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

Sir Hans Sloane was tall and well made in his person; easy, polite, and engaging in his manners; sprightly in his conversation, and obliging to all. It appears by his correspondence in the British Museum that he was a man. of great benevolence, and from that character, was frequently solicited by distressed persons of all classes, and, as is usual in such cases, by many who abused his bounty. To foreigners he was extremely courteous, and ready to shew and explain his curiosities to all who gave him timely notice' of their visit. He kept an open table once a week for his learned friends, particularly those of the Royal Society. In the aggregation of his vast collection of books, he is said to have sent his duplicates, either to the royal college of physicians, or to the Bodleian library.

, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, was born at Birmingham, were a street bears the name of his family, in 1672, and studied at Magdalen-college, Oxford. Here he took his degrees of M. A. 1694, B. D. 1706, and D. D. in 1708. He was chaplain to archbishop Tenison, and appointed in 1712 treasurer of Landaff, and afterwards prebendary of Hereford. On Feb. 2, 1723, he was consecrated bishop of St. David’s, whence he was translated and confirmed bishop of Lichfield and Coventry Feb. 20, 1730. He entered with spirit into the controversies of his times, particularly against Dodwell and Whiston, the latter in “Reflections on Mr. Whiston’s conduct,” and “Animadversions on the New Arian reproved.” But his great work was “A Vindication of our Saviour’s miracles; in which Mr. Woolston’s Discourses on them are particularly examined; his pretended authority of the fathers against the truth of the literal sense are set in a just light; and his objections, in point of reason, answered,” Lond. 1729, 8vo. This involved him in a controversy with some anonymous writers, and in one or two respects he laid himself open to ridicule by an arithmetical calculation of the precise number of the devils which entered into the swine. Dr. Smalbroke also published eleven single Sermons between 1706 and 1732, and one or two “Charges,” and small controversial pieces to the amount of twenty-two. He died Dec. 22, 1749, in the seventyseventh year of his age, leaving three sons and four daughters. His sons, and other relations, he provided for in the church of Lichfield. His son Richard, the last representative of the family, died in 1805. He had been chancellor of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry sixty-four years, and was at his death senior member of the college of civilians.

In May 1682, Mr. Smalridge was elected from Westminster-school to Christ-cburcb, Oxford, where having taken his degree of 13. A. at the regular time, he became a tutor, and, what is no inconsiderable proof of the high opinion entertained of his talents, the associate of Aldrich and Atterbury in the controversy against Obadiah Walker, the popish master of University-college. In conjunction with them he published in 1687 “Animadversions on the eight Theses laid down, and the inferences deduced from them, in a discourse entitled ‘ Church Government, Part V.’ lately printed at Oxford.” The object on the part of Smalridge and his colleagues, was to defend the supremacy of the king, against papal usurpations. The discourse mentioned in the title of his performance was printed by Obadiah Walker at his private press, and has for its full title “Church government, Part V. a relation of the English Reformation, and the lawfulness thereof examined by the Theses delivered in the four former parts.” But as these four former parts never were published, Walker, or rather the real author, Abraham Woodhoad, afforded his antagonists just cause for censure, as well as ridicule, since here he was referring for authority to proofs and positions which had never appeared, nor were afterwards produced.

Dr. Smalridge, who had long been admired as a preacher, was chosen lecturer of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London, in Jan. 1708, and for some time quitted the university. His early acquaintance with Atterbury had now been improved into a great degree of intimacy and friendship, arising no doubt, from a similarity of sentiments and studies; and in 1710 Dr. Smalridge had an opportunity of giving a public testimony of his regard for Atterbury, by promoting his advancement to the prolocutor’s chair in the lower house of convocation, and presenting him to the upper house, in an elegant speech, which was much admired, and afterwards printed. In this speech he even touches on Atterbury’s warmth in controversy, with considerable delicacy indeed, but in a manner that became one who would not deceive the learned body he was addressing. Smalridge himself was not much of a party man, and studiously avoided an intemperate interference in disputed points respecting either church or state, unless where his principles might be called in question, or his silence misunderstood.

To Dr. Smalridge’s publications, already mentioned, may be added a volume of twelve “Sermons” printed by himself in 1717, 8vo, and the “Sixty Sermons,” published by his widow in a folio volume, 1726, of which another edition appeared in 1727. The bishop’s widow died in May or June 1729.

, a poet of some, though not the highest celebrity, was born at Shipbourne, in Kent, April 11, 1722. His father was possessed of about three hundred pounds a year in that neighbourhood, and was originally intended for holy orders. Why he did not enter into holy orders, or what occupation he pursued, we are not told, except that at one time he had acted as steward of the Kentish estates of lord Barnard, afterwards earl of Darlington. His mother was a Miss Gilpin, of the family of the celebrated reformer, Bernard Gilpin; an ancestor, by the father’s side. Mr. Peter Smart had been a prebendary of Durham in the reign of Charles the First, and was accounted by the puritan party as the proto-martyr in their cause, having been degraded and deprived of all his ecclesiastical preferments, fined five hundred pounds, and imprisoned eleven years. When restored to liberty by the parliament, he appeared as a witness against archbishop Laud. The particular libel for which he suffered is written in Latin verse, and was published in 1643. This is probably what the author of the life prefixed to Smart’s poems (edit. 1791) calls “an interesting narrative in a pamphlet.” When our poet was at school his father died, and so much in debt, that his widow was obliged to sell the family estate at a considerable loss. As he had, however, received a liberal education, he is said to have communicated to his son a taste for literature, and probably that turn for pious reflection, which appears in many of hispoetical pieces, and was not interrupted with impunity by the irregularities of his life.

During the early part of his residence at Cambridge he wrote the Tripos poems, among his works, a species of composition of which it is not often that much notice is taken, but the merit of Smart’s verses was immediately and generally acknowledged. When afterwards, by the advice of his friends, he offered himself as a candidate for an university scholarship, he is said to have translated Pope’s Ode on St. Cecilia’s day into Latin. But this is doubted by his biographer, on account of the length and labour of the composition. He must, however, have executed that translation about this time, as the applause it received induced him to turn his mind to other translations from the same author, and to write to him for his advice or approbation, which produced a correspondence very flattering on both sides. Smart, as a young man, aiming at poetical honours, was gratified with the letters of Pope; and Pope, who was ever alive to extent of fame, was not sorry to find his works introduced on the continent in a classical form. Smart proceeded, accordingly, to translate the “Essay on Criticism,” of all Pope’s writings, perhaps the most unfit for the purpose; but it brought him into some reputation with scholars.

In 1743, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and July 3, 1745, was elected a fellow of Pembroke hall. About this time, he wrote a comedy, of which a fevr songs only remain; and a ludicrous soliloquy of the Princess Periwinkle, preserved in the Old Woman’s Magazine. The play was called “A Trip to Cambridge, or the Grateful Fair.” The business of the drama, says his biographer, “was laid in bringing up an old country baronet to admit his nephew a fellow commoner at one of the colleges in, which expedition a daughter or niece attended. In their approach to the seat of the Muses, the waters from a heavy rain happened to be out at Fenstauton, which gave a youug student of Emmanuel an opportunity of shewing his gallantry as he was riding out, by jumping from his horse and plunging into the flood to rescue the distressed damsel, who was near perishing in the stream, into which she had fallen from her poney, as the party travelled on horseback. The swain being lucky enough to effect his purpose, of course gained an interest in the lady’s heart, and an acquaintance with the rest of the family, which he did not fail to cultivate on their arrival at Cambridge, with success as far as the fair one was concerned. To bring about the consent of the father (or guardian, fur my memory is not accurate), it was contrived to have a play acted, of which entertainment he was highly fond; and the Norwich company luckily came to Cambridge just at that time; only one of the actors had been detained on the road; and they could not perform the plav that night, unless the baronet would consent to take apart; which, rather than be disappointed of his favourite amusement, he was prevailed upon to do, especially as he was assured that it would amount to nothing more than sitting at a great table, and signing an instrument, as a justice of peace might sign a warrant: and having been some years of the quorum, he felt himself quite equal to the undertaking. The tinder-play to he acted by the Norwich company on this occasion, was the ‘ Bloody War of the King of Diamonds with the King of Spades;’ and the actors in it came on with their respective emblems on their shoulders, taken from the suits of the cards they represented. The baronet was the king of one of the parties, and in signing a declaration of war, signed his consent to the marriage of his niece or daughter, and a surrender of all her fortune.” This farce vvas acted at Pembroke-college-hall, the parlour of which made the green-room.

In 1747, Smart took the degree of master of arts, and became a candidate for the Seatonian prize, which was adjudged to himfor five years, four of them in succession. The Mibjects of his poems were, “The Eternity,” March 5, 1750. “The Immensity,” April 20, 1751. “The Omniscience,” Nov. 1, 1752. “The Power,” Dec. 5, 1753. and “The Goodness of the Supreme Being,” Oct. 28, 1755. It is probable he might have succeeded in the year 1754, but his thoughts were for some time diverted by an important change in his situation. In 1753 he quitted college. on his marriage with Miss Ann-Maria Carnan, the daughter by a former husband of Mary wife of the hue worthy Mr. John Newbery. He had been introduced to this gentleman’s family by Dr. Burney, the celebrated author of the History of Music, who composed several of Smart’s songs, and enriched the coilection of his works published in 1791 with some original compositions not generally known tobelong to our poet. Before this time, Smart had occasionally visited London, and had relinquished the prospects of any regular profession. In 1751 he published his Seatonian poem on the “Immensity of the Supreme Being:” and about the same time appears to have been engaged with Newbery in a general scheme of authorship. He had a ready turn for original composition, both in prose and verse, and as Newbery projected many works in the form of periodical miscellanies, must have been an useful coadjutor. During the years 1750 and 1751 he was a frequent contributor to the “Student, or Oxford and Cambridge Miscellany,” and carried on at the same time “The Midwife, or the Old Woman’s Magazine,” a small periodical pamphlet, which was published in three-penny numbers, and was afterwards collected into three volumes, 12mo. Smart and Newbery were almost the sole writers in this last work, which consists of short pieces in prose and verse, mostly of the humorous kind, and generally in a style of humour which in our more polished days would be reckoned somewhat coarse.

During the publication of the “Midwife,” he wrote the prologue and epilogue to Othello, when acted at Drurylane theatre by the Delaval family and their friends. Of the importance of this prologue and epilogue he had so high an opinion, that when he published them, in March 1751, he added a solemn notice of their being entered in the hallbook of the stationers’ company, and threatened to prosecute all persons who should pirate them, or any part of them. As he affected to conceal his share in the “Midwife,” he permits that old lady to copy these articles “because a work of merit printed in that Magazine is as a brilliant set in gold, and increased, not diminished, in its lustre.” He was now acquiring the various arts of puffing, and he ever preserved a much higher opinion of his works than even his best friends could allow to be just. Among other schemes, to which it is to be regretted a man of talents should descend, we find him about the beginning of 1752, endeavouring to amuse the town with a kind of farcical performance, called the “Old Woman’s Oratory,” intended partly to ridicule orator Henley’s buffooneries, and partly to promote the sale of the Old Woman’s Magazine. In neither of these was he very successful; the magazine was soon discontinued for want of encouragement, and Henley was a man whose absurdities could be heightened only by himself.

“The Hilliad,” which is perhaps one of the most bitter satires ever published, would afford a very unfavourable opinion of our author’s character, had it not been an attack on a man who had rendered himself ridiculous and contemptible by practising with unblushing effrontery every species of literary and medical quackery. According to Smart, Hill gave the first public provocation, in one of his “Inspectors,” where he accuses Smart of ingratitude. Hill alledged that he had been the cause of Smart’s being brought up to town; that he had been at all times his friend, and had supported his character; and, long before he appeared as “Inspector,” he spoke well of those pieces, on the merit of which Smart’s fortune at that time depended; he hints also among other favours, that he had been the means of introducing him to Newbery; and for all this, the only return Smart made was by an abusive poem, “a long elaborate work, which he has read at alehouses and cyder cellars, and if any bookseller will run the risk, will publish.” To this heavy accusation, Smart pleaded not guilty in totOy solemnly declaring in an advertisement in the Daily Gazetteer, that he never received the least favour from Hill, directly or indirectly, unless an invitation to dinner, which he never accepted, might be reckoned such. He denied at the same time having ever been in his company but twice, the first time at Mr. Newbery’s, the second at Vauxhall gardens; and asserts that Hill had been his enemy as much as it was in his power, particularly in the “Impertinent,” another of his papers, in which he abuses not only Smart, but Fielding, who was his particular friend. This declaration was corroborated by an advertisement from honest Newbery, who adds that he introduced Smart to Hill, six months after the former had engaged with himself (Newbery) in business, when they met as perfect strangers. With respect to Hill’s assertion that he had been the means of introducing Smart to Mr. Newbery, the latter declares it to be an absolute falsehood.

