldmixon, and may be supposed to have been eagerly received: but its progress was soon checked for, finding its way into the journal of Trevoux, it fell under the eye of Atterbury, then an exile in France, who immediately denied the charge, with this remarkable particular, that he never in his whole life had once spoken to Smith; hrs company being, as must be inferred, not accepted by those who attended to their characters. The charge was afterwards very diligently refuted by Dr< Burton of Eton a man eminent for literature, and, though not of the same party with Aldrich and Atterbury, too studious of truth to leave them burthened with a false charge. The testimonies which he has collected have convinced mankind that either Smith or Ducket were guilty of wilful and malicious falsehood. This controversy brought into view those parts of Smith’s life which with more honour to his name might have been concealed. Of Smith I can yet say a little more. He was a man of such estimation among his companions, that the casual censures or praises which he dropped in conversation were considered, like those of Scaliger, as worthy of preservation. He had great readiness and exactness of criticism, and by a cursory glance over a new composition would exactly tell all its faults and beauties. He was remarkable for the power of reading with great rapidity, and of retaining with great fidelity what he so easily collected. He therefore always knew what the present question required; and, when his friends expressed their wonder at his acquisitions, made in a state of apparent negligence and drunkenness, he never discovered his hours of reading or method of study, but involved himself in affected silence, and fed his own vanity with their admiration and conjectures. One practice he had, which was easily observed: if any thought or image was presented to his mind that he could use or improve, he did not suffer it to be lost; but, amidst the jollity of a tavern, or in the warmth of conversation, very diligently committed to paper. Thus it was that he had gathered two quires of hints for his new tragedy; of which Howe, when they were put into his hands, could make, as he says, very little use, but which the collector considered as a valuable stock of materials. When he came to London, his way of life connected him with the licentious and dissolute; and he affected the airs and gaiety of a man of pleasure; but his dress was always deficient: scholastic cloudiness still hung about him, and his merriment was sure to produce the scorn of his companions. With all his carelessness, and all his vices, he was one of the murmurers at form tie; and wondered why he was suffered to be poor, when Addison was caressed and preferred: nor would a very little have contented him; for he estimated his wants at six hundred pounds a year. In his course of reading it was particular, that he had diligently perused, and accurately remembered, the old romances of knight-errantry. He had a high opinion of his own merit, and something contemptuous in his treatment of those whom he considered as not qualified to oppose or contradict him. He had many frailties; yet it cannot but be supposed that he had great merit, who could obtain to the same play a prologue from Addison, and an epilogue from Prior; and who could have at once the patronage of Halifax, and the praise of Oldisworth.”

, bishop of Lincoln, and founder of Brasen-nosr college, Oxford, was the fourth son of Robert Smyth, of Peelhou^e in Widdows, or Widness, in the parish of Present, Lancashire. His grandfather was Henry Smyth, esq. of the adjoining township of Cuertiiy, where the family appears to have resided both. before and after the birth of the subject of this sketch, and extended its branches of the same name through various parts of the kingdom. Of his father we have no particular information, nor of the period of his birth, unless that it took place about the middle of the fifteenth century; which is, however, not very consistent with the report, that he was an undergraduate of Oxford so late as 1478.

The same obscurity envelopes his early years. Wood indeed says, that he was trained up in grammar-learning in his own country; but in what seminary, or whether his country at that time could boast of any institution deserving the name of a grammar-school, are subjects of conjecture. His late biographer, with equal acuteness and reason, has supposed him to have been educated in the household of Thomas, the first earl of Derby. The countess of Richmond, who was the second wife of this nobleman, according to a laudable custom in the houses of the nobility, provided in this manner for the instruction of young men of promising talents: and it is known, that she was an early patron of our founder.

to him, a daemon or divinity. This attribute to birds the power which beexplanation of the matter is favoured longs to the gods.“The altercations that Socrates had with the Sophists therefore gained him respect, and made him popular with the Athenians; hut he had a private quarrel with one Anytus, which, after many years continuance, was the occasion of his death. Anytus was an orator by profession, a sordid and avaricious man, who was privately maintained and enriched by leather-sellers. He had placed two of his sons under Socrates, to be taught; but, because they had not acquired such knowledge from him as to enable them to get their living by pleading, he took them away, and put them to the trade of leather-selling. Socrates, displeased with this illiberal treatment of the young men, whose ruin he presaged at the same time, reproached, and exposed Anytus in his discourses to his scholars. Anytus, hurt by this, studied all means of revenge but feared the Athenians, who highly reverenced Socrates, as well on account of his great wisdom and virtue, as for the particular opposition which he had made to those vain babblers the Sophists. He therefore advised with Melitus, a young orator; from whose counsel he began, by making trial in smaller things, to sound how the Athenians would entertain a charge against his life. He suborned the comic poet Aristophanes, to ridicule him and his doctrines in his celebrated comedy called” The Clouds.“Socrates, who seldom went to the theatre, except when Euripides, whom he admired, contested with any new tragedian, was present at the acting of” The Clouds;“and stood up all the while in the most conspicuous part of the theatre. One that was present asked him if he was not vexed at seeing himself brought upon the stage?” Not at all,“answered he:” I am only a host at a public festival, where I provide a large company with entertainment."