The truth was, that Hill pretended to take the part of our poet in the “Inspector,” which he was known to write, while he abused him in the “Impertinent,” the author of which, he flattered himself, was not known. But it was among the misfortunes of this arch-quack, although advantageous to the public, that whatever disguise he put on was always too thin to elude the penetration of his contemporaries. This trick in particular had been discovered by the reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine five months before the “Inspector” appeared in which he accused Smart of ingratitude. We are not therefore to wonder that the discovery of such malignant hypocrisy stimulated Smart to write “The Hilliad,” which, it appears, he first read or circulated in manuscript among his friends. But whatever praise they bestowed on the genius displayed in this satire, they were not pleased that he had involved himself in a war of obloquy with one whom to conquer was to exceed in the worst part of his character; and Smart probably listened to their opinions, for he published no more of the Hilliad. Hill had the credit of writing a Smartiad, which served no other purpose than to set off the merit of the other.

Smart’s madness, according to Dr. Johnson’s account, discovered itself chiefly in unnecessary deviations from the usual modes of the world, in things ibat are not improper in themselves. He would fall upon his knees and say his prayers in the street, or in any unusual place, and insisted on people praying with him. His habits were also remark, ably slovenly, but he had not often symptoms of dangerous lunacy, and the principal reason of his confinement was to give his constitution a chance of recovering from the eifr cts of intemperance. After his release, when his mind appeared to be in some measure restored, he took a pleasant lodging in the neighbourhood of St. James’s park, and conducted his affairs for some time with prudence. He was maintained partly by his literary occupations, and partly by the generosity of his friends, receiving-, among other benefactions, fifty pounds a year from the treasury, but by whose interest his biographer has not been able to discover. In 1757 he published a prose translation of the works of “Horace.” From this performance he could derive little fame. He professes, indeed, that he had been encouraged to think that such a translation would be useful to those who are desirous of acquiring or recovering a competent knowledge of the Latin tongue, but the injury done to learners by literal translations was at this time too generally acknowledged to allow him the full force of this apology.

In what manner he lived for some time after this, we are not told. It was in 1759 thatGarrick gave him the profits of a benefit before mentioned, when it appears that he was again involved in pecuniary distresses. In 1763, he published “A Soug to David,” in which there are some passages of more majestic animation than in any of his former pieces, and others in which the expression is mean, and the sentiments unworthy of the poet or the subject. These inequalities will not, however, surprize the reader when he is told that this piece was composed by him during his confinement, when he was debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and was obliged to indent his lines with the end of a key, upon the wainscot. This poem was not admitted into the edition of his works published in 1791, but a fragment has been printed in the late edition of the English Poets.

In the same year he published a small miscellany of “Poems on several occasions,” at the conclusion of which he complains again of the reviewers, and betrays that irritability of self-conceit which is frequently observed to precede, and sometimes to accompany derangement of mind. In other respects these poems added little to his fame, and, except one or two, have not been reprinted. In 1764, he published “Hannah,” an oratorio, the music of which was composed by Worgan, and -soon after in the same year, “An Ode to tht Earl of Northumberland,” on his bein<r appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, with some other pieces. In all these his imagination, although occasionally fine, went often into wild excesses, and evinced that his iniiui had never recovered its sober tone. In his intervals of health and regularity, he still continued to write, and although he perhaps formed too high an opinion of his effusions, he spared no labour when employed by the booksellers, and formed, in conjunction with them, many schemes of literary industry which he did not live to accomplish. In 1765, he published “A Poetical Translation of the Fables of PliEedrus,” with the appendix of Gudius, and an accurate original text on the opposite page. This translation appears to be executed with neatness and fidelity, but has never become popular. His “Translation of the Psalms,” which followed in the same year, affords a melancholy proof of want of judgment and decay of powers. Many of his psalms scarcely rise above the level of Sternhold and Hopkins, and they had the additional disadvantage of appearing at the same time with Merrick’s more correct and chaste translation. In 1767, our poet republished his Horace, with a metrical translation, in which, although we find abundance of inaccuracies, irregular rhymes and redundancies, there are some passages conceived in the true spirit of the original.

As a poet, Smart exhibits indubitable proofs of genius, but few of a correct taste, and appears to have seldom exercised much labour, or employed cool judgment in preparing his works for the public. Upon the whole, therelore, he is most successful in his lighter pieces, his Odes, Songs, and Fables. His Fables are entitled to high praise, for ease of versification and delicacy of humour, and although he may have departed from the laws which some critics have imposed on this species of composition, by giving reason to inanimate objects, it will be difficult by any laws to convince the reader that he ought not to be delighted with the “Tea-pot and the Scrubbing Brush,” the “Bag-wig, and the Tobacco-pipe,” or the “Brocaded gown and the Linen rag.”

In his religious poems, written for the Seatonian prize, there is much to commend, and where we are most disposed to blame, the fault perhaps is in the expectation that such subjects can be treated with advantage. In the preface to his Ode to St. Cecilia, he allows that “the choosing too high subjects has been the ruin of many a tolerable genius;” and Dr. Johnson, with majestic energy, remarks, that “whatever is great, desirable, or tremendous, is comprized in the name of the Supreme Being. Omnipotence cannot be exalted; Infinity cannot be amplified; Perfection cannot be improved.” Of this Smart seems to have been aware, although ambition and interest, neither illaudable in his circumstances, prompted him to make an attempt, in which, whatever his success, he was allowed to excel his rivals.

, a very celebrated mechanic and civil engineer, was born May 28, 1724, at Austhorpe near Leeds, where his relations still reside. From his early childhood he discovered a strong propensity to the arts in which he afterwards excelled, was more delighted in talking with workmen than in playing with other boys; and surprised, or occasionally alarmed his friends by mechanical efforts disproportioned to his years; sometimes being at the summit of a building to erect a kind of mill, and sometimes at the side of a well, employed in the construction of a pump. When he was about fourteen or fifteen he had constructed a lathe to turn rose-woik, and presented many of his friends with specimens of its operation in wood and ivory. “In the year 1742,” says his biographer, “I spent a month at his father’s house, and being intended myself for a mechanical employment, and a few years younger than he was, J could not but view his works with astonishment. He forged his iron and steel, and melted his metal; he had tools of every sort for working in wood, ivory, and metals. He had made a lathe by which he had cut a perpetual screw in brass, a thing little known at that day, and which, I believe, was the invention of Mr. Henry Hindley of York, with whom I served my apprenticeship. Mr. Hindley was a man of the most communicative disposition, a great lover of mechanics, and of the most fertile genius. Mr. Srneaton soon became acquainted with him, and they spent many a night at Mr. Hindley ‘s house, ’till day-light, conversing on those subjects.”

In 1754 he visited Holland, and travelling on foot, or in the trechschuyts, made himself acquainted with most of the works of art in the Low Countries. In December 1752 the Eddystone lighthouse was burned down, and Mr. Smeaton was recommended to the proprietor, by lord Macclesfield, then president of the Royal Society, as the person best qualified to rebuild it. This great work he undertook immediately, and completed it in the summer of 1759. An ample and most interesting account is given of the whole transaction in a folio volume, published by himself, in 1791, entitled “A narrative of the building and a description of the construction of the Eddystone Lighthouse with stone, to which is subjoined an Appendix, giving some account of the Lighthouse on the Spurn Point, built upon a sand. By John Smeaton, civil engineer, F. R. S.” This publication may be considered as containing an accurate history of four years of his life, in which the originality of his genius, with his great alacrity, industry, and perseverance, are fully displayed. It contains also an account of the former edifices constructed in that place, and is made, by the ingenuity of the writer, an entertaining, as well as an instructive work.

Indeed his building the Eddystone lighthouse, were there no other monument of his fame, would establish his character. The Eddystone rocks have obtained their name from the great variety of contrary sets of the tide or current in their vicinity. They are situated nearly S. S. W. from the middle of Plymouth Sound. Their distance from the port of Plymouth is about 14 miles. They are almost in the line which joins the Start and the Lizard points; and as they lie nearly in the direction of vessels coasting up and down the channel, they were unavoidably, before the establishment of a lighthouse there, very dangerous, and often fatal to ships. Their situation with regard to the Bay of Biscay and the Atlantic is such, that they lie open to the swells of the bay and ocean, from all the southwestern points of the compass; so that all the heavy seas from the south-west quarter come uncontrolled upon the Eddystone rocks, and break upon them with the utmost fury. Sometimes, xvhen the sea is to all appearance smooth and even, and its surface unruffled by the slightest breeze, the ground swell meeting the slope of the rocks, the sea beats upon them in a frightful manner, so as not only to obstruct any work being done on the rock, or even landing upon it, when, figuratively speaking, you might go to sea in a walnut-shell. That circumstances fraught with danger surrounding it should lead mariners to wish for a lighthouse, is not wonderful; but the danger attending the erection leads us to wonder that any one could be found hardy enough to undertake it. Such a man was first found in the person of Mr. H. Winstanley, who, in 3696, was furnished by the Trinity-house with the necessary powers. In 1700 it was finished; but in the great storm of November 1703, it was destroyed, and the projector perished in the ruins. In 1709 another, upon a different construction, was erected by a Mr. lludyerd, which, in 1755, was unfortunately consumed by fire. The next building was under the direction of Mr. Smeaton, who, having considered the errors of the former constructions, has judiciously guarded against them, and erected a building, the demolition of which seems little to be dreaded, unless the rock on which it is erected should perish with it. But although Mr. Saieaton completed the building of the Eddystone lighthouse in a manner that did him so much credit, it does not appear that he soon got into full business as a civil engineer; for in 17G4, while he was in Yorkshire, he offered himself a candidate for the place of one of the receivers of the Derwentvvater Restate. This place was conferred upon him at a full board in Greenwich hospital, the last day of the same year, notwithstanding a powerful opposition. He was very serviceable in it, by improving the mills, and the estates belonging to the hospital; but in 1775 his private business was so much increased that he wished to resign, though he was prevailed upon to hold it two years longer. He was now concerned in many important public works. He made the river Calcler navigable; a work that required great skill and judgment, on account of the very impetuous floods to which that river is liable. He planned and superintended the execution of the great canal in Scotland, which joins the two seas; and was supposed to prevent the falling of Londonbridge, when that event was apprehended, on the opening of the great arch. In 1771 he became joint proprietor, with his friend Mr. Holmes, of the works for supplying Greenwich and Deptford with water, an undertaking which they succeeded in making useful to the public and beneficial to the proprietors, which it had never been before. Mr. Smeaton, in the course of his employments, constructed a vast variety of mills, to the entire satisfaction and great advantage of the owners; and he improved whatever he took under his consideration, of the mechanical or philosophical kind. Among many instances of this, we may mention his improvements in the air-pump, the pyrometer, the hygrometer, and the steam engine. He was constantly consulted in parliament, and frequently in the courts of law on difficult questions of science; and his strength of judgment, perspicuity of expression, and strict integrity, always appeared on those occasions to the highest advantage. About 1785, finding his health begin to deciinej Mr. Smeaton wished as much as possible to withdraw himself from business, and to employ his leisure in drawing up and publishing an account of his principal inventions and works. His narrative of the Eddystone lighthouse, already mentioned, was a part of this design, and the only part which he was able to complete. Notwithstanding his wish to retire from business, he could not resist the solicitation of his frit'nd Mr. Aubert, then chairman of the trustees for Ram&gate harbour, to accept the place of engineer to that harbour; and the improvements actually made, as well as his report published by the trustees in 179l, evince the attention which he paid to that important business.

On the 16th of September 1792, Mr. Smeaton was suddenly struck with paralysis, as he was walking in his garden at Austhorpe, and remaining in a very infirm state, though in full possession of his faculties, died on the 28th of the ensuing month. The character of this celebrated engineer may properly be given in the words of his friend Mr. Holmes. “Mr. Smeaton had a warmth of expression, that might appear to those who did not know him to border on harshness, but those more intimately acquainted with him, knew it arose from the intense application of his mind, which was always in the pursuit of truth, or engaged in investigating difficult subjects. He would sometimes break out hastily, when any thing was said that did not tally with his ideas; and he would not give up any tiling he argued for, till his mind was convinced by sound reasoning. In all the social duties of life, he was exemplary; he was a most affectionate husband, a good father, a warm, zealous, and sincere friend, always ready to assist those he respected, and often before it was pointed out to him in what way he could serve them. He was a lover and encourager of merit, wherever he found it; and many men are in a great measure indebted for their present situation to his assistance and advice. As a companion he was always entertaining and instructive; and none could spend their time in his company without improvement.” As a man,“adds Mr. H.” I always admired and respected him, and his memory will ever be most dear to me." A second edition of his narrative of the Eddystone, was published in 1793, under the revisal of his friend Mr. Aubert: but without any addition. The papers of Mr. Smeaton were purchased of his executors by sir Joseph Banks, under the voluntary promise of accounting to them, for the profits of whatever should be published. Accordingly under the inspection of a society of civil engineers, founded originally by Mr. Smeaton, three 4to volumes of his reports have been published 1797, &c. with a life prefixed. During many years of his life, Mr. Smeaton was a constant attendant on parliament, his opinion being continually called for. And here his natural strength of judgment and perspicuity of expression had their full display. It was his constant practice, when applied to, to plan or support any measure, to make himself fully acquainted with it, and be convinced of its merits, before he would be concerned in it. By this caution, joined to the clearness of his description, and the integrity of his heart, he seldom failed having the bill he supported carried into an ad of parliameut. No person was heard with more attention, nor had any one ever more confidence placed in his testimony. In the courts of law he had several compliments paid to him from the bench, by the late lord Mansfield and others, on account of the new light he threw upon difficult subjects.

This author had the fate of almost all ingenious men, to excite the indignation of some of his contemporaries. The most formidable of these wasDr. William Burton, practitioner of midwifery at York, who- attacked him with great acrimony; and Dr. William Douglas, who styles himself physician extraordinary to the prince of Wales, and manmidwife, addressed two letters to Dr. Smellie, in 1748, accusing him of degrading the profession, by teaching midwifery at a very low price, and giving certificates to pupils who had only attended him a few weeks, by which means the number of practitioners was enormously multiplied, and many improper persons admitted. Apothecaries, he says, resorted to the doctor, from various parts of the country, and at the end of two or three weeks, returned to their shops, armed with diplomas signed by the professor, attesting their proficiency in the art. These were framed and hung up in the most conspicuous parts of their houses, and were, without doubt, surveyed with veneration by their patients. “In your bills,” he says, “you set forth that you give a universal lecture in midwifery for half a guinea, or four lectures for a guinea.” In these universal lectures, the whole mystery of the art was to be unfolded. He charges him also with hanging out a paper lanthorn, with the words “Midwifery taught here for five shillings,” each lecture, we presume. This was certainly an humiliating situation for a man of so much real merit. Dr. Douglas relates these cases, in which he contends that Smellie had acted unscientifically; and particularly says, that he suffered one of the women to die by not giving timely assistance. To the charges of mal-practice, Dr. Smellie answered, by giving a full recital of the cases, and referred to Dr. Sands, and other practitioners, who attended with him. His answer was so satisfactory, that Dr. Douglas retracted his charges in his second letter. On the other points, Smellie was silent. It is probable, that, having practised the first nineteen years at a small town in Scotland, where medical fees may be supposed to be low, he might not think the price he demanded for his instructions so insignificant and inadequate as it really was. Smellie is said to have been coarse in his penron, and aukward and unpleasing in his manners, so that he never rose into any great estimation among persons of rank. On the other hand, he appears to have had an active and ingenious mind, with a solid understanding and judgment. He had a peculiar turn to mechanics, which was evinced by the alterations he made in the forceps, crotchets, and scissors, which all received considerable improvements under his hands; but this was more particularly shewn by the elegant construction of his phantoms, or machines, on which he demonstrated the various positions of the foetus in utero, and the different species of labour. That he was candid and modest appears through every page of his works; ready on all occasions to acknowledge the merit of others, and when correcting their errors assuming no superiority over them. We will conclude this account with the words of one of his pupils, who appears to have been well acquainted with his disposition and manners. “No man was more ready than Dr. Smellie to crave advice and assistance when danger or difficulty occurred, and no man was more communicative, without the least self-sufficiency or ostentation. He never officiously intermeddled in the concerns of others, or strove to insinuate himself into practice by depreciating the character of his neighbour; but made his way into business by the dint of merit alone, and maintained his reputation by the most benelicent and disinterested behaviour.”

One of Mr. Sinellie’s earliest literary schemes was the first edition of the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” 3 vols. 4to, published in 1771. Of this he composed, or compiled, the principal articles, and superintended the whole; for which he received the sum of 2007. from the proprietors; but he declined taking any concern in the second or subsequent editions. In 1773, in conjunction with Dr. Gilbert Stuart, he engaged in a new monthly work, entitled “The Edinburgh Magazine and Review,” which, says his biographer, “would have succeeded, if the management had been entirely committed to the calm, judicious, and conciliatory controul of Mr. Smellie. But owing to the harsh irritability of temper, and the severe and almost indiscriminate satire in which Dr. Stuart indulged, several of the Reviews gave great offence to many leading characters of the day, which occasioned the sale to be so much diminished as to render it a losing concern to the adventurers, insomuch that it was discontinued in 1776, after the production of forty-seven numbers,” &c. It appears, however, from the long account given of this Review, by his biographer, that Mr. Smellie partook largely in the arrogance, gross levity, and want of feeling, which distinguished Dr. Stuart’s writings. The wonder is, that they should not succeed in a mode of reviewing, now so popular. In 1781, Mr. Smellie published his translation of Buffon’s Natural History, in 8 vols. 8vo, which became a favourite, and has often been reprinted.

In 1751 Mr. Smith was elected professor of logic in the university of Glasgow; and the year following, upon the death of Mr. Cragie, the immediate successor of Dr. Hutcheson, he was removed to the professorship of moral philosophy in that university. His lectures in both these professorships were of the most masterly kind, but no part of them has been preserved, except what he himself published in his two principal works. A general sketch of his lectures has indeed been given by his biographer, in the words of one of his pupils, from which it appears that his lectures on logic were at once original and profound. His course of moral philosophy consisted of four parts; the first contained natural theology, or the proofs of the Being and Attributes of God; the second comprehended ethics, strictly so called, and consisted chiefly of the doctrines which he published afterwards in his “Theory of Moral Sentiments.” In the third part he treated more at length of that branch of morality which relates to justice. This also he intended to give to the public; but this intention, which is mentioned in the conclusion of the “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” he did not live to fulfil. In the fourth and last part of his lectures he examined those political regulations which are founded, not upon the principle of justice, but of expediency. Under this view he considered the political institutions relating to commerce, to finances, to ecclesiastical and military establishments. What he delivered on these subjects formed the substance of the work which he afterwards published under the title of *' An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of tue Wealth of Nations." There was no situation in which his abilities appeared to greater advantage than that of a professor. In, delivering his lectures he trusted almost entirely to extemporary elocution. His manner, though not graceful, was plain and unaffected; and, as he seemed to be always interested in his subject, he never failed to interest his hearers. His reputation was accordingly raised very high, and a multitude of students from a great distance resorted to the university of Glasgow merely on his account.

Of his intellectual gifts and attainments, of the originality and comprehensiveness of his views, the extent, variety, and correctness of his information, the fertility of his invention, anil the ornaments which his rich imagination had borrowed from classical culture, Dr. A. Smith has left behind him lasting monuments. To his private worth the most certain of all testimonies may be found in that confidence, respect, and attachment, which followed him through the various relations of life. With all his talents, however, he is acknowledged not to have been fitted for the general commerce of the world, or the business of active life. His habitual abstraction of thought rendered him inattentive to common objects, and he frequently exhibited instances of absence, which have scarcely been surpassed by the fancy of Addison or La Bruyere. Even in his childhood this habit began to shew itself. In his external form and appearance there was nothing uncommon. He never sat for his picture; but a medallion, executed by Tassie, conveys an exact idea of his profile, and of the general expression of his countenance. The valuable library which he had collected was bequeathed, with the rest of his property, to his cousin, Mr. David Douglas.

One thing, however, is much to be regretted, in the life of Dr. A. Smith, of which his biographer has not thought fit to take the smallest notice; and that is his infidelity. “When his friend Hume died, he published the life which that celebrated sceptic had written of himself; with such remarks as proved, but too plainly, that his sentiments on the subject of religion were nearly the same with those of the deceased. This publication, which apparently was intended to strike a powerful blow against Christianity, and to give proportionable support to the cause of deism, produced an anonymous letter to Dr. A. Smith from the Clarendon press; which was afterwards known to have proceeded from the pen of Dr. Home In this celebrated letter, the argument is so clear, and the humour so easy and natural, that it produces an effect which no one but a determined infidel can resist or resent. Dr. A. Smith had assumed an air of great solemnity in his defence of his friend Hume; but the author of the letter treats them both with a jocularity which has wonderlui force. He alludes to certain anecdotes coneerning Hume, which are very inconsistent with the account given ii> his life for at the very period when he is reported to have been in the utmost tranquillity of spirits, none of his tiu n;is could venture to mention Dr. Beattie in his presence,” lest it shoul.l throw him into a fit of passion and sweariri“-” From whatever unfortunate cause this bias in Dr. Adam Smith’s mind arose, whether from his intimacy with Hume, from his too earnest desire to account for every thing metaphysically, or from a subsequent intercourse with the infidel wits and phdosophers of France, it is much to be regretted, as the only material stain upon a character of much excellence.

, an elegant poetess, was born in 1749. She was the daughter of Nicholas Turner, esq. a gentleman of Sussex, whose seat was at Stoke, near GuiU ibrd; but he had another house at Bignor Park, on the banks of the Aru.n, where she passed many of her earliest years, amidst scenery which had nursed the fancies of Otway and Collins, and where every charm of nature seems to have left the most lively and distinct impression on her mind. She discovered from a very early age an insatiable thirst for reading, which was checked by an aunt, who had the care of her education; for she had lost her mother almost in her infancy. From her twelfth to her fifteenth year, her father resided occasionally in London, and she was introduced into various society. It is said that before she was sixteen, bhe married Mr. Smith, a partner in his father’s house, who was a West India merchant, and also an East India director; an ill-assorted match, and the prime source of all her future misfortunes. After she had resided some time in London, and partly in the vicinity, Mr. Smith’s father, who could never persuade his son to give his time or care sufficiently to the business in which he was engaged, allowed him to retire into the country, and purchased for him Lyss farm in Hampshire.

In 1776, Mr. Smith’s father died; in four or five years afterwards Mr. Smith served the office of high sheriff for Hampshire, a-xl immediately afterwards, his affairs were brought to a crisis, and hevxas confined in the King’s-bench. prison. There Mrs. Smith accompanied him, and passed with him the greater part of his confinement, which lasted seven months, and it was by her exertions principally, that he was liberated. At this unhappy period, she had recourse to those talents, which had hitherto been cultivated only for her own private gratification. She collected together a few of those poems, which had hitherto been confined to the sight of one or two friends, and had them printed at Chichester in 1784, 4to, with the title “Elegiac Sonnets and other Essays.” A second edition was eagerly called for in the same year.

It now became necessary to exert her faculties again as a means of support; and she translated a little novel of abbe Prevost; and made a selection of extraordinary stories from “Les Causes Celebres” of the French, which she entitled “The Romance of Real Life.” Soon after this she was once more left to herself by a second flight of her husband abroad; and she removed with her children to a small cottage in another part of Sussex, whence she published a new edition of her “Sonnets,” with many additions, which afforded her a temporary relief. In this retirement, stimulated by necessity, she ventured to try her powers of original composition in a novel called “Emmeline, or the Orphan of the Castle,” 1788. This, says her biographer, *' displayed such a simple energy of language, such an accurate and lively delineation of character, such a purity of sentiment, and such exquisite scenery of a picturesque and rich, yet most unaffected imagination, as gave it a hold upon all readers of true taste, of a new and captivating kind “The success of this novel encouraged her to produce others for some successive years,” with equal felicity, with an imagination still unexhausted, and a command of language, and a variety of character, which have not yet received their due commendation.“” Ethelinde“appeared in 178!;” Celestina“in 1791;” Desmond“in 1792; and” r \ ht- Old Manor House“in 1793. To these succeeded” The Wanderings of Warwick“the” Banished Man;“”Momalbert;“”Marchmont;“” The young Philosopher,“and the” Solitary Wanderer," making in all 38 volumes. They weie not, however, all equally successful. She was led by indignant feelings to intersperse much of her private history and her law-suits; and this again involved her sometimes in a train of political sentiment, which was by no means popular, and had it been just, was out of place in a moral fiction.

, one of those writers who, without much labour have attained high reputation, and who are mentioned with reverence rather for the possession than the exertion of uncommon abilities, was the only son of Mr. Neale, an eminent merchant, by a daughter of the famous baron Lechmere; and born in 1668. Some misfortunes of his father, which were soon after followed by his death, occasioned the son to be left very young in the hands of Mr. S nith, who had married his father’s sister. This gentleman treated him with as much tenderness as if he had been his own cnild; and placed him at Westminster-school under the care of Dr. Busby. After the death of his generous guardian, young Neale, in gratitude, thought proper to assume the name of Smith. He was elected from Westminster to Cambridge, but, being offered a studentship, voluntarily removed to Christ-church in Oxford; and was there by his aunt handsomely maintained as long as she lived; alter which, he continued a member of that society till within five years of his own death. Some time before he left Christ church, he was sent for by his mother to Worcester, and acknowledged by her as a legitimate son; which his friend Oldisworth mentions, he says, to wipe off the aspersions that some had ignorantly cast on his birth. He passed through the exercises of the college and university with unusual applause; and acquired a great reputation in the schools both for his knowledge and skill in disputation. He had a long and perfect intimacy with all the Greek and Latin classics; with whom he had carefully compared whatever was worth perusing in the French, Spanish, and Italian languages, and in all the celebrated writers of his own country. He considered the ancients and moderns, not as parties or rivals for fame, but as architects upon one and the same plan, the art of poetry.