The sentence being passed, he was sent to prison; which, says Seneca, he entered with the same resolution and firmness with which he had opposed the thirty tyrants; and took away all ignominy from the place, which, adds Seneca, could not be a prison while he was there. On the day of condemnation, it happened thdt the ship, which was employed to carry a customary animal offering to the island of Delos, set sail. It was contrary to the law of Athens, that, during this voyage, any capital punishment should be inflicted within the city. This circumstance delayed the execution of the sentence against Socrates for thirty days, during which he was constantly visited by Crito, Plato, and other friends, with whom he passed the time in his usual manner. He was often solicited by them to escape, which he not only refused but derided; asking, “if they knew any place out of Attica, whither death would not come.” The manner of his death is related by Plato, who was an eye-witness of it; and, as there is not, perhaps, a more afft cling picture to be found in antiquity, we will exhibit it here in his own words. Socrates, the day he was to die, had been discoursing to his friends upon the immortallty of thfe soul: and, “when he had made an end of speaking, Crito asked him, if he had any directions to give concerning his sons, or other things, in which they could serve him ‘ I desire no more of you,’ said Socrates, ‘than what I have always told you: if you take care of yourselves, whatsoever you do will be acceptable to me and mine, though you promise nothing; if you neglect yourselves and virtue, you can do n (thing acceptable to us, though you promise ever so much.’ ‘ That,’ answered Crito, ‘we will observe; but how will you be buried?’ ‘ As you think good,’ says he, ‘ if you can catch me, and I do not give you the slip.’ Then, with a smile, applying himself to us, ‘ I cannot persuade Crito,’ says he, ‘ that I am that Socrates who was haranguing just now, or anything more than the carcass you will presently behold; and therefore he is taking all this care of my interment. It seems, that what I just now explained in a long discourse has made no impression at all upon him; namely, that as soon as I shall have drunk the poison, I shall not remain longer with you, but depart immediately to the seats of the blessed. These things, with which I have been endeavouring to comfort you and myself, have been said to no purpose. As, therefore, Crito was bound to the judges for my appearance, so you must now be bound to Crito for my departure; and when he sees my body burnt or buried, let him not say, that Socrates suffers any thing, or is any way concerned: for know, dear Crito, such a mistake were a wrong to my soul. I tell you, that my body is only buried; and let that be done as you shall think fit, or as shall be most agreeable to the laws and customs of the country.’ This said, he arose and retired to an inner room; taking Crito with him, and leaving us, who, like orphans, were to be deprived of so dear a father, to discourse upon our own misery. After his bathing, came his wife, and the other women of the family, with his sons, two of them children, one of them a youth; and, when he had given proper directions about his domestic affairs, he dismissed them, and came out to us. It was now near sun-set, for he had staid long within; when coming out he sat down, and did not speak much after. Then entered an officer, and approaching him, said, ' Socrates, I am persuaded, that I shall have no reason to blame you, for what I have been accustomed to blame in others, who have been angry at me, and loaded me with curses, for only doing what the magistrate commands, when I have presented the poison to them. But I know you to be the most generous, the most mild, the best of all men, that ever entered this place; and am certain, that, if you entertain any resentment upon this occasion, it will not be at me, but at the real authors of your misfortune. You know the message I bring; farewell: and endeavour to bear with patience what must be borne.‘ `And,’ said Socrates to the officer, who went out weeping, `fare thee well I will. How civil is this man I have found him the same all the time of my imprisonment he would often visit me, sometimes discourse with me, always used me kindly and now see, how generously he weeps for me. But come, Crito let us do as he bids us if the poison be ready, let it be brought in if not, let somebody prepare it.‘ `The sun is yet among the mountains, and not set,’ says Crito: `I myself have seen others drink it later, who have even eat and drunk freely with their friends after the sign has been given be not in haste, there is time enough.‘ `Why, yes,’ says Socrates, `they who do so think they gain something; but what shall I gain by drinking it late? Nothing, but to be laughed at, for appearing too desirous of life: pray, let it be as I say.‘ Then Crito sent one of the attendants, who immediately returned, and with him the man, who was to administer the poison, bringing a cup in his hand: to whom Socrates said, `Prithee, my good friend, for thou art versed in these things, what must I do?’ `Nothing,‘ said the man, `but walk about as soon as you shall have drunk, till you perceive your legs to fail; and then sit down.’ Then he presented the cup, which Socrates took without the least change of countenance, or any emotion whatever, but looking with his usual intrepidity upon the man. He then demanded, `Whether he might spill any of it in libation?‘ The man answered, `he had only prepared just what was sufficient.’ `Yes,‘ says Socrates, `I may pray to the gods, and will, that my passage hence may be happy, which I do beseech them to grant:’ and that instant swallowed the draught with the greatest ease. Many of us, who till then had refrained from tears, when we saw him put the cup to his mouth, and drink off the poison, were not able to refrain longer, but gave vent to our grief: which Socrates observing, `Friends,' said he, `what mean you? I sent away the women for no other reason, but that they might not disturb us with this: for I have heard that we should die with gratulation and applause: be quiet then, and behave yourselves like men.‘ These words made us wiih shame suppress our tears. When he had walked a while, and perceived his legs to fail, he lay down on his back, as the executioner directed: who, in a little time, looking upon his feet, and pinching them pretty hard, asked him, `If he perceived it?’ Socrates said, `No.‘ Then he did the same by his legs and shewing us, how every part successively grew cold and stiff, observed, that when that dullness reached his heart, he would die. Not long after, Socrates, removing the garment with which he was covered, said, ’ I owe a cock to Æsculapius; pay it, neglect it not.‘ `It shall be done,’ says Crito ‘would you have any thing else?’ He made no answer, but, after lying a while, stretched himself forth: when the executioner uncovering him found his eyes fixed, which were closed by Crito.” This,“says Plato,” was the end of the best, the wisest, and the justest of men" and this account of it by Plato, Cicero professes, that he could never read without tears.

, an eminent English lawyer, was born at Worcester, March 4, 1650, but no register of his baptism can be found. A house called White Ladies is shown on the east side of the cathedral, and very near St. MichaePs church, where he is said to have been born. His father, John Somers, was an attorney of considerable eminence, and had an estate of about 300l. per ann. at Clifton. During the rebellion he commanded a troop of horse, part of Cromwell’s army, but resigned his commission after the battle of Worcester, and returned to his profession, and, among other business, had the superintendance of the finances and estates of the Talbots, earls of Shrewsbury, which eventually produced a lasting friendship and cordiality between the duke of Shrewsbury and his son, the subject of this article. Of old Mr. Somers the following anecdote has been recorded: “He used to frequent the terms in London, and in his way from Worcester was wont to leave his horse at the George, at Acton, where he often made mention of the hopeful son he had at the Temple. Cobbet, who kept the inn, hearing him enlarge so much in praise of his son, to compliment the old gentleman, cried, ` Why wont you let us see him, Sir?‘ The father, to oblige his merry landlord, desired the young gentleman to accompany him so far on his way home; and being come to the George, took his landlord aside, and said, ’ I have brought him, Cobbet, but you must not talk to him as you do to me; he will not sutler such fellows as you in his company'.” After the restoration Mr. Somers obtained a pardon for what he might have committed while in the republican army, which pardon is still in the possession of the family. He died Jan. 1681, and was buried at Severnstoke, in the county of Worcester; where an elegant Latin inscription, engraved on a marble monument, and written by his son, is still to be seen.

, Sotwellus, but properly Southwell (Nathaniel), was an English Jesuit of the seventeenth century, and is entitled to some notice, as one of the historians of his order, but we have no particulars of his own life. Being employed to write the lives of eminent authors among the Jesuits, he carried on the plan of llibadeneira and Alegambe down to his own times, that is, the latter part of the seventeenth century. His improved edition was published under the title of “Bibliotheca scriptorum societatis Jesu, opus inchoatum a R. P. Petro Ribadeneira, et productum ad annum 1609: continuatum a Philippo Alegambe ad annum 1643; recognitum, et productum ad annum 1675, a Nathanaelo Sotvvello,” Rome, 1676, fol. This is, of course, reckoned the best edition of this collection of biography, but some prefer that of Alegambe, on account of its superior correctness.

He died July 28, 1629, and was buried in the church of St Giles, Cripplegate, London, where a monument was erected to his memory. By his wife Susanna, with whom he lived fifty-seven years, and who died almost a year before him, he had twelve sons, and six daughters. One of his sons, named John, was an eminent physician; of whom we shall give some account. As to Speed himself, “he must be acknowledged,” says Nicolson, “to have had a head the best disposed towards history of any of our writers; and would certainly have outdone himself, as far as he has gone beyond the rest of his profession, if the advantages of his education had been answerable to those of his natural genius. But what could be expected from a taylor? However, we may boldly say, that his chronicle is the largest and best we have hitherto extant.” In another place, “John Speed was a person of extraordinary industry and attainments in the study of antiquities; and seems not altogether unworthy the name of `summus & eruditus antiquarius,' given him by Sheringham, who was certainly so himself”

, a justly celebrated English-poet, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Spenser, was born in London, in East Smithfield by the Tower, probably about 1553 In what school he received the first part of his education, has not been ascertained. He was admitted, as a sizer, of Pembroke-hall in Cambridge, May 10, 1569, proceeded to the degree of bachelor of arts, January 16, 1572-3, and to that of master of arts June 26, 1576. Of nis proficiency during this time, a favourable opinion may be drawn from the many classical allusions itv his works, while their moral tendency, which, if not uniform, was more general than that of the writings of his contemporaries, incline us to hope, that his conduct was irreproachable. At Cambridge he formed an intimacy with Gabriel Harvey, first of Christ’s-college, afterwards of Trinity-hall, who became doctor of laws in 1585, and survived his friend more than thirty years Harvey was a scnolar, and a poet of no mean estimation in his own time. He appears also as a critic, to whose judgment Spenser frequently appeals, looking up to him with a reverence for which it is not easy to account. We are, however, much indebted to his correspondence with Spenser, for many interesting particulars; relating to the life and studies of the latter, although some of them afford little more than probable conjecture?. It is now fully disproved that Spenser was an unsuccsssful candidate for a fellowship in Pembroke-hall, in competition with Andrews, afterwards successively bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester. Hie rival of Andrews was Thomas Dove, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. But from one of Harvey’s letters to Spenser it appr;,rs that some disagreement had taken place between our poet and the master or tutor of the society to which he belonged, which terminated his prospects of farther advancement in it, without lessening his veneration for the university at large, of which he always speaks with filial regard.

, a celebrated controversialist on the side of the papists, was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in 1535, of a genteel family from Yorkshire. Having been educated at Canterbury and Winchester, he was removed to New college, Oxford, where he obtained a perpetual fellowship in 1554. In the same reign, which was that of Mary, he was made prebendary of Chichester; but on the accession of Elizabeth, left the kingdom, vith his father and other relations, and settled at Louvain, where he distinguished himself by his controversial writings against Jewel, Home, Whitaker, and other eminent divines of the English church. He also visited Paris and Rome, but returned to Louvain, where he translated Bede’s Church History into English. He then became regius professor of divinity in the new university of Douay, and canon in the church of St. Amoiue. He became a Jesuit, but again relinquished the order, and returning to Louvain, was appointed regius professor in divinity there, canon of St. Peter’s, and dean of Hillerbeck. He died in 1598, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain. Clement VIII. had invited him to Rome, but he did not choose to go. This pope, it is said, intended to bestow upon him a cardinal’s hat, and that this honour was prevented by his death. He was, however, so great an admirer of Stapleton’s writings, that he ordered them to be read publicly at his table. Cardinal Perron, who was an eminent author himself, esteemed him, both for learning and acuteness, the first polemical divine of his age; and Whitaker himself, seems to allow no less.

These favours, however honourable to the king’s taste and discernment, were ultimately of disadvantage to Robert, by exciting the jealousy of the Sorbonnists, who could not endure that his majesty should bestow his confidence on a man whom they suspected of being unsound in the faith, and therefore sought occasion to convict him of heresy. Grounds for this they thought were to be found in the new edition of the Bible which Robert published in 1545, and which had a double Latin version, and the notes of Vatablus. Leo Juda, well known to be a Zuinglian, was the translator of one of these versions; and they farther alleged that Robert had corrupted the notes of Vatablus. This was, in those days, a serious accusation, and the king had again to interpose between him and his enemies. His majesty died about this time, and Robert, as a mark of gratitude, printed with particular care, Duchatel’s funeral oration on Francis L in which that orator happened to say that the king was “translated from the present life to eternal glory.” This expression, although common in every eulogium of the kind, was now made the subject of an accusation by the Sorbonnists, who asserted that it was contrary to the doctrine of the church respecting purgatory. Robert, therefore, soon perceived that he could no longer depend on the protection he had hitherto received, and after some years struggling against the machinations of his enemies, determined to remove to Geneva with his family. He accordingly took his leave of Paris, and arrived at Geneva in the beginning of 1552. There he printed the same year, in partnership with his brother-in-law Conrad Radius, the New Testament in French. He afterwards set up a printing-house of his own, from which some valuable works issued. He was chosen a burgher of Geneva in 1556, and died there Sept. 7, 1559. Robert is said to have been a man of a firm and decided character; but it has been objected by his popish biographers, that he did not allow that liberty to other* which he had taken himself, and that he disinherited one of his children for not embracing the reformed religion. Beza, Dorat, and St. Marthe, have given him the highest character. Thuanus places him above Aldus Manutius, and Froben, and asserts that the Christian world was more indebted to him than to all the great conquerors it had produced, and that he contributed more to immortalize the reign of Francis I. than all the renowned actions of that prince. His mark was an olive with branches, and the device, Noli altum sapere, to which sometimes were added the words sed time. The works he executed as King’s printer, are marked with a lance, round which a serpent is entwined, and a branch of olive, and underneath a verse of Homer, “B<nXi raya&ia xgaltfjca r‘ai%/*>iV’” to the good king and the valiant soldier.“All the printers who afterwards were permitted to use the royal Greek types adopted the same emblems. The works which he printed at Geneva are marked only with the olive, and these words, Oliva Roberti Stephani. It was not Robert, however, as has been commonly said, who first divided the Bible into verses, which he is said to have done inter equitandum, while riding from Paris to Lyons. That mode of division had been used in the Latin Bible of Pagninus in 1527, 4to, in the” Psalterium quintuples," 1509, and in other works. Another report concerning him is untrue, namely, that when he left Paris, he carried with him the Greek types belonging to the royal printing-house. The fact seems to have been that the matrices employed in casting those types were already at Geneva, and were the property of the family of Robert, and probably given to him by Francis I.; for when the French clergy in 1619 were about to reprint the Greek fathers, they requested that the king would demand of the state of Geneva the matrices used in casting the Greek types for Francis I. The answer was, that they might be bought for the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid either to the state of Geneva, or to the heirs of Robert Stephens.

, brother to the preceding, and third son of Henry, the founder of the family, received also a liberal education, and afterwards studied medicine, and was received as a doctor of the faculty of Paris. Lazarus Baif engaged him to be tutor to his son. >nrJ likewise to accompany him in his embassies to Germany and Italy, that he might continue to instruct his pupil. During his being at Venice, he formed a friendship wit a Pnul Manutius, who speaks of him in some of his letters, in very honourable terms. It was not until 1551 that he began the business of printing, and his rirst w>rk was an edidition of “Appian” from manuscripts in the royal iib r ary, and executed with Garamond’s types. He appears also to have been honoured with the 'itle of king’s printer John Maumont, in a letter to Scaliger, represents Charles Stephens as an avaricious man, jealous of his brethren and even of his nephews, whom he endeavoured to injure on every occasion. He was, however, unsuccessful in business, and was imprisoned for debt in the Chatelet in 1561, and died there in 1564. Maittaire says that the fine editions of Charlt-s Stephens have never been surpassed, that in point of erudition he was not inferior to the most learned printers, and that in his short space few of them printed more books. Among the most valuable are, 1. “De re vesiiaria, de vasculis ex Bayfio excerpt.” Paris, 1535, 8vo. 2. “Abrege de l'Histoire des vicomtes et dues de Milan,” 1552, 4to, with portraits. 3. “Paradoxes ou propos contre la commune opinion, debattus en forme de declamations forenses, pour exciter les jeunes esprits en causes difficiles,” Paris, 155 4-, 8vo, a very rare work and an imitation of the “Paradossi” of Ortensio Lando. 4. “Dictionarium Latino-Graecum,” ibid. 1554, 4to, compiled, as the author allows, for the most part, from the notes of G. Buddseus. 5. “Dictionarium Latino-Galhcum,” ibid. 1570, fol. the best and most complete edition, but not a work in much demand. 6. “Preedium rusticum, &c.” ibid. 1554, 8vo. Of this he published a French translation under the title of “Agriculture et Maison rusti^ue, de M. Charles Estienne,” and it has been since translated into Italian, German, English, &c. 7. “Thesaurus Ciceronis,” ibid. 1556, fol. This work, whatever its merit, was a most unfortunate speculation, as the expences attending it obliged him to borrow large sums, for which he was at last arrested. 8. “Dictionarium Historico-geographico-poeticum,” Geneva, 1566, 4to. This did not appear until after his death. It was much improved by subsequent editors to a large folio, whence it was translated into English by Lloyd, and twice published at Oxford in 1670, and at London in 1686.