His works are not many, and those scattered up and down in miscellaneous collections. His celebrated tragedy, called “Phaedra and Hippolitus,” was acted at the theatre royal in 1707. This play was introduced upon the stage at a time when the Italian opera so much engrossed the polite world, that sense was thought to be sacrificed to sound: and this occasioned Addison, who wrote the prologue, to satirize the vitiated taste of the public. The chief excellence of this play, which has been praised far beyond its merits, is the versification. It is not destitute of the pathetic; but is so wonderfully inferior, not only to the Hippolytus of Euripides, but even to the Phédre of Racine, and is so full of glaring faults, that it is astonishing how Addison could tolerate it, or how it could be made even a temporary fashion to admire it. It is now as little thought of as it deserves. This tragedy, with “A Poem to the Memory of Mr. John Phillips,” his most intimate friend, three or four odes, and a Latin oration spoken publicly at Oxford, “in laudem Thomas Bodleii,” were publhhed in 1719, under the name of his Works, by his friend Oldisworth, who prefixed a character of Smith.

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.”

, an English divine of popular fame in the sixteenth century, was born in 1550 of a good family at Withcock in Leicestershire, and after purstuing his studies at Oxford, entered into the church. Wood thinks he took the degree of M. A. as a member of Hart-hall, in 1583; and adds, that “he was then esteemed the miracle and wonder of his age, for his prodigious memory, and for his fluent, eloquent, and practical way of preaching.” His scruples, however, as to subscription and ceremonies were such, that being loth, as his biographer Fuller informs us, “to make a rent either in his own conscience or in the church,” he resolved not to undertake a pastoral charge, but accepted the office of lecturer of the church of St. Clement Danes, London. Here he was patronized by William Cecil, lord Burleigh, to whom he dedicated his sermons, and who prevented the prosecutions to which the other scrupulous puritans were at that time exposed. He appears to have been one of the most popular preachers of his age. Fuller informs us, as an instance, that after his preaching a sermon on Sarah’s nursing of Isaac, in which he maintained the doctrine that it was the duty of all mothers to nurse their own children, “ladies and great gentlewomen presently remanded their children from the vicinage round about London, and endeavoured to discharge the second moietie of a mother, and to nurse them, whom they had brought into the world.” Their compliance with his instructions on this point was the more condescending 1 as Mr. Smith was a bachelor.

Of his death we have no certain account. Fuller, who gives him the highest character, and whose principles would not have permitted him to pay this respect to a puritan, unless of very extraordinary worth or talents, after making every inquiry, concludes that he died about 1600. Wood says that he was “in great renown among men in 1593,” in which year he thinks he died.

, commonly called Capt. John Smith, or Smyth, was born at Willoughby in the county of Lincoln, but descended from the Smyths of Cuerdley. He ranks with the greatest travellers and adventurers of his age, and was distinguished by his many achievements in the fpur quarters of the globe. In the wars of Hungary about 1602, in three single combats he overcame three Turks, and cut off their heads, for which and other gallant exploits Sigismund, duke of Transylvania, under whom he served, gave him his picture set in gold, with a pension of three hundred ducats: and allowed him to bear three Turks heads proper as his shield of arms. He afterwards went to America, where he was taken prisoner by the Indians, from whom he found means to escape. He often hazarded his life in naval engagements with pirates, Spanish men of war, and in other adventures, and had a considerable hand in reducing New-England to the obedience of Great Britain, and in reclaiming the inhabitants from barbarism. If the same, which is very probable, who is mentioned in Stow’s “Survey of London,” under the name of “Capt. John Smith, some time governor of Virginia and admiral of New-England,” he died June 21, 1631, and was buried at St. Sepulchre’s church, London. There is a ms life of him, by Henry Wharton in the Lambeth library, but his exploits may be seen in his “History of Virginia, NewEngland, and the Summer Isles,” written by himself, and published at London in 1624, fol. Wood also attributes to him, l. “A Map of Virginia, with a description of the country, the commodities, people, government, and religion,” Oxon. 1612, 4to. 2. “New-England’s Tryals, &c.” Lond. 1620, 4to. 3. “Travels in Europe, &c.” ibid. 1630, reprinted in Churchill’s Voyages, vol. II.

1. “The Essex Dove, presenting the world with a few of her olive-branches, or a taste of the works of the rev. John Smith, &c. delivered in three treatises, &c.” 1629, 4to.

Our author was born at Lowther, Nov. 10, 1659, and was at first educated by his father with a care which his extraordinary capacity amply repaid, for we are told that he learned the Latin grammar in the fifth year of his age, and the Greek grammar in his ninth. After this he was sent to Bradford in Yorkshire, and placed under Mr. Christopher Nesse, a nonconformist (see Nessje) of considerable learning; but here it is said he forgot almost all his grammar rules. He then appears to have been taught by Mr. William Lancaster, afterwards provost of Queen’s college, Oxford, and next by Mr. Thomas Lawson, a quaker schoolmaster, under whom he continued his progress in the learned languages. He was also for some time at the school of Appleby, whence he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of St. John’s college June 11, 1674, about a year before his father’s death. From his first entrance at college, he was much noticed for his exemplary conduct, afcd close application to study, which enabled him to take his degrees in arts with great reputation; that of A. B. in 1677, and of A. M. in 1681. Being intended for the church, he was ordained both deacon and priest, by Dr. Richard Stearn or Stern, archbishop of York; and in 1681 was invited to Durham by Dr. Dennis Granville, who had a great regard for his family, and esteemed him highly for his attainments. In July 1682 he was admitted a minor canon of Durham, and about the same time he was collated to the curacy of Croxdale, and, in July 1684, to the living of Witton-Gilbert. In 1686 he went to Madrid, as chaplain to lord Lansdowne, the English ambassador, and returned soon after the revolution. In 1694 Crew, bishop of Durham, appointed him his domestic chaplain, and had such an opinion of his judgment, that he generally consulted him in all ecclesiastical matters of importance. His lordship also collated him to the rectory and hospital of Gateshead in June 1695, and to a prebend of Durham in September following. In 1696 he was created D. D. at Cambridge, and was made treasurer of Durham in 1699, to which bishop Crew, in July 1704, added the rectory of Bishop-Wearmouth.

On the accession of George I. he was again introduced at court by the earl of Grantham, lord chamberlain to the prince of Wales (Afterward George II.) and was made chaplain to the princess, in which office he continued, until her highness came to the throne, to give attendance in his turn; but at that period, although he was still her majesty’s chaplain, he had no farther promotion at court. For this two reasons have been assigned, the one that he was negligent in making use of his interest, and offered no solicitation; the other, that his Tory principles were not at that time very acceptable. He used to be called the Hanover Tory; but he was in all respects a man of moderation, and sincerely attached to the present establishment. As some compensation for the loss of court-favour, his old fellowstudent, Dr. Gibson, when bishop of Lincoln, promoted him to the prebend of Dunholm in that church, and upon his translation to London gave him the donative of Paddington, near London. In this place, Dr. Smith built a house for himself, the parsonage-house having been lost by his predecessor’s neglect, and afterwards retired here with his family for the benefit of his health. He also established an afternoon lecture, at the request of the inhabitants, and procured two acts of parliament, to which he contributed a considerable part of the expence, for twice enlarging the church-yard. The same patron also promoted him to the prebend of St. Mary, Newington, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, which proved very advantageous to him; but, as he $ow held two benefices with cure of souls, namely, St. Dionisand Paddington, he gave the rectory of Newington, annexed to the prebend, to Dr. Ralph Thoresby, son to the celebrated antiquary. On the building of the new church of St. George’s, Hanover-square, he was chosen lecturer in March 1725, and was there, as every where else, much admired for his talents in the pulpit. He had before resigned the lectureship of Trinity chapel in Conduit-street, and in 1731 resigned also that of St. George’s, in consequence of having been, on Oct. 20, 1730, elected provost of Queen’s college, which owes much of its present splendor and prosperity to his zeal and liberality. We have already noticed that he had persuaded sir Joseph Williamson to alter his will in its favour, which had before been drawn up in favour of endowing a college in Dublin; and it was now to his interference that the college owed the valuable foundation of John Michel, esq. for eight master fellows, four bachelor scholars, and four undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners, besides livings, &c. Dr. Smith was also instrumental in, procuring queen Caroline’s donation of 1000l. lady Elizabeth Hastings’s exhibitions, and those of sir Francis Bridgman, which, without his perseverance, would have been entirely lost; and besides what he bequeathed himself, he procured a charter of mortmain, in May 1732, to secure these several benefactions to the college.

, a learned English divine, was born in 1618, at Achurch, near Oundle in Northamptonshire, where his father possessed a small farm. In April 1636, he was admitted of Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he had the happiness of having Dr. Whichcote, then fellow of that college, afterwards provost of King’s, for his tutor. He took a bachelor of arts’ degree in 1640, and a master’s in 1644; and, the same year, was chosen a fellow of Queen’s college, the fellowships appropriated to his county in his own college being none of them vacant. Here he became an eminent tutor, and read a mathematical lecture for some years in the public schools. He died Aug. 7, 1652, and was interred in the chapel of the same college; at which time a sermon was preached by Simon Patrick, then fellow of Queen’s, and afterwards bishop of Ely, giving a short account of his life and death. In this he is represented as a man of great abilities, vast learning, and possessing also every grace and virtue which can improve and adorn human nature. His moral and spiritual perfections could be only known to his contemporaries; but his uncommon abilities and erudition appear manifestly in those treatises of his, which were published by Dr. John Worth in gton at Cambridge, in 1660, 4to, under the title of “Select Discourses,” consisting, 1. “Of the true Way or Method of attaining to Divine Knowledge.” 2. “Of Superstition.” 3. “Of Atheism.” 4. “Of the Immortality of the Soul.” 5. Of the Existence and Nature of God.“6.” Of Prophesy.“7.” Of the Difference between the Legal and the Evangelical Righteousness, the old and new Covenant, &c. 8. “Of the Shortness and Vanity of a Pharisaical Righteousness.” 9. “Of the Excellency and Nobleness of true Religion.” 10. “Of a Christian’s conflict with, and conquests over, Satan.”

, bishop of Gloucester, a very learned prelate, was born in the city of Hereford, and became, about the year 1568, a student in Corpus Christi college, Oxford; from which college he transferred himself to Brasen Nose, and took the degrees in arts, as a member of that house. He was afterwards made one of the chaplains, or petty canons of Christ-church, and was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, whilst he belonged to that royal foundation. In process of time he was raised to the dignity of canon residentiary of the cathedral church of Hereford: he was created doctor of divinity in 1594; and, at length, in 1612, advanced to tke see of Gloucester, and consecrated on the 20th of September in that year. His knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Oriental languages was so extraordinary, that, upon this account, he was described, by a learned bishop of the kingdom, as a, “very walking library.” He used to say of himself, that he was “covetous of nothing but books.” It was particularly for his exact and eminent skill in the Eastern tongues, that he was thought worthy, by king James the First, to be called to that great work, the last transiation by authority of our English Bible. In this undertaking he was esteemed one of the principal persons. He began with the first, and was the last man in the translation of the work: for after the task was finished by the whole number appointed to the business, who were somewhat above forty, the version was revised and improved by twelve selected from them; and, at length, was referred to the final examination of Bilson bishop of Winchester, and our Dr. Smith. When all was ended, he was commanded to write a preface, which being performed by him, it was made public, and is the same that is now extant in our Church Bible. The original is said to be preserved in the Bodleian library. It was for his good services in this translation, that Dr. Smith was appointed bishop of Gloucester, and had leave to hold in commendam with his bishopric his former livings, namely, the prebend of Hinton in the church of Hereford, the rectories of Upton-onSevern, Hartlebury in the diocese of Worcester, and the first portion of Ledbury, called Overhall. According to Willis he died October 20; but W r ood says, in the beginning of November, 1624, and was buried in his own cathedral. He was a strict Calvinist, and of course no friend to the proceedings of Dr. Laud. In 1632, a volume of sermons, transcribed from his original manuscripts, being fifteen in number, was published at London, in folio, and he was the editor of bishop Babington’s works, to which he prefixed a preface, and wrote some verses for his picture. One of bishop Smith’s own sermons was published in octavo, 1602, without his knowledge or consent, by Robert Burhill, under the title of “A learned and godly Sermon, preached at Worcester, at an assize, by the Rev. and learned Miles Smith, doctor of divinitie.”