We shall now briefly mention the remaining branches of this justly celebrated family. Henry Stephens, the third of that name, and son to Robert, the second, was treasurer of the royal palaces. Prosper March and thinks he was a printer in 1615, but no work is known to have issued from his press. He had two sons, Henry and Robert, and a daughter married to Fougerole, a notary. His son Henry, sieur des Fossés, was the author of “L' Art de faire les devices, avec un Traité des rencontres ou mots plaisants,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. His “Art of making devices” was translated into English by our countryman Thomas Blount (See vol. V. p. 430) and published in 1646, 4to. Henry assumed the title of interpreter of the Greek and Latin languages, and was reckoned a good poet. We also are indebted to him for a character of Louis XIII. and eloges of the princes and generals who served under that monarch, which he published in a work entitled “Les Triomphes de Louis-le-Juste,” Paris, 1649, fol. Robert, his brother, was an advocate of parliament, and completed the translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric begun by his uncle, Robert the third of the name, and published at Paris in 1630, 8vo. He left off printing about 1640, and was bailli of St. Marcel.

, an English poet and statesman, was descended from a family at Pendigrast in Pembrokeshire, but born at London in 1663. It has been conjectured that he was either son or grandson of Charles third son of sir John Stepney, the first baronet of that family: Mr. Cole says his father was a grocer. He received his education at Westminster-school, and was removed thence to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1682; where he took his degree of A.B. in 1685, and that of M.A. in 1689. Being of the same standing with Charles Montague, esq. afterwards earl of Halifax, a strict friendship grew up between them, and they came to London together, and are said to have been introduced into public life by the duke of Dorset. To this fortunate incident was owing all the preferment Stepney afterwards enjoyed, who is supposed not to have had parts sufficient to have risen to any distinction, without such patronage. When Stepney first set out in life, he seems to have been attached to the tory interest; for one of the first poems he wrote was an address to James II. upon his accession to the throne. Soon after, when Monmouth’s rebellion broke out, the Cambridge men, to shew their zeal for the king, thought proper to burn the picture of that prince, who had formerly been chancellor of the university, and on this occasion Stepney wrote some good verses in his praise. Upon the Revolution, he embraced another interest, and procured himself to be nominated to several foreign embassies. In 1692 he went to the elector of Brandenburg’s court, in quality of envoy; in 1693, to the Imperial court, in the same character; in 1694, to the elector of Saxony; and, two years after, to the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and the congress at Francfort; in 1698, a second time to Brandenburg; in 1699, to the king of Poland; in 1701, again to the emperor; and in 1706, to the States General; and in all his negotiations, is said to have been successful. In 1697 he was made one of the commissioners of trade. He died at Chelsea in 1707, and was buried in Westminster-abbey; where a fine monument was erected over him, with a pompous inscription. At his leisure hours he composed poetical pieces, which are republished in the general collection of English poets. He likewise wrote some political pieces in prose, particularly, “An Essay on the present interest of England, in 1701: to which are added, the proceedings of the House of Commons in 1677, upon the French king’s progress in Flanders.” This is reprinted in the collection of tracts, called “Lord Somers’s collection.”

The last literary work in which Mr. Stevens was engaged, was an uniform edition of the works of Mr. Jones, in 12 vols 8vo, to which he prefixed a life of that excellent man, composed in a style of artless and pathetic religious eloquence, which his biographer has very aptly compared to that of Isaac Walton, between whom and Mr. Stevens he states otner similarities. “Both were tradesmen; they were both men of reading, and personally acquired learning; of considerable theological knowledge well versed in that book which is the only legitimate source of all theology, the Bible. Both were companions and friends of the most eminent prelates and divines that adorned the church of England; both were profound masters in the art of k(>ly living, and of the same cheerfulness of disposition, &c. &c.” But though Mr. Stevens never published any other work that can be called his own, yet he was always considering how the world might be benefited by the labours of others, and therefore he was a great encourager of his learned friend Mr. Jones, in the publication of his various works; and alter the death of bishop Home, the most severe loss he ever met with, he superintended the publication of some of the volumes of his sermons. It was he also who suggested to the bishop the “Letters on Infidelity,” in answer to Ur. Adam Smith’s exaggerated character of Hume; and to him the bishop addressed them under the initials of W. S. esq.

While at Nottingham, as tutor to Mr. Pierrepoint, he composed his first publication, and printed it in 1659, under the title of “Irenicum, a weapon-salve for the church’s wounds, or the divine right of particular forms of churchgovernment discussed and examined according to the principles of the law of nature; the positive laws of God; the practice of the apostles; and the primitive church; and the judgment of reformed divines, whereby a foundation is laid for the church’s peace, and the accommodation of our present differences.” As this was an attempt to promote the return of the non-conformists to the church, and consequently implied some concessions which were irreconcilable with the divine right of episcopacy, for which the adherents of the church contended, and yet not enough to please either presbyterians or independents, the author had not the satisfaction of meeting with full credit even for his intentions; and upon more mature consideration, he himself thought his labour in vain, and did not scruple afterwards to say of his work, that “there are many things in it, which, if he were to write again, he would not say; some, which shew his youth, and want of due consideration; others, which he yielded too far, in hopes of gaining the dissenting parties to the church of England.” In 1662 he reprinted this work; with the addition of a discourse “concerning the power of Excommunication in a Christian Church” in which he attempts to prove, that “the church is a distinct society from the state, and has divers rights and privileges of its own, particularly that it has a power of censuring offenders, resulting from its constitution as a Christian society; and that these rights of the church cannot be alienated to the state, after their being united, in a Christian country.”

Mr. Stow’s success, however, in the Affair probably ani­* This curate, called Sir Stephen, one c<>mii>- n I e/\p bumr them. Mr. became so contemptible by his furious Slow heat <J 'his sermon, an I saw the zeal, that he was forced to leave the effec’s of it. Another rmrk of the city, and retire tosome unknown place curate’s imprudent zeal w.< his takin the country. “Mr. Stow has re- ing; /ccasion from that church’s name corded some things of him, which Un ^rshaft., as superstitions^ ^iv>n it, though not attended with such fata! to i!<-r are his judgment that thr titles consequences as that already men- of cnurches should be altered, and that tioned, were evidences of his exclusive even the names of the days of the week big‘ try. In a sermon, which he ought to be changed from those ht;apreached before a areat auditory at St. then ones which had been given them; Paul’s Cross, he inveighed bitterly nud that Fridays and Saturdays should against a long may-pole, called -haft, be no more fish-days, but others subin the next parish to his own, which stituted for such in thei>- place from thence was named *r. Andrew that Lent should he kept ai>nv Undershaft. This he insisted upon time than between Shrove-ti e and being an idol; and so warmly did he Raster. Another t.’id ).ia<-tice of this declare against it, that the zeal of many cut ate was, to go out of the pulpi> into of his hearers being excited thereby, the church- yard, and II.Oum' nu h gh they wt-nt in the afternoon of the same elm that grew there and p ea; h from day, and pulled the may-pole do MI tbttnce to his audience, and then return from the place where it hung upon to the church, and say or-ire the hooks, and then sawed it ii to divers English service, not at th,- a^tar. as pieces, each housekeeper taking as w. is usual, but upon a tomb, whit much of it as hung over his door or placed northward of it.” Strype’s Life stall, and then casting the pieces into of Stow. mated him in his antiquarian researches, as he had now demonstrated the practical benefit arising from them. It was about 1560, that he turned his thoughts to the compiling an English chronicle, and he spent the greater part of his future life in collecting such materials relating to the kingdom at large, as he esteemed worthy to be handed down to posterity. But after he had been eagerly employed for a while in these studies, perceiving how little profit he was likely to reap from them, he was on the point of diverting his industry into the channel of the occupation he had been bred to; and the expensiveness of purchasing manuscripts was an additional motive to this resolution. Archbishop Parker, however, himself an excellent antiquary, and a bountiful patron of all who had the same turn, persuaded him to goon, and liberally contributed to lessen his expences, while his grace lived.

But in order to form a judgment of him, it is necessary to consider the disposition of his mind, as well as lus visible works and actions. The first thing that naturally occurs to our view is, that he was an earnest student and lover of the antiquities of his own country, and this to such a degree as to sacrifice the trade to which he was brought up. He was an unwearied reader of all English history, whether printed or in manuscript; and a searcher into records, registers, journals, charters, &c. Nor was he content with barely perusing these things, but desirous also of possessing himself of them, as of a great treasure. By the time he was forty years of age, he h?id furnished a considerable library of such, as appears from the report of Mr. Watts, archdeacon of London, who was sent to search it, viz. ‘That he had a great collection of old books anJ Mss. of all sorts, but especially relating to chronicles and history, both in parchment and paper, &c.’ And his library contained not only ancient authors, but original charters, registers’, and chronicles of particular places, which he had the greater opportunity of procuring, as he lived shortlyafter the dissolution of the monasteries, when such things were dispersed and scattered abroad among various hands.

, a celebrated anatomist and painter of animals, was born at Liverpool in 1724-, and at the age of thirty went to Rome for improvement in his studies, but why is not easily accounted for; London was the best theatre to exercise his talents for the dissection and the portraiture of animals, of horses (which he chiefly excelled in) especially, and in London he fixed his residence. That his skill in comparative anatomy never suggested to him the propriety of style in forms, if it were not eminently proved by his Phaeton with the Horses of the Sun, would be evident from all his other figures, which, when human, are seldom more than the attendants of some animal, whilst the style of the animals themselves depended entirely on the individual before him: his tiger for grandeur has never been equalled; his lions are to those of Rubens what jackals are to lions; but none ever did greater justice to the peculiar structure of that artificial animal, the race courser, and to all the mysteries of turf- tactics, though, unfortunately for the artist, they depend more on the fac-similist’s precision than the painter’s spirit. Stubbs was perhaps the first who painted in enamel on a large scale. He was an associate of the Royal Academy, and died in 1806. He published a work, completed in 1766, under the title of “The Anatomy of the Horse including a particular description of the bones, cartilages, muscles, fascias, ligaments, nerves, arteries, veins, and glands; in eighteen tables from nature:” and before his death three numbers of another work, which was to have consisted of six, entitled “A Comparative Anatomical Exposition of the structure of the Human Body with that of a Tiger and a common Fowl, in thirty tables.”!

, a law-writer, was an esquire’s son, as Wood says, but probably the son of sir Humphrey Style, knt. and bart. whose family are buried in Beckenham in Kent. He was born in 1603, and became a gentlemancommoner of Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1618; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for the law, left the university without a degree, and went to the Inner Temple. He was afterwards called to the bar, but, according to Wood, “pleased himself with a retired and studious condition.” He died in 1679, if he be the William Style buried that year at Beckenham, as Mr. Lysons conjectures with great probability. The most valued of his writings are his “Reports,” published in 1658, folio, from the circumstance of being the only cases extant of the common law courts for several years in the time of the usurpation, during which sir Henry Rolle, and afterwards John Glynn, sat as chief justices of the upper bench. His other works are, “The Practical Register, or the Accomplished Attorney,” 1657, 8vo, and “The Common Law epitomized, with directions how to prosecute and defend personal actions,” 8vo. Wood also mentions a non-professional work, translated from the Latin of John Michael Delher, a name we are unacquainted with, under the title of “Contemplations, Sighs, and Groans of a Christian,” Lond. 1640, 8vo, with a singular engraved title.

, an eminent naturalist and anatomist, was born at Amsterdam in 1637, where his father was an apothecary, and had a museum of natural history. He intended his son for the church, and with this view gave him a classical education, but the boy prevailed upon him to let him apply to physic. He was therefore kept at home, till he should be prpperly qualified to engage in that study, and frequently employed in cleaning, and arranging the articles of his father’s collection. From this occupation he acquired a taste for natural history, and soon began to form a museum of his own. Entomology having particularly struck his fancy, be became indefatigable in discovering, catching, and examining, the flying insects, not only in the province of Holland, but in those of Gueldreland and Utrecht. In 1661 he went to Leydeu, to pursue his studies, which he did with so much success, that, in 1663, he was admitted a candidate of physic, after undergoing the examinations prescribed on that occasion. On his arrival at Leyden, he contracted a friendship with the great anatomist Nicolas Steno, and ever after lived with him in intimacy.

Nerva died Jan. 27, in the year of Rome 851, having, about three months before, adopted Trajan as his successor. In that short interval the critics have agreed to place the publication of the “Life of Agricola,” by Tacitus, but Mr. Murphy assigns very good reasons for referring it to the reign of Trajan. The “Treatise on the Manners of the Germans,” it is generally agreed, made its appearance in the year of Rome 851. The “Dialogue concerning Oratory” was an earlier production, and probably was published in the reign of Titus or Domitian, who are both celebrated in that piece, for their talents and their love of polite literature.

, a very learned and celebrated prelate, the son of Nathaniel and Mary Taylor, was born in the parish of the Holy Trinity in Cambridge, where his fatin T was in the humble station of a barber: and was baptised Aug. 15, 1613. He was educated from the age of three to that of thirteen at Perse' s free-school in Cambridge, and then entered a sizer of Caius-college, in August 1626, under Mr. Bachcroft. In this society he took his degree of bachelor in 1631, and bishop Rust says, that as soon as he was graduate, he was chosen fellow. The improvement which he made in his infancy was now followed up with increasing assiduity; and to such an extent had he carried his theological studies, as to be thought worthy of admission, like Usher, into holy orders before he had attained the age of twenty-one. About the same time he took his degree of master of arts, and removed to London, where, being requested by his chamber-fellow, Mr. Risden, to supply his turn, for a short time, at the lecture in St. Paul’s cathedral, his talents attracted the attention of archbishop Laud, who preferred him to a fellowship at All Souls college, Oxford, “where he might have time, books, and company, to complete himself in those several parts of learning into which he had made so fair an entrance.” Into this fellowship he was admitted in January 1636; but, as Wood remarks, it was an arbitrary act, contrary to the statutes.