On the accession of queen Mary, he returned to England, was restored to his professorship, made canon of Christ-church, and chaplain to her majesty. One of his principal appearances on record was at Oxford, where, when the bishops Ridley and Latimer were brought to the stake, he preached a sermon on the text, “If I give my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” This discourse, which lasted only about a quarter of an hour, was replete with invectives against the two martyrs, and gross assertions, which they offered to refute on the spot, but were not permitted. He was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Cranmer, who had done him many acts of friendship in the preceding reign. For this conduct he was deprived of all his preferments when queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1559, and was committed to the custody of archbishop Parker, by whose persuasion he recanted part of what he had written in defence of the celibacy of the clergy. He then contrived to make his escape, and went to Doway in Flanders, where he obtained the deanery of St. Peter’s church, and a professorship. He died in 1563. He wrote about sixteen tracts in favour of popery, some of which were answered by Peter Martyr. A list of them may be seen in Dodd or Wood. They are partly in Latin and partly in English, the latter printed in London, and the former at Lovaine.

His character seems to have been a singular one: he suffered for popery, yet deserted it, and embraced it at last, after having expressly declared himself in error. His recantations, however, we should suppose insincere, and made only to save himself. Such conduct is never much respected, and Strype informs us, that being desirous to confer with one Hawks, the latter said, “To be short, I will know whether you will recant any more, ere I talk with you or believe you.”

, one of the earliest book-collectors upon record, and the Isaac Reed of his time, was the son of Richard Smith, a clergyman, and was born at Lillingston Dayrell, in Buckinghamshire, in 1590. He appears to have studied for some time at Oxford, but was removed thence by his parents, and placed as clferk with an attorney in London, where he spent all the time he could spare from business in reading. He became at length secondary of the Poultry counter, a place worth 700l. a year, which he enjoyed many years, and sold it in 1655, on the death of his son, to whom he intended to resign it. He now retired to private life, two thirds of which, at least, Wood says, he spent in his library. “He was a person,” adds the same author, “infinitely curious and inquisitive after books, and suffered nothing extraordinary to escape him that fell within the compass of his learning desiring to be master of no more than he knew how to use.” If in this last respect he differed from some modern collectors, he was equally indefatigable in his inquiries after libraries to be disposed of, and passed much of his time in Little Britain and other repositories of stall-books, by which means he accumulated a vast collection of curiosities relative to history, general and particular, politics, biography, with many curious Mss. all which he carefully collated, compared editions, wrote notes upon them, assigning the authors to anonymous works, and, in short, performing all the duties and all the drudgery of a genuine collector. He also occasionally took up his pen, wrote a life of Hugh Broughton, and had a short controversy with Dr. Hammond on the sense of that article in the creed “He descended into hell,” published in 1684. He also wrote some translations, but it does not very clearly appear from Wood, whether these were printed. He died March 26, 1675, and was buried in St. Giles’s Cripplegate, where a marble monument was soon afterwards erected to his memory. In 1682 his library was sold by Chiswell, the famous bookseller of St. Paul’s Church-yard, by a printed catalogue, “to the great reluctance,” says Wood, “of public-spirited men.” His “Obituary,” or “catalogue of all such persons as he knew in their life,” extending from 1606 to 1674, a very useful article, is printed by Peck in the second volume of his “Desiderata.”

, the very learned successor of Bentley as master of Trinity college, Cambridge, was born in 1689, and educated at that college, where he took his degrees of A. B. in 1711, A.M. in 1715, L L. D. in 1723, and D. D. in 1739. Very little, we regret to say, is on record, respecting Dr. Smith, who has so well deserved of the learned world. He was mathematical preceptor to William duke of Cumberland, and master of mechanics to his majesty, George II. It appears that he was maternal cousin, of the celebrated Roger Cotes, whom he succeeded in 1716, as Plumian professor at Cambridge, and afterwards succeeded Bentley as master of Trinity. He published some of the works of his cousin Cotes, particularly his “Hydrostatical and Pneumatical Lectures,” 1737, 8vo also a collection of Cotes’s pieces from the Philosophical Transactions, &c. 1722, 4to. His own works, which sufficiently evince his scientific knowledge, were his “Complete systern of Optics,” 1728, 2 vols. 4to; and his “Harmonics, or the philosophy of Musical Sounds,” 1760. He died in 1768, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. The late Mr. Cumberland, who was under him at Trinity college, says. Dr. Smith was a strict examiner into the proficiency of the students, and led himself the life of a student, abstemious and recluse, his family consisting only of an unmarried sister advanced in years, and a niece. He was of a thin habit, the tone of his voice shrill and nasal, and his manner of speaking such as denoted forethought and deliberation.

, one of the most popular writers of pious tracts in the seventeenth century, and whose works are still in vogue, was the son of a clergyman, and born at or near Dudley, in Worcestershire, in 158S, and studied for some time at St. Mary Hall, Oxford. He left the university without taking a degree, and became beneficed at Vrittlewell, in Essex, and afterwards, as Wood says, in his own country, but,“according to Calamy, he had the perpetual curacy of Cressedge and Cound, in Shropshire. On the breaking out of the rebellion he came to London, sided with the presbyterians, and became a frequent and popular preacher. On his return to the country he was appointed an assistant to the commissioners for the ejection of those they were pleased to term” scandalous and ignorant ministers and schoolmasters.“At the restoration he was ejected from Cressedge, but neither Wood nor Calamy have ascertained when he died. The former says” he was living an aged man near Dudley in 1663.“His works are, J.” David’s blessed man; or a short exposition upon the first Psalm,“Lond. 8vo, of which the fifteenth edition, in 12mo, was printed in 1686. 2.” The Great Assize, or the Day of Jubilee,“12mo, which before 1681 went through thirty-one editions, and was often reprinted in the last century. 3.” A Fold for Christ’s Sheep,“printed thirty-two times. 4.” The Christian’s Guide," of which there were numerous editions. He published some other tracts and sermons, which also had a very numerous class of readers.

About this time he and Cheke introduced a new mode of reading Greek, being dissatisfied with the corrupt and vicious pronunciation which then prevailed. As this was accounted an innovation of the most important, and even dangerous tendency, and exhibits a curious instance of the manners and sentiments of the times, we shall give a more particular account of it in the plain language of honest Strype. According to this biographer, it appears that “custom had established a very faulty manner of sounding several of the vowels and diphthongs; for, i, n 9 v, ei, 01, w, were all pronounced as lura;” nihil fere aliud,“says Smith,” haberet ad loquendum, nisi lugubrss sonos et illud flebile /wra.“He conferred therefore with Cheke upon this point, and they perceived that the vulgar method of pronouncing Greek was false; since it was absurd, that so many different letters and diphthongs should all have but one sound. They proceeded to search authors for the determination of this point: but the modern writers little availed them; they had not seen Erasmus’s book, in which he excepted against the common way of reading Greek. But though both of them saw these palpable errors, they could not agree among themselves, especially concerning the letters vna and i/4-jXov. Soon after, having procured Erasmus’s book, andTerentianus” de literis et syllabis,“they began to reform their pronunciation of Greek privately, and only communicated it to their most intimate friends. When they had sufficiently habituated themselves to this new method of pronunciation, with which they were highly pleased, on account of the fullness and sweetness of it, they resolved to make trial of it publicly; and it was agreed that Smith should begin. He read lectures at that time upon Aristotle” de Republic^,“in Greek, as he had done some years before: and, that the novelty of his pronunciation might give the less offence, he used this artifice, that in reading he would let fall a word only now and then, uttered in the new correct sound. At first no notice was taken of this; but, when he did it oftener, his auditors began to observe and listen more attentively; and, when he had often pronounced n and 01, as e and w, they, who three years before had heard him sound them after the old way, could not think it a slip of the tongue, but suspected something else, and laughed at the unusual souncks. He again, as though his tongue had slipped, would sometimes correct himself, and repeat the word after the old manner. But, when he did this daily, some of his friends came to him, and told him what they had remarked in his lectures: upon which he owned that he had been thinking of something privately, but that it was not yet sufficiently digested and prepared for the public. They, on the other hand, prayed him not to conceal it from them, but to acquaint them with it frankly; and accordingly he promised them that he would. Upon this rumour many resorted to him, whom he desired only to hear his reasons, and to have patience with him three or four days at most; until the sounds by use were made more familiar to their ears, and the prejudice against their novelty worn off. At this time he read lectures upon Homer’s” Odyssey,“in his own college; and there began more openly to shew and determine the difference of the sounds: Cheke likewise did the same in his college. After this, many came to them, in order to learn of them how to pronounce after the new method; and it is not to be expressed with what greediness and affection this was received among the youth. The following winter there was acted in St. John’s college, Aristophanes’ s” Plutus," in Greek, and one or two more of his comedies, without the least dislike or opposition from any who were esteemed learned men and masters of the Greek language. Ponet, a pupil of Smith, and afterwards bishop of Winchester, read Greek lectures publicly in the new pronunciation; as likewise did Roger Ascham, who read Isocrates, and at first was averse to this pronunciation, though he soon became a zealous advocate for it. Thus, in a few years, this new way of reading Greek, introduced by Smith, prevailed every where in the university; and was followed even by Redman, the professor of divinity.

"Afterwards, however, it met with great opposition for, about lo'tv, when Smith was going to travel, Cheke being appointed the king’s lecturer of the Greek language, began by explaining and enforcing the new pronunciation, but was opposed by one liateclitf, a scholar of the university; who, being exploded for his attempt, brought the dispute before bishop Gardiner, the chancellor. Upon this, the bishop interposed his authority; who, being averse to all innovations as well as those in religion, and observing these endeavours in Cambridge of introducing the new pronunciation of Greek to come from persons suspected to be no friends to the old papal superstitions, he made a solemn decree against it. Cheke was very earnest with the chancellor to supersede, or at least to connive at the neglect of this decree; but the chancellor continued indexible. But Smith, having waited upon him at Hampton Court, and discoursed with him upon the point, declared his readiness to comply with the decree; but upon his return, recollected his discourse with the bishop, and in a long and eloquent epistle in Latin, privately sent to him, and argued with much freedom the points in controversy between them. This epistle consisted of three parts. In the first he shewed what was to be called true and right in the whole method of pronunciation; and retrieved this from the common and present use, and out of the hands both of the ignorant and learned of that time, and placed it with the ancients, restoring to them their right and authority, propounding them as the best and only pattern to be imitated by all posterity *vith regard to the Greek tongue. In the second he compared the old and new pronunciation with that pattern, that the bishop might see whether of the two came nearer to it. In the third he gave an account of his whole conduct in this affair. This epistle was dated from Cambridge, August 12, 1542. He afterwards, while he was ambassador at Paris, caused it to be printed there by Robert Stephens, in 4to, in 1568, under the title of “De recta et emendata Linguae Graecse Pronunciatione,” together with another tract of his concerning the right pronunciation and writing English/'

In the mean time, Mr. Smith acquired great reputation by his Greek lectures, which were frequented by a vast concourse of students, and by men then or afterwards of great eminence, such as Redman, Cox, Cecil, Haddon, Ascharn, &c. In 1536 he was appointed university orator; and in 1539 set out on his travels, prosecuting his studies for some time in the universities of France and Italy. At Padua he took the degree of doctor of laws, and some time after his return, in 1542, was admitted ad eundem at Cambridge, and appointed regius professor of civil law. He was also appointed chancellor to the bishop of Ely; and in both situations appears to have exerted himself to promote the cause of the reformed religion, as well as of learning. At a commencement about 1546, both his disputations aod determinations were such, that the learned Haddon, in a letter to Dr. Cox, says that, “had he been there, he would have heard another Socrates, and that Smith caught the forward disputants as it were in a net with his questions, and that he concluded the profound causes of philosophy with great gravity and deep knowledge.”

In 1548, he received the honour of knighthood, and was appointed secretary of state; and in July the same year he was sent to Brussels, in the character of ambassador to the emperor. He also continued to be active in promoting the reformation, and likewise in the redress of base coin, on which last subject he wrote a letter to the duke of Somerset. But in 1549, that nobleman being involved in those troubles which brought him to the scaffold, sir Thomas, who was his faithful adherent, incurred some degree of suspicion, and was for a short time deprived of his office of secretary of state. When the duke fell into disgrace, there were only three who adhered to him, viz. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, sir William Paget, and our sir Thomas Smith; between whom and the lords at London there passed letters on this affair, carried by sir Philip Hoby. In this they ran no small risk; for the lords wrote to them, that it seemed strange that they should assist, or suffer the king’s person to remain in the guard of the duke’s men; and that strangers should be armed with the king’s own armour, and be nearest about his person; and those, to whom the ordinary charge was committed, to be sequestered away. And the lords sent them word likewise, that if any evil came, they must expect it would be imputed to them; and as the archbishop, Paget, and Smith, in their letter to the lords told them, that they knew more than they (the lords) knew, the lords took advantage of these words, and answered, that “if the matters, which came to their knowledge, and were hidden from them, were of such weight as they pretended, or if they touched or might touch his majesty or his state, they thought that they did not as they ought to do in not disclosing the same to them.” At last Smith, together with the archbishop and Paget, sent another letter from Windsor, where the king and ibey were, that they would not fail to endeavour themselves according to the contents of the lords’ letters, and that they would meet when and where their lordships should think proper. “This,” says Strype, “was a notable instance of Smith’s fidelity to the duke his old master, who stuck thus to him as long as he durst, and was then glad to comply as fairly as he could.”

In 1551, sir Thomas was appointed one of the ambassadors to the court of France, to treat concerning a match for the king with the eldest daughter of the king of France; but the king’s life was now at a close, and on the accession of Mary, sir Thomas was deprived of all his places, and was charged not to depart the kingdom; yet enjoyed uncommon privileges. He was allowed a pension of 100l. per annum; he was highly favoured by Gardiner and Bonner on account of the opinion they had of his learning; and enjoyed a particular indulgence from the pope, which was occasioned by the following circumstance. In 1.555, William Smythwick of the diocese of Bath, esq. obtained an indulgence from Pius IV. by which he and any five of his friends, whom he should nominate, were to enjoy extraordinary dispensations. The indulgence exempted them from all ecclesiastical censures upon whatever occasion or cause inflicted; and “from all and singular their sins whereof they are contrite and confessed, although they were such for which the apostolic see were to be consulted.” Smythwick chose Smith, for one of his five friends specified in the bull, to be partaker of those privileges; and this undoubtedly was a great security to him in those perilous times. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, sir Thomas Smith was again received at court, and employed in affairs both of church and state. He was also sent on various embassies. In 1562 he was sent ambassador to France, where, in conjunction with sir Nicholas Throgmorton, he concluded a peace between England and France in the beginning of 156*, but was still continued ambassador in France. In March 1565 he finished his treatise of “the Commonwealth of England,” and in the beginning of the year following returned to England. In 1567 he was again sent ambassador to France to demand the restitution of Calais; and upon his return from thence in 1568, he solicited for the place of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, but without success, it being given to sir Ralph Sadleir. In 1570 he was admitted into the privy council, and in 1572, he was again appointed secretary of state, and chancellor of the order of the garter.

Sir Thomas, with all his talents and good sense, was much of a projector, and about this time engaged in a foolish scheme for transmuting iron into copper. Into this project, says Strype, “he brought sir William Cecil, secretary of state, who had a philosophical genius, the earl of Leicester, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and others. The first occasion of this business was from one Medley, who had by vitriol changed iron into true copper at sir Thomas Smith’s house at London, and afterwards at his house in Essex. But this was too costly, as sir Thomas saw, to make any profit from. He propounded, therefore, to find out here in England the Primum Ens Vitrivli, by which to do the work at a cheaper rate. Upon this sir Thomas Smith, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and Medley, entered into a company under articles to find this out; that is, that Medley should be employed in this business at the charge of the other two, till by the profit he should reap from the thing found out he might bear his proportion. The place where this was to be attempted was in the Isle of Wight, or at Poole, or elsewhere. But at Winchelsea he had made the first trial, on account of the plenty of wood there. He received of sir Thomas and sir Humphrey an hundred and one pounds a piece, for the buying of vessels and necessaries. They removed to Poole, thinking the Ens of vitriol to be there, and took a lease of the land of the lady Mountjoy of three hundred pounds per annum, for the payment of which sir Thomas, with the other two, entered into a bond of a thousand pounds. While these things were in this state, sir Thomas was sent ambassador to France in 1572; and a quarrel happening between sir Humphrey and Medley, who went to Ireland, the business was discontinued for some time. But sir Thomas revived it at his return, and persuaded the lord treasurer Burghley and the earl of Leicester to enter into society about December 1574, who deposited each a hundred pounds towards carrying on the project. Medley was now removed to Anglesey, where the fuel, earth, and water were proper for his business; and the things which he undertook to perform, were these two; first, to make of raw iron good copper, and c,f the same weight and proportion, abating one part in six; so that six hundred tons of iron should by boiling make five hundred tons of perfect copper; secondly, that the liquor, wherein the iron was boiled, should make copperas and alum ready for the merchant; which, keeping the price they then bore, should of the liquor of five hundred tons of copper be ten thousand pounds, that is, for every ton two thousand pounds. After several trials the patent of the society was signed in January 1574, in which the society was styled” The Society of the new Art;“but at last the project proved abortive;” and I make no doubt,“says Strype,” sir Thomas smarted in his purse for his chymical covetousness, and Gilbert seems to have been impoverished by it; and Medley was beggared."

In 1575, we find sir Thomas better employed in procuring an act of parliament for the two universities and the two colleges of Eton and Winchester, ordering that a third part of the rent upon leases made by colleges should be reserved in corn, &c. Fuller observes, that “sir Thomas Smith was said by some to have surprized the house therein; where many could not conceive how this would be at all profitable to the colleges, but still the same on the point, whether they had it in money or wares. But the knight took the advantage of the present cheapness, knowing hereafter grain would grow dearer, mankind daily multiplying, and licence being lately given for transportation. So that at this day much emolument redoundeth to the colleges in each university by the passing of this act; and though their rents stand still, their revenues do increase.” In truth the present prosperity, we may almost say, existence of the universities, is owing to this wise and useful precaution.

About 1576, sir Thomas fell into a declining state of health, which put an end to his life, Aug. 12, 1577, in the sixty-third year of his age. He died at his favourite seat of Mounthall, or Mounthaut in Essex, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church of Theydon Mount, where is a monument to his memory. He died rich, and in his will are instances of his liberality. He gave all his Greek and Latin books to Queen’s college, Cambridge, except a few left as presents to some friends. His estates descended to sir William Smith, son of his brother George.

His works are, 1. “De Republica Anglorum, or the Manner of government or police of the kingdom of England,” first printed in 4to, 1533 and 1584, and again with additions “Of the cheefe Courts in England,” 1589, 4to, and again in 1594. It was afterwards often reprinted both in English and Latin, and in the latter language forms one of the “Respublicae.” There is an English ms. of it in the Harleian collection. 2. “De recta et emendata lingua? Grcecie pronunciatione,” of which we have spoken already. 3. “A Treatise concerning the correct writing and true pronunciation of the English tongue,” which does sir Thomas less credit than the former. He even went so far in his whimsical reformation of our language, as to compose a new alphabet, consisting of twenty-nine letters, nineteen of which were Roman, four Greek, and six English or Saxon. An engraving of this novelty is given by Strype in his life of sir Thomas. 4. “Four Orations, for and against queen Elizabeth’s marriage,” also in Strype. 5. Several letters to lord Burleigh and sir Francis Walsingham, printed in the “Complete Ambassador,” and in other collections; and many in ms. are in the paper-office and other public repositories. 6. “Device for the alteration and reformation of Religion,” written in 155S, and printed among the records at the end of Burnet’s History of the Reformation," is attributed by Strype to sir Thomas Smith. Among the Harleian Mss. is a discourse written by our author to sir William Cecil, upon the value of the Roman foot soldiers 7 daily wages. It is comprised in 29 sections. Some of the tables are printed by Strype. Sir Thomas also left some English poetry. Warton informs us, that while a prisoner in the Tower (a circumstance, if we mistake not, overlooked by Strype, but which must have been the consequence of his attachment to the duke of Somerset) he translated eleven of the Psalms into English metre, and composed three English metrical prayers, with three English copies of verses besides. These are now in the British Museum Mss. Reg. 17 A. XVII.

, a learned English writer and divine, was born in the parish of Allhallows Barking, in London, June 3, 1638, and admitted of Queen’s college in Oxford at nineteen, where he took the degrees in arts. In 1663 he was made master of the free school joining to Magdalen college; and, in 1666, elected fellow of that college, being then famous for his skill in the oriental languages. In June 1668, he went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador to Constantinople; and returned thence in 1671. In 1676, he travelled into France; and, returning after a short stay, became chaplain to sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state. In 1679 he was designed to collate and publish the Alexandrian manuscript in St. James’s library, and to have for his reward (as Charles II. promised) a canonry of Windsor or Westminster; but that design was reserved for the industry and abilities of Mr. Woide, at a far distant period (1784). Mr. Smith published a great many works, and had an established reputation among the learned. So high an opinion was conceived of him, that he was solicited Ijr the bishops Pearson, Fell, and Lloyd, to return into the east, in order to collect ancient manuscripts of the Greek fathers. It was designed that be should visit the monasteries of Mount Athos, where there was said to be extant a great number of Mss. reposited there before the decline of the Greek empire. He was then to proceed to ^Smyrna, Nice, Nicornedia, Ancyra, and at last to Egypt; and to employ two or three years in this voyage; but he could not prevail on himself to undertake it, both on account of the dangers inevitably to be encountered, and of the just expectations he had from his patron Williamson of preferment in the church. These expectations, however, were disappointed; for Wood says, that, after living several years with him, and performing a great deal of drudgery for him, he was at length dismissed without any reward . In 1683, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and, the year after, was nominated by his college to the rectory of Stanlake in the diocese of Oxford, but upon some dislike resigned it in a month. In 1687, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Heytesbury in Wilts. In August 3688, he was deprived of his fellowship by Dr. GilTard, the Popish president of Magdalen college, because he refused to live among the new Popish fellows of that college. He had before resisted the intrusion of Antony Farmer into the office of president, and presented a petition to the earl of Sunderland, beseeching the king either to leave the college to a free election, or recommend a qualified person. This being refused, he was for presenting a second address, before they proceeded to the election, and at last he and Mr. Chernock were the only two fellows that submitted to the authority of the royal commissioners, yet this did not avail him when he refused to associate with the new popish fellows under GilTard. He was, however, restored in Octoher following; but, afterwards refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary, his fellowship was pronounced void, July 25, 1692. From this time he lived chiefly in sir John Cotton’s family. He died at London, May 11, 1710, and was buried in St. Anne’s church, Soho, privately, according to his desire.

His works, are, 1. “Diatriba de Chaldaicis Paraphrastis,” Oxon. 1662, 8vo. 2. “Syntagma de Druidum moribus ac institutis.” 3. “Remarks upon the Manners, Religion, and Government of the Turks; together with a Survey of the seven Churches of Asia, as they now lie in their Ruins; and a brief Description of Constantinople,” 1678, 8vo, originally published in Latin. 4. “De Grsecse Ecclesix hodierno statu Epistola;” which, with additions, he translated into English, and published with the following title: “An Account of the Greek Church, as to its Doctrines and Rites of Worship, with several Historical Remarks interspersed, relating thereto. To which is added, an Account of the State of the Greek Church under Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople, with a Relation of his Sufferings and Death,” 1680, 8vo. 5. “De causis et rernediis dissidiorum,” &c. Ox. 1675, 4to, printed afterwards among his “Miscellanea,” and published by him in English, under the title of “A pacific Discourse or, the causes and remedies of the differences about religion, which distract the peace of Christendom,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 6. Two volumes of “Miscellanea” in Latin, on subjects chiefly of ecclesiastical history and biblical criticism, Lond. 1686, 8vo, and 1692, 4to. 7. A translation of the “Life of St. Mary Magdalen of Pazzi,” with a preface, ibid. 1687, 4to. 8. A Latin life of Camden, which was prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Epistolse,” in 1691, 4to. 9. “Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum Bibl, Cottonianse,” Oxon. 1696, fol. with a life of sir Robert Cotton. 10. “Inscriptiones Grgecse. Palmyrenorum, cum scholiis Ed. Bernardi et Thotnse Smithi,” Utrecht, 1698, 8vo. 11. The lives of Dr. Robert Huntington, bishop of Raphoe, and of Dr. Edward Bernard, in Latin. 12. An edition of “Ignatii Epistolae,” Oxon. 1709, 4to. 13. A preface to sir Philip Warwick’s “Memoirs of the reign of Charles I.” prefixed to the edition of 1702, and of which there has lately been a republication (1813); and lastly, that very useful volume entitled “Vitae quorundam eruditissimorum & illustrium virorum,” 1707, 4to. In this collection are the lives of archbishop Usher, bishop Cosins, Mr. Henry Briggs, Mr. John Bainbridge, Mr. John Greaves, sir Patrick Young, preceptor to James I. Patrick Young, library-keeper to the same, and Dr. John Dee. Three papers by him are inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions:” 1. “Historical Observations relating to Constantinople, No. 152, for Oct. 20, 1683.” 2. “An Account of the City of Prusia in Bithynia, No. 155, for Jan. 1633.” 3. “A Conjecture about an Under-current at the Streights-mouth, No. 158, for April 1684.” He left his Mss. to Hearne, with whom he was a frequent correspondent.