In the following year the learning and critical abilities of Dr. Taylor were again called forth. The late earl of Sandwich, on his return from a voyage to the Greek islands, of which his own account has been published since his death, and which shews him to have been a nobleman of considerable learning, brought with him a marble from Delos. That island, “which lay in the very centre of the then trading world,” (to use the words of our learned countryman, Mr. Clarke,) “was soon seized by the Athenians and applied to the purposes of a commercial repository: and this subtle and enterprizing people, to encrease the sacreclness and inviolability of its character, celebrated a solemn festival there once in every olympiad.” The marble in question contained a particular of all the revenues and appointments set apart for that purpose. From the known skill of Dr. Taylor on all points of Grecian antiquity it was submitted to his inspection, and was published by him in 1743, under the title of “Marmor Sandvicense cum commentario et notis;” and never probably was an ancient inscription more ably or satisfactorily elucidated. In the same year he also published the only remaining oration of Lycurgus, and one of Demosthenes, in a small octavo volume, with an inscription to his friend Mr. Charles Yorke.

, one of the heroes of Swiss liberty, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, a man of property, and of good, though not distinguished family, was an inhabitant of the village of Burgeln in the country of Uri. In 1307 he was one of the persons engaged in the conspiracy against the Austrian government. The bailiff, or governor, Herman Gesler, either from a suspicious disposition, or having received some intimation of an impending insurrection, resolved to ascertain who would most patiently submit to his dominion. For this purpose he is said to have raised a hat upon a pole,* as an emblem of liberty, and commanded Tell, among others, to pay obeisance to it. “The youth Tell,” says Muller, “a friend to freedom, disdained to honour in a servile manner, and on an arbitrary command, even its emblem.” Then it was that, according to the current story, Tell was commanded by Gesler to shoot an arrow at an apple placed on the head of his own son; and, though reluctant, compelled to do it, bv the menace of immediate death, both to him and the infant if be should refuse. Tell cleft the apple without hurting the child but could not refrain from informing the tyrant that, had his aim proved less fortunate, he had another arrow in reserve, which he should have directed to the heart of his oppressor. By this manifestation of his courage and sentiments, he induced the bailiff to confine him; who, afterwards, mistrusting the friends and relations of Tell, resolved to carry him out of the country of Uri, across the lake of Lucern; though contrary to the acknowledged privileges of his countrymen. On the lake, as they were crossing, a violent storm arose; and Gesler, who knew Tell to be very skilful in the management of a boat, ordered his fetters to be taken off, and the helm committed to him. Taking advantage of this circumstance, Tell steered the boat close to a rock, leaped upon a flat part of it, scrambled up the precipice, and escaped. Gesler also escaped the danger of the water, but, landing near Kusnacht, fell by an arrow from the bow of Tell, whose skill he thus proved a second time, to his cost. Gesler thus perished by the indignation of a private man, without any participation of the people, and before the day appointed for their insurrection. Tell retired to Stauffacher, in the canton of Schwitz, and on the new year’s day ensuing, all the Austrian governors were seized and sent out of the country. In 1354, forty-seven years after this event, Tell is supposed to have lost his life in an inundation at Burgeln.

Resuming his pen against popery, Dr. Tenison now published five more treatises or tracts on the subject, entitled “The Introduction to Popery not founded in Scripture;” “An answer to a letter of the Roman catholic soldier;” “Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an ecclesiastical prospective glass considered in its false reasonings and quotations” “The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome,” translated from Placette; and “The Protestant and Popish way of interpreting Scripture, impartially compared, in answer to Pax vobis, &c.” all in 4to, and published in 1688 or 1689. We are told that, notwithstanding his zeal in this cause, he was so much respected at court, that James II. was induced, out of regard to him, to take off the suspension which that infatuated monarch had laid upon Dr. John Sharp (See Shakp, vol. XXVII. p. 400); but there is more reason to think that this, on the king’s part, was an attempt at conciliation, when he found how unpopular that and his other measures in favour of popery were.

, the iirst Latin writer of the primitive church whose writings are come clown to us, was an African, and born at Carthage in the second century. His father was a centurion in* the troops which served under the proconsul of Africa. Tcrtullian was at first an heathen, and a man, as he himself owns in various parts of his works, of loose manners; but afterwards embraced the Christian religion, though it is not known when, or upon what occasion. He flourished chiefly under the reigns of the emperor Severus and Caracalla, from about the year 194 to 216 and it is probable that he lived several years, since Jerome mentions a report of his having attained to a decrepit old age. There is no passage in his writings whence it can be concluded that he was a priest; but Jerome affirms it so positively, that it cannot be doubted. He had great abilities and learning, which he employed vigorously in the cause of Christianity, and against heathens and heretics; but towards the latter part of his life quitted the church to follow the Montanists, which is the reason why his name has not been transmitted to us with the title of saint. The cause of his separation is not certainly known. Baronius has attributed it to jealousy, because Victor was preferred before him to the see of Rome; Pamelius hints at his disappointment, because he could not get the bishopric of Carthage; and Jerome says, that the envy which the Roman clergy bore him, and the outrageous manner with which they treated him, exasperated him against the church, and provoked him to quit it. What perhaps had as much weight as any of these reasons was the extraordinary austerity, which the sect of Montanus affected, which suited his monastic turn of mind. Whatever the cause, he not only joined them, but wrote in their defence, and treated the church from which he departed, with unbecoming contempt. Error, however* says a modern ecclesiastical historian, is very inconstant; for Tertullian afterwards left the Montanists, or nearly so, and formed a sect of his own, called Tertullianists, who continued in Africa till Augustine’s time, by whose labours their existence, as;i distinct body, was brought to a close. The character of Tertullian is very strongly delineated by himself in his own writings if there bad been any thing peculiarly Christian, which he had learned from the Montanists, his works must have shown it; but the only change discoverable is, that he increased in his austerities. He appears to have been married, and lived all his life, without separating from his wife upon his commencing priest, if, indeed, he did not marry her after. The time of his death is no where mentioned.

, a miscellaneous writer and critic, was born at Sittingbourn in Kent, in which place his father was an eminent attorney. His grammatical learning he received at Isleworth in Middlesex, and afterwards applied himself to the law; but, finding that pursuit tedious and irksome, he quitted it for the profession of poetry. According to the editors of the “Biog. Dramatica,” his first appearance in this profession was not much to his credit. One Henry Mestayer, a watchmaker, had written a play, which he submitted to the correction of Theobald, who formed it into a tragedy, and procured it to be acted and printed as his own. This compelled the watchmaker to publish his own performance in 1716, with a dedication to Theobald. The editors of the Biog. Dram, who appear to have examined both pieces, observe that Theobald, although unmercifully ridiculed by Pope, never appeared so despicable as throughout this transaction. “We had seen him before only in the light of a puny critic:” But here the fell attorney prowls for prey.“Theobald engaged in a paper called” The Censor,“published in Mist’s” Weekly Journal;“and, by delivering his opinion with too little reserve concerning some eminent wits, exposed himself to their resentment. Upon the publication of Pope’s Homer, he praised it in the most extravagant terms; but afterwards thought proper to retract his opinion, and abused the very performance he had before affected to admire. Pope at first made \ lie*, a.d tin* Jhto of his” Dunciad;“but afterwards thought proper to disrobe him of that dignity, and bestow it upon another. In 1726, Theobald published apiece in 8vo, called” Shakespear Restored:“of this, it is said, he was so vain as to aver, in one of Mist’s” Journals,“ct that to expose any errors in it was impracticable;” and, in another, *; that whatever care might for the future be taken, either by Mr. Pope, or any other assistants, he would give above five hundred emendations, that would escape them all.“During two whole years, while Pope was preparing his edition, he published advertisements, requesting assistance, and promising satisfaction to any who would contribute to its greater perfection. But this restorer, who was at that time soliciting favours of him by letters, wholly concealed that he had any such design till after its publication; which he owned in the” Daily Journal of Nov. 26, 1728.“Theobald was not only thus obnoxious to the resentment of Pope, but we find him waging war with Mr. Dennis, who treated him with more roughness, though with less satire. Theobald, in” The Censor,“N 33, calls Dennis by the name of Furius. Dennis, to resent this, in his remarks on Pope’s Homer, thus mentions him:” There is a notorious idiot, one Hight Whacum; who, from an under-spur-leather to the law, is become an understrapper to the playhouse, who has lately burlesqued the Metamorphoses of Ovid, by a vile translation, &c. This fellow is concerned in an impertinent paper called the Censor." Such was the language of Dennis, when inflamed by contradiction.

, an ancient Greek poet, was a Sicilian 1 and born at Syracuse, the son of Praxagoras and Philina. He is said to have been the scholar of Philetas, and Asclepiades, or Sicelidas: Philetas was an elegiac poet of the island of Cos, had the honour to be preceptor to Ptolemy Philadelphus, and is celebrated by Ovid and Propertius: Sieelidas was a Samian, a writer of epigcams: Theocritus mentions both these with honour in his seventh Idyllium. As to the age in which he flourished, it seems indisputably to be ascertained by two Idylliums that remain: one is addressed to Hiero king of Syracuse, and the other to Ptole^ ray Philadelphus, the Egyptian monarch. Hiero began his reign, as Casaubon asserts in his observations on Poly^­bius, in the second year of the 126th olympiad, or about 275 years before Christ; and Ptolemy in the fourth year of the 123d olympiad. Though the exploits of Hiero are recorded greatly to his advantage by Polybius, in the first book of his history; though he had many virtues, had frequently signalized his courage and conduct, and distinguishes himself by several achievements in war; yet he stems, at least in the early part of his reign, to have expressed no great affection for learning or men of letters: and this is supposed to have given occasion to the 16th Llyllinm, inscribed with the name of Hiero; where the poet asserts the dignity of his profession, complains that it met with neither favour nor protection, and in a very artful manner touches upon some of the virtues of this prince, and insinuates what an illustrious figure he would have made in poetry, had he been as noble a patron, as he was an argument for the Muses.

, an excellent engraver, was born in 1758, at Pattrington, in Holderness, in the East Riding of York, where his father was an innkeeper. At a proper age he was placed as an apprentice to a cooper, at which business, on the expiration of his apprenticeship, he worked some time. During the American war he became a private in ifie Northumberland militia; at the conclusion of which, in 1783, he came to settle at Hull, where he commenced engraver of shop-bills, cards, &c. One of his fust attempts was a card for a tinner and brazier, executed in a very humble style. He engraved and published a plan of Hull, which is dated May 6, 1784, and afterwards solicited subscriptions for two views of the dock at that place, which, it is thought, he shortly after published. He also engraved, while there, a head of Harry Rowe, the famous puppet-showman of York, after a drawing by J. England. Another account says, that an engraving of an old woman’s head, after Gerard Dow, was his first attempt, and appeared so extraordinary, that on the recommendation of the hon. Charles Fox, the duchess of Devonshire, and lady Duncannon, he was appointed historical engraver to the prince of Wales. In 1788, the marquis of Carmarthen, whose patronage he first obtained by constructing a very curious camera obscura, wrote him a recommendatory lelter to Alderman Boy dell, who immediately offered him 300 guineas to engrave a plate from Northcote’s picture of Edward V. taking leave of his brother the duke of York. He afterwards engraved, for Boydell, a number of capital plates from the Shakespeare gallery,and from the paintings by sir Joshua Reynolds, Shee, Westall, Smirke, Fuseli, Northcote, Peters, &c. all which are very extraordinary specimens of graphic excellence, and have been highly and deservedly approved by the connoisseur, and well received by the public. Of Boydell’s Shakspeare, nineteen of the large plates are from his hand. He had received very little instruction, but depended solely on native genius, aided by an intense application, by which \\e suddenly arrived at great excellence in the art. Almost at the outset of his career he became connected with Messrs. Boydell by extensive engagements on their Shakspeare, a work which will long bear ample testimony to his rare merit and talents. The distinguishing characteristics of his practice consisted in most faithfully exhibiting the true spirit and style of each master; a most minute accuracy, a certain polish, and exquisite delicacy of manner; with the appropriate character given to all objects, while a mildness of tone and perfect harmony pervaded the whole piece. The Cardinal Wolsey entering Leicester Abbey, from Westall, is certainly the greatest effort of his skill, and is, by many of the bestinformed connoisseurs and artists, held to be a first-rate specimen in that style of engraving. This ingenious artist died in July 1802, at Stevenage in Hertfordshire.

“His intellectual abilities were above mediocrity; and the endowments of nature were improved by the application of art and study. He had a lively and chaste imagination, a quick apprehension, a sound and penetrating judgment, and a retentive memory. He excelled equally in learning, science, and the polite arts. He was an adept in music, and a connoisseur in painting. He was, in his earlier days, perfectly acquainted with the practice as well as the theory of music; having been a performer on two difficult instruments. For this agreeable art he entertained a passion to his latest days. He was a great lover of antiquity, and well skilled in the knowledge of coins and medals, and of these, as also of prints and paintings, he left valuable collections. There was no feature more prominent in this good bishop’s character, than a zealous and uniform attachment to our unrivalled constitution. It was the warmest wish of his heart, to see our excellent and happy form of government, both in church and state, preserved free from the contagious influence of superstitious tyranny on the one hand, and licentious anarchy on the other.”

The conversation became close and animated. Colonel Thompson, invited, in consequence, to dine with the prince, found there a number of French officers against whom he had fought in America. The conversation turned on the events of that war. The colonel sent for his portfolio, which contained exact plans of all the principal actions, of the strong places, of the sieges, and an excellent collection of maps; every one recognized the places where events interesting to himself had happened. The conversation lasted a great while, and they parted, promising to see one another again. The prince was an enthusiast in his profession, and passionately fond of instruction. He invited the colonel next day. They resumed the conversation of the evening with the same ardour; and when the traveller at last took his leave, the prince engaged him to pass through Munich, and gave him a letter of recommendation to his uncle the elector of Bavaria. The season was far advanced, and he was in haste to arrive in Vienna. He intended to stop at Munich two or three days at most. He remained fifteen, and quitted, not without regret, that city, where the testimonies of the favour of the sovereign, and the partialities of the different classes of society, had been lavished upon him with that cordial frankness, which so eminently distinguishes the Bavarian character. At Vienna, in the same manner he met with the most flattering reception, and was presented at court, and in the first companies, He spent there a part of the winter; and, learning that the war against the Turks would not take place, he yielded to the attraction of the recollections of Munich, and passing through Venice, where he stopped some weeks, and through the Tyrol, he returned to that residence toward the end of the winter of 1784. He now received from the elector a positive invitation to enter into his service; and instead of returning to Vienna, he set out for London with the intention of soliciting permission from the king to accept the offers of the elector palatine. Not only was -that favour granted him, but the king joined to it ah honourable distinction, by creating him a knight. He accordingly returned to Bavaria sir Benjamin Thompson; and was on his arrival appointed colonel of the horse, and general aid-de-camp to the sovereign who wanted to secure his services. Sir Benjamin employed the four first years of his abode at Munich in acquiring the political and statistical knowledge necessary for realizing the plans which his philanthropy suggested to him for improving the condition of the lower orders, he did not neglect in the mean time his favourite studies; and it was in 1786, in a journey to Manheim, that he made his first experiments on heat. Political and literary honours poured in upon him during that interval. In 1785 he was made chamberlain of the elector, and admitted a member of the academies of science of Munich and Manheim. In 178C he received from the kin<4 of Poland the order of St. Stanislaus; in 1787 he made a journey in Prussia, during which he was elected a member of the academy of Berlin. In 1788 he was appointed Major-general of cavalry and privy counsellor of state. He was placed at the head of the war department, and particularly charged with the execution of the plans which he had proposed for improving the state of the Bavarian army.