, 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.

For his tirst advancement he is supposed to have been indebted to the earl of Derby, who was one ol those friends of Henry VII. whom that monarch rewarded, after the crown was established in security. Probably also by his interest Smyth was appointed, September 20, 14-85, to the office of the clerk of the hanaper, with an annual stipend of 40l. and an additional allowance of eighteen-pence per day during his attendance, in person, or by his deputy, on the lord chancellor. This salary is worthy of notice, as the sum exceeds that which was attached to it, not only on a subsequent appointment in this reign, but for a century afterwards. It was, therefore, probably given as a special remuneration to Smyth, whose influence appears to have been increasing. It is certain that, while in this office, he was solicited by the university of Oxford to interpose, on a very critical occasion, when they had incurred the king’s displeasure; and such was his influence, that his majesty was pleased to remove their fears, and confirm their privileges. This occurred in the second year of Henry’s reign. While Smyth held this office, we also find his name in a writ of privy-seal for the foundation of Norbridge’s chantry in the parish church of the Holy Trinity at Guildford, along with Elizabeth, consort of Henry VII., Margaret, countess of Richmond, his mother, Thomas Bourchier and Reginald Bray, knights.

When the see of Lichfield and Coventry became vacant by the death of bishop Hales, Dec. 30, 1490, the king bestowed it on Smyth, by the style of “Our beloved and faithful Counsellor, Dean of our free chapel within our own palace at Westminster.” The time neither of his election nor consecration is upon record, but the latter is supposed to have taken place between the 12th and 29th of January 1492-3. The cause of so considerable an interval from the death of his predecessor must probably be sought in the capricious proceedings of the court of Rome on such occasions. His final settlement in this see was followed by a visitation of the clergy under his controul, and the performance of those other duties incumbent on his new station. His usual residences were at Beaudesert, and at Pipe, both near Lichfield, or at his palace in London, which stood on the site of Somerset-house.

Smyth had been bishop of Lichfield somewhat more than two years, when he was translated to Lincoln, November, 1495. In 1500 he performed a strict visitation of his cathedral, which his liberality had already enriched, and prescribed such matters of discipline and police as seemed calculated to preserve order, and correct that tendency to abuse, which rendered frequent visitations necessary. Nor was his care of his diocese at large less actively employed, in hearing and examining grievances, and promoting discipline and morals. “But perfection,” his biographer has well observe:!, “is not the attribute of man and we learn with less surprise than regret, that Smyth did not escape ;he common fault, of condemning heretics to the prison or the stake.” For this no apology can here be offered. The wonder is, that we are still solicited to a fellow-feeling with a religion which could warp the minds of such men as Smyth. It would have done enough to incur our aversion, had it done no more than to stain the memory of those benefactors, to whose liberality the learning of the present age is so deeply indebted.

In the last-mentioned year, Smyth was requested by the university of Oxford to accept the office of chancellor, then vacant by the death of archbishop Morton. How long he continued chancellor is not exactly known, but his resignation must have taken place abont 150'i, when we find Dr. Mayew held that office. In 1507-8, he concerted the plan of Brasen-nose college, along with iiis friend sir Richard Sutton, and lived to see it completed. Of his death we have few particulars, nor can his age be ascertained. After making a will in due form, characterized by the liberality which had distinguished his whole life, he expired at Buckden, Jan. 2, 1513-14, and was interred on the south side of the nave of Lincoln cathedral, under a marble grave stone, richly adorned with brass, which sir William Dugdale had leisure to describe just before it was destroyed by the republican soldiers or mob. A mural monument was recently put up, with a suitable inscription, by the rev. Ralph Cawley, D. D. and principal of Brasennose from 1770 to 1777.

The progress of this munificent work, Brasen-nose college, may be seen in our authorities. The charter of foundation granted to bishop Smyth and Richard Sutton, esq. is dated Jan. 15, 1511-12; and it is supposed that the society became a permanent corporation on the feast of St. Hugh, Nov. 17, 1512, or perhaps a little earlier. According tb the charter, the society was to consist of a principal and sixty scholars, to be instructed in the sciences of sophistry, logic, and philosophy, and afterwards in divinity, and they might possess lands, &c. to the yearly value of 1500l. beyond all burdens and repairs. The number of fellows, however, was not completed until their revenues, by being laid out on land, began to be certainly productive.

, herald and antiquary, was born in Cheshire, and descended from the Smiths or Smyths of Oldhough. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college Wood has not ascertained, there being several of the same names about the latter part of the sixteenth century. When he left the university, we cannot trace his progress, but on his application at the Heralds’ college for the office of Rouge- Dragon, it was said that he had been a merchant and traveller. He was recommended by sir George Carey, knight marshal; and “The Society of Arms finding, by many, that he was honest, and of a quiet conversation, and well languaged,” joined in the supplication, which gained him this office. Anstis says, that he had long resided abroad, and had kept an inn, at Nuremburgh, in Germany, the sign at the door of which was the Goose. He wrote a description of Cheshire, which, with his historical collections made about 1590, or a copy of them, falling into the hands of sir Randolph Crew, knt. lord chief justice of the King’s bench, his grandson, sir Randolph Crew, gave them to the public. These materials, and the labours of William Webb, form the bulk of “King’s Vale-Royal,” published in fol. 1656. He made a great number of collections, relative to families in England and Germany. He wrote a description of this kingdom, embellishing it with drawings of its chief towns, Many of his books are in Philipot’s press, in the College at Arms. He composed an Alphabet of Arms, which the late respected Mr. Brooke supposed to have been the origin or basis of such kind of books. The original was lodged in King’s-college library, in Cambridge, to which it had been given by Dr. Richard Roderick. It was copied in 1744, by the rev. William Cole, M. A. of Milton, and is now with his other Mss. in the British Museum. The late rev. Samuel Peggye, the antiquary, had a manuscript copy, improved by him, of Derbyshire, as visited by Glover. This skilful and indefatigable officer at arms died, without farther promotion, Oct. 1, 1618. In the Bodleian library are two Mss. by Smith, the one “The Image of Heraldrye, &c.” a sort of introduction to the science, which forrrierly belonged to Anstis the other, “Genealogies of the different potentates of Europe, 1578,” formerly Peter Le Neve’s. A new edition, with additions, of the “Vale-Royal,” was published at Chester, 1778, 2 vols. 8vo.

The scenery amidst which he passed his early years, and cultivated the muses, he has described, in Humphrey Clinker, with picturesque enthusiasm. He was first instructed in classical learning at the school of Dumbarton, by Mr. John Love, one of the ablest schoolmasters of that country, and to whom Mr. Chalmers has done ample justice in his life of lluddiman. While at this school, Smollett exhibited symptoms of what more or less predominated through life, a disposition to prove his superiority of understanding at the expence of those whose weaknesses and failings he thought he could turn'into ridicule with impunity. The verses which he wrote at this early age were principally satires on such of his schoolfellows as happened to displease him. He wrote also a poem to the memory of the celebrated Wallace, whose praises he found in the story-books and ballads of every cottage. From Dumbarton he was removed to Glasgow, where, after some hesitation, he determined in favour of the study of medicine, and, according to the usual practice, was bound apprentice to Mr. John Gordon, then a surgeon, and afterwards a physician of considerable eminence, whom he was unjustly accused of ridiculing under the name of Potion, in his novel of Roderic Random.

From his medical studies, which he cultivated with assiduity, he was occasionally seduced by a general love of polite literature, and seemed unconsciously to store his mind with that fund of extensive, though perhaps not profound knowledge, which enabled him afterwards to execute so many works in various branches. His satirical disposition also followed him to Glasgow, by which he made a few admirers, and many enemies. Dr. Moore has related, with suitable gravity, that he once threw a snowball with such dexterity that it g;ive both a blow and a repartee. But such frolics were probably not frequent, and his time was in general more profitably or at least more seriously employed. Before he had reached his eighteenth year, he began to feel the ambition of a dramatic poet, and wrote the tragedy of the “Regicide,” which was considered as an extraordinary production for a person of his years; but we do not read it as it was originally composed, nor was it made public until nearly ten vears after.

On the death of his grandfather, who had hitherto supported him in his studies, but left no permanent provision for the completion of them, he removed to London, in quest of employment in the army or navy, and strengthened his hopes by carrying his tragedy with him. The latter, however, was in all respects an unfortunate speculation. After being amused and cajoled by all the common and uncommon tricks of the theatrical managers, for nearly ten years, he was under the necessity of sending it to the press in vindication of his own importunities, and the opinions of his friends. His preface may yet be read with advantage by the candidates for stage favour, although modern managers are said to be less fastidious than their predecessors, and from the liberality of their admissions, leave it somewhat doubtful whether they have not lost the privilege of rejection. In this preface, Smollett was not sparing of his indignation, but he reserved more substantial revenge for a more favourable opportunity.

In the mean time, in 1741, he procured the situation of surgeon’s-mate on board a ship of the line, and sailed on the unfortunate expedition to Carthagena, which he described in his “Roderic Random,” and afterwards more historically in a “Compendium of Voyages,” published in 1756, in 7 vols. 12mo. The issue of that expedition could not be more humiliating to Smollett than his own situation, so averse to the disposition of a young man of his taste and vivacity. He accordingly quitted the service while his ship was in the West-Indies, and resided for some time in Jamaica, but in what capacity or how supported, his biographer has not informed us. Here, however, he first became acquainted with the lady whom he afterwards married. In 1746, he returned to London, and having heard many exaggerated accounts of the severities practised in suppressing the rebellion in Scotland, he gave vent to his feelings, and love for his country, in a beautiful and spirited poem, entitled “The Tears of Scotland.” The subject was doubtless attractive as a poet, but as he had been bred a Whig, he was rather inconsistent in his principles, and certainly very unfortunate in his predictions. His friends wished him to suppress this piece, as having a tendency to offend the Whigs, on whose patronage he had some reliance; and although his enthusiasm was at present rather too warm for advice, and he had from this time declared war against the whig-ministers under George II. yet it does not appear that it was published with his name for many years after.

In 1746 he first presented himself to the public as the author of “Advice, a Satire,” in which he endeavoured to excite indignation against certain public characters, by accusations which a man of delicacy would disdain to bring forward under any circumstances, and which are generally brought forward under the very worst. What this production contributed to his fame, we are not told; his friends, however, were alarmed and disgusted, and his enemies probably increased. About this time he wrote (for Coventgarden theatre), an opera called “Alceste,” which was never acted or printed, owing, it is said, to a dispute between the author and the manager. Sir John Hawkins, who, in all his writings, trusts too much to his memory, informs us, that Handel set this opera to music, and, that his labour might not be lost, afterwards adapted the airs to Dryden’s second ode on St. Cecilia’s day. But Handel composed that ode in 1739, according to Dr. Burney’s more accurate and scientific history of music. In 1747, our author published “Reproof, a Satire,” as a second part of “Advice,” and consisting of the same materials, with the addition of some severe lines on Rich, the manager of Covent-garden theatre, with whom he had just quarrelled.

In the same year he married miss Anne Lascelles, the lady whom he had courted in Jamaica, and with whom he had the promise of three thousand pounds. Of this sum, however, he obtained but a small part, and that after a very expensive law-suit. As he had, upon his marriage, hired a genteel house, aud lived in a more hospitable style than the possession of the whole of his wife’s fortune could have supported, he was again obliged to have recourse to his pen, and produced, in 1748, “The Adventures of Roderick Random,” in 2 vols. 12mo. This was the most successful of all his writings, and perhaps the most popular novel of the age, partly owing to the notion that it was in many respects a history of his own life, and partly to its intrinsic merit, as a delineation of real life, manners, and characters, given with a force of humour to which the publick had not been accustomed. If, indeed, we consider its moral tendency, there are few productions more unfit for perusal; yet such were his opinions of public decency that he seriously fancied he was writing to humour the taste, and correct the morals, of the age. That it contains a history of his own life was probably a surmise artfully circulated to excite curiosity, but that real characters are depicted was much more obvious. Independent of those whom he introduced out of revenge, as Lacy and Garrick for rejecting his tragedy, there are traits of many other persons more or less disguised, to the introduction of which he was incited merely by the recollection of foibles which deserved to be exposed. Every man who draws characters, whether to complete the fable of a novel, or to illustrate an essay, will be insensibly attracted by what he has seen in real life, and real life was Smollett’s object in all his novels. His only monster is count Fathom; but Smollett deals in none of those perfect beings who are the heroes of the more modern novel.