It has already been mentioned, in the life of 'bishop Hall, that in 1753 Thompson superintended the publication of an edition of the “Virgidemiarum.” To his own volumes of poems was added, “Gondibert and Bertha,” a tragedy, the subject taken from Davenant’s poem of “Gondibert.” This tragedy was written, he informs us, when “he was an undergraduate in the university, as an innocent relaxation from those severer and more useful studies for which the college, where he had the henefit of his education, is so deservedly distinguished.” He reprintfd it with all its juvenile imperfections, but, although it is not without individual passages of poetical beauty, it has not dramatic form and consistency to entitle it to higher praise.

Part of this History was first printed at Paris in 1604, with a dedication to Henry IV. which is thought to be as masterly a composition in its kind, as the dedication of Casaubon’s Polybius to the same monarch, and that of the “Instittitiones Christianae” of Calvin to Francis I. The publication of the history, in separate parts, was alterwards continued by the author, who, however, does not seem to have published it all in his life-time; or any part of it, except the volume just mentioned, in a manner conformable to his original copy, which, therefore, he deposited in the hands of a friend, that it might be printed after his death, just as he wrote it. It was long, however, before this could be effected. Thuanus was an honest historian, and with respect to things and persons boldly delivered the truth. There would of course be many exceptionable passages in his work, many that would highly offend individuals both in church and state; and this was the reason why, though printed frequently and in different countries, it never came out free from castrations, and agreeable to the author’s original copy, till 1733. It was then handsomely printed at London, and published under the direction, and chiefly at the expence, of the excellent Dr. Mead, in seven volumes folio; to which are prefixed four Latin letters, inscribed to that celebrated patron of letters, and giving an account of the various changes and chances this History has undergone; of the different editions; what each of them contain, and how they vary; and by what materials and assistances the editors have at length been enabled to give a very complete and perfect copy of it.

He had a brother, named Cornelius Tollius, who was also a very learned man. He was born at Utrecht, and in the beginning of his life was an amanuensis to Isaac Vossius: he was afterwards professor of eloquence and the Greek tongue at Harderwic, and secretary to the curators of the academy. He published an “Appendix to Pierius Valerian us’s treatise De Infelicitate Literatorum,” Amst. 1707, 12mo; and an edition of “Palaephatus,” which last is a scarce and valuable work. Alexander Tollius was also brother to the two persons above mentioned, and is known in the literary world by an edition of “Appian,” 1670, 2 vols. 8vd, which is much esteemed.

, one of the most learned Baptist divines of the seventeenth century, was born at Bewdley in Worcestershire in 1603 and, being intended for the church, was educated at the grammar-school, where he made such proficiency as to be thought fit for the university at the age of fifteen. He was accordingly sent to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, at that time, and William Pcmble was his tutor. Here he acquired such distinction for talents and learning, that on his tutor’s death in 1624, he was chosen to succeed him in the catechetical lecture in Magdalen-hall. This he held with great approbation for about seven years, during which he was, amongst other pupils, tutor to Mr. Wilkins, afterwards bishop of Chester. He then, we may presume, took orders, and went to Worcester, and after that to Leominster in Herefordshire, of which he had the living, and became a very popular preacher, and when the living was found insufficient for a maintenance, lord Scudamore. made some addition to it. Tombes was, says his biographer, among the first of the clergy of those times who endeavoured a reformation in the church, that is, was an enemy to the discipline or ceremonies, for which he suffered afterwards, when the king’s forces came into that country; and being in 1641 obliged to leave it, he went to Bristol, where the parliamentary general Fiennes gave him the living of All Saints. When Bristol was besieged by prince Rupert, the year following, he removed again to London with his feu mily, and there first communicated to some of the West* minster divines, his scruples as to infant-baptism, and held conferences with them on the subject, the result of which was, that he made no converts, but was more confirmed in his own opinions, and a sufferer too, for, being appointed preac-her at Fenchurch, his congregation not only refused to hear him, but to allow him any stipend. From this dilemma he was relieved for a time by a call to be preacher at the Temple-church, provided he would abstain, in the pulpit, from the controversy about infant-baptism. To this he consented on these terms: first, that no one else should preach for the baptising of infants in his pulpit; and, secondly, that no laws should be enacted to make the denial of infant-baptism penal. All this being agreed upon, he continued to preach at the Temple for four years, and was then dismissed for publishing a treatise against infant-baptism. This was construed into a breach of his engagement, but he endeavoured to defend it as necessary to his character, he being often attacked in the pulpit for those opinions. on the subject which he had communicated to the Westminster assembly, although they had neither been published, or answered, by that learned body.

, an eminent Florentine sculptor, was born about 1472, and was the contemporary of Michael Angelo, in competition with whom he executed some works in the town-hall of Florence. He was an artist of very superior merit, but a proud, inconsiderate, and ungovernable character. It was in one of his passionate fits that he struck Michael Angelo with such force as to flatten his nose. Benvenuto Cellini, in his own life, has recorded this affair, as related to him by Torrigiano himself: “His conversation one day happening to turn upon Michael Angelo Buonarroti, on seeing a drawing of mine made from the celebrated cartoon of the battle of Pisa: ‘ This Buonarroti and I (said Torrigiano), when we were young men, went to study in the church of the Carmelites, in the chapel of Masaccio; and it was customary with Buonarroti to rally those who were learning to draw there. One day, amongst others, a sarcasm of his having stung me to the quick, I was extremely irritated, and, doubling my fist, gave him such a violent blow upon his nose, that I felt the bone and cartilage yield as if they had been made of paste, and the mark I then gave him he will carry to his grave’.”

He now resumed the business of his profession, which his travels had interrupted, and was soon after made professor of physic in the college-royal. He had also the offices of his botanic professorship in the king’s garden, and the usual functions of the academy of sciences required of every member, to attend, together with the work of preparing an account of his travels, which was now to be expected from him. This being more than his constitution could bear, gradually impaired his health, but it was an unforeseen accident that cost him his life: as he was going to the academy his breast was violently pressed by the axle of a carriage, which brought on a spitting of blood, to which he did not pay a proper regard; and this ending in a dropsy of the breast, carried him off, after languishing some months, December 28, 1708. He was the greatest botanist of his time; and it was by his skill and care that the king of France’s gardens, almost quite neglected and abandoned before, were afterwards holden in honour, and thought worth the attention of all the virtuosi in Europe. Yet he was not so particularly attached to botany as to neglect every thing else; for he had made a most valuable collection of all kinds of natural curiosities, which he left by will to the king.