After the publication of this translation he visited his relations in Scotland, and on his return to England, was engaged to undertake the management of the “Critical Review,” which was begun in 1756, in dependence, as has been asserted, upon the patronage of the Tories, and the high church party. It does not appear, however, that any extraordinary aid came from those quarters, and the mode in which it was long conducted proves that the success of the Monthly Review was the only motive, or, if that could not be rivalled, it was hoped that the public might support two publications of the kind. To this task Smollett brought many necessary qualifications: a considerable portion of general knowledge, a just taste in works of criticism, and a style, flowing, easy, and popular. He had also much acquaintance with the litr-mry history of his times, and could translate with readiness from some of the modern languages. But, on the other hanu, it was his misfortune here, as in every stage of his life, that the fair di>play of his talents, and perhaps the genuine sentiments of his heart, were perverted by the prejudices of friendship, or by the more inexcusable impulses of jealousy, revenge, and all that enters into the composition of an i ratable temper. He had already suffered by provoking unnecessary animosity, and was now in a situation where it would have been impossible to escape invidious imputation, had he practised the utmost candour and moderation. How much more dangerous such a situation, to one who was always too regardless of past experience, and who seems to have gladly embraced the opportunity which secrecy afforded, of dealing his blows around without discrimination, and without mercy. It is painful to read in the early volumes of this Review, the continual personal abuse he levelled at his rival, Mr. Griffiths, who very rarely took any notice of if, and the many vulgar and coarse sarcasms he directed against every author who presumed to doubt the infallibility of his opinions. It is no less painful to contemplate the self-sufficiency displayed on every occasion where he can introduce his own character and works.

In 1757 he attempted the stage a second time, by a comedy, or rather farce, entitled “The Reprisals, or, the Tars of Old England,” which Garrick, notwithstanding their former animosity, accepted, and produced upon the stage, where it had a temporary success, Davies, in his life of Garrick, gives an account of the manager’s behaviour on this occasion, which reflects much honour on him, and so touched Smollett’s feelings that he embraced every opportunity of doing justice to the merits of that eminent actor, and of convincing him “that his gratitude was as warm as any other of his passions.”

It would be superfluous to dwell long on the merits of a work so well known, and undoubtedly entitled to high praise as a compilation, but beyond this his warmest admirers cannot judiciously extend their encomiums. Although it may be allowed to excel the histories of Carte or Guthrie, and on account of its brevity to be preferable to Rapin, and far more to his continuator Tindal, yet it is impossible to place it on a level with the histories of Hume, Robertson, Gibbon, or Henry. In the “Critical Review” it was highly praised, as might be expected, but with an affectation of candour and moderation which Smollett could not long preserve. In the Review for September 1758, we have a piece of querulous declamation which is, far more fully characteristic of the man and of the author. It is here extracted as a general specimen of the indignation which he felt against any serious attack, and it may serve to explain the relative position in which he stood with his contemporaries. The cause of the following effusion was a pamphlet published by the Rev. T. Comber, in which he censures the characters given by Smollett of king William and queen Mary, &c.

"Tell me youi company and I‘ll describe your manners, is a proverbial apothegm among our neighbours, and the maxim will generally hold good; but we apprehend the adage might be more justly turned to this purpose, Name your enemies, and I ’11 guess your character. If the Complete History of England were to be judged in this manner, we imagine the author would gladly submit to the determination of the public. Let us tnen see who are the professed enemies of that production: the saye, the patriot, the sedate Dr. Shebbeare: the serene Griffiths and 'his spouse, proprietors and directors of the Monthly Review: the profound, the candid, the modest Dr. Hill: the wise, the learned, and the temperate Thomas Comber, A. B. whose performance we are at present to consider. This is indeed a formidable group of adversaries, enough to daunt the heart of any young adventurer in the worLi of letters; but the author of the Complete History.^ E.igland has been long familiar with such seas o<* troubl-. Tae assault, however, which he has sustained from some of these heroes was not altogether unprovoked. Shebbeare had been chastised in the Critical Review for his insolent and seditious appeals to the public. He took it for granted that the lash was exercised by the author of the Complete History of England, therefore he attacked that performance tooth and nail. He declared that there was neither grammar, meaning, composition, or reflection, either in the plan or the execution of the work itself. Griffiths was enraged against the same gentleman, because he was supposed to have set up the Critical Review, in opposition to the Monthly, of which he (Griffiths) was proprietor: accordingly he employed an obscure grub, who wrote in his garret, to bespatter the History of England. Hill, for these ten years, has by turns praised and abused Dr. Smollett, whom he did not know, without being able to vanquish that silent contempt in which this gentleman ever held him and all his productions: piqued at this indifference and disdain, the said Hill has, in a weekly paper, thrown out some dirty insinuations against the author of the Complete History of England. We cannot rank the proprietors of R n * and other histories, among the personal enemies of Dr. Smollett, because they were actuated by the dictates of self-interest to decry his performance. This, however, they have pursued in the most sordid, illiberal, and ridiculous manner: they have caballed: they have slandered: they have vilified: they have prejudiced, misrepresented, and used undue influence among their correspondents in different parts of the kingdom: they have spared neither calumny nor expence to prejudice the author and his work: they have had the effrontery to insinuate in a public advertisement that he was no better than an inaccurate plagiary from Rapin: and they have had the folly to declare that Rapin’s book was the most valuable performance, just immediately after they had taxed Dr. Smollett with having, by a specious plan, anticipated the judgment of the public. Finally, finding all their endeavours had proved abortive, we have reason to believe they hired the pen of the Rev. Thomas Comber of York, A. B. to stigmatize and blacken the character of the work which has been to them such a source of damage and vexation. Accordingly this their champion has earned his

During his confinement in the king’s bench for the libel on admiral Knowles, he amused himself in writing the “Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves,” a sort of English Quixote. This he gave in detached parts in the “British Magazine,” one of those periodical works in which he was induced to engage by the consideration of a regular supply. This novel was afterwards published in two volumes, 12mo, but had not the popularity of his former works of that kind, and as a composition, whether in point of fable, character, or humour, is indeed far inferior to any of them.

When lord Bute was promoted to the office of first minister, Smollett’s pen was engaged to support him against the popular clamour excited by Wilkes and his partizans. With this view our author commenced a weekly paper called “The Briton,” which was answered by Wilkes in his more celebrated “North Briton.” Had this been a contest of argument, wit, or even mere personal and political recrimination, Smollett would have had little to fear from the talents of Wilkes; but the public mind, inflamed by every species of misrepresentation, was on the side of Wilkes, and the “Briton” was discontinued, when lord Bute, its supposed patron, could no longer keep his seat. Before this short contest, Smollett had lived on terms of intimacy with Wilkes, who, having no animosities that were not absolutely necessary to serve a temporary interest, probably did not think the worse of Smollett for giving him an opportunity to triumph over the author of “The Complete History of England.” Smollett, however, was not disposed to view the matter with this complacency. He expected a reward for his services, and was disappointed, and his chagrin on this occasion he soon took an opportunity to express.

Soon after his arrival from the continent, his health still decaying, he undertook a journey to Scotland, and renewed his attachment to his relations and friends. During this journey, Dr. Moore informs us that “he was greatly tormented with rheumatic pains, and afflicted besides with an ulcer on his arm, which had been neglected on its first appearance. These disorders confined him much to his chamber, but did not prevent his conversation from being highly entertaining, when the misery of which they were productive permitted him to associate with his friends.” From Scotland he went to Bath, and about the beginning of 1767 had recovered his health and spirits in a very considerable degree. His next production, which appeared in 1769, proved that br had not forgotten the neglect with which he was treated by that ministry in whose favour he wrote “The Briton.” This was entitled the “Adventures of an Atom.” Under fictitious names, of Japanese structure, he reviews the conduct of the eminent politicians who had conducted or opposed the measures of government from the year 1754, and retracts the opinion he ha i given of some of those statesmen in his history, particularly of the earl of Chatham and lord Bute. His biographer allows that many of the characters are grossly misrepresented, for which no other reason can be assigned than his own disappointment. The whole proves what has often been seen since his time, that the measures which are right and proper when a reward is in view, are wrong and abominable when that reward is withheld.

The publication of this work, while it proclaimed that his sincerity as a political writer was not much to be depended on, afforded another instance of that imprudence which his biographer has ingeniously carried over to the account of independence. His health again requiring the genial influences of a milder climate, the expence of which he was unable to bear, his friends solicited the very persons whom he had just satirized, to obtain for him the office of consul at Nice, Naples, or Leghorn. Dr. Moore informs us, with more acrimony than truth, that “these applications were fruitless. Dr. Smollett had never spanitlled ministers; he could not endure the insolence of office, or stoop to cultivate the favour of any person merely on account of his power, and besides, he was a man of genius.”

"Paunceford was a John C 1, who was fed by Smollett when he had not bread to eat, nor clothes to cover him. He was taken out to India as private secretary to a celebrated governor-general, and as essayist; and after only three years absence, returned with forty thousand pounds. From India he sent several letters to Smollett, professing that he was coming over to lay his fortune at the feet of his benefactor. But on his arrival he treated Smollett, Hamilton, and others who had befriended him, with the most ungrateful contempt. The person who taught him the art of essaying became reduced in circumstances, and is now (1792), or lately was, collector of the toll on

carts at Holborn bars. C 1 never paid him or any

person to whom he was indebted. He died, in two or three years after, at his house near Hounslow, universally despised. At the request of Smollett, Mr. Hamilton employed him to write in the Critical Review, which, with Smollett’s charity, was all his support previously to his departure for India."

Such kindness and such ingratitude ought not to be concealed, but it is less necessary to point out the very flattering account he has given of his hospitality and patronage of inferior authors, while he resided at Chelsea. While full credit is given for these virtues, it cannot be a disrespectful wish that he had found another panegyrist than himself. There are few instances of men of Dr. Smollett’s rank in the literary world taking so many opportunities to sound their own praises, and that without any of the disguises which are employed by men who wish to acquire a factitious character. At this time, perhaps, he was desirous of recovering the reputation which envy and malice had suppressed or darkened, and might not be without hopes that, as he was now approaching the close of life, his enemies would relent, and admit his evidence.

In the neighbourhood of Leghorn, he lingered through the summer of 1771, in the full possession of his faculties, and died on the 21st of October, in the fifty-first year of his age. Dr. Armstrong, who visited him at Leghorn, honoured his remains with a Latin inscription, elegantly noticing his genius and virtues, and severely reflecting on the “times, in which hardly any literary merit, but such as was in the most false or futile taste, received any encouragement from the mock Maecenases of Britain.” In 1774, a column was erected to his memory on the banks of the Leven, near the house in which he was born. The inscription on this was the joint production of lord Kames, professor George Stuart, and John Ramsay, esq. and was revised by Dr. Johnson. It ig elegant, affecting, and modest.

“He lived in an hospitable manner, but he despised that hospitality which is founded on ostentation, which entertains only those whose situation in life flatters the vanity of the entertainer, or such as can make returns of the same kind, that hospitality which keeps a debtor and creditor account of dinners. Smollett invited to his plain but plentiful table, the persons whose characters he esteemed, in whose conversation he delighted, and many for no other reason than because they stood in need of his countenance and protection.

“As nothing was caore abhorrent to his nature than pert*­ness or intrusion, few things could render him more indignant than a cold reception; to this, however, he imagined he had sometimes been exposed on his application in favour of others for himself he never made an application to any great man in his life.

As an author, Dr. Smollett is universally allowed the praise of original genius displayed with an ease and variety which are rarely found. Yet this character belongs chiefly to his m.vels. In correct delineation of life and manners, and in drawing characters of the humourous class, he has few equals. But when this praise is bestowed, every critic who vu; nos what is more important than genius itself, the interest of moralsuid decency, must surely stop. It can be of no use to analyze each individual scene, incident, or character in works, which, after all, must be pronounced unfit to be read. But if the morals of the reader were in no danger, his taste can hardly escape being insulted or perverted. Smollett’s humour is of so low a cast, and his practical jokes so frequently end in what is vulgar, mean, and filthy, that it would be impossible to acquire a relish for them, without injury done to the chaster feelings, and to the just respect due to genuine wit. No novel-writer seems to take more delight in assembling images and incidents that are gross and disgusting; nor has he scrupled to introduce, with more than slight notice, those vices which are not fit even to be named. If this be a just representation of his most favourite novels, it is in vain to oppose it by pointing out passages which do credit to his genius, and jnore vain to attempt to prove that virtue and taste are not directly injured by such productions. As a historian, Smollett’s reputation has certainly not been preserved. When he published his History, something of the kind was wanted, and it was executed in a manner not unworthy of his talents. But the writings of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon have introduced a taste for a higher species of historical composition; and, if we are not mistaken, there has been no complete edition of Smollett’s history but that which he published. Had he been allowed the proper time for revision and reflection, it cannot be doubted that he might have produced a work deserving of more lasting fame. His history, even as we have it, when we advert to the short time he took fur its completion, is a very extraordinary efTort, and instead of blaming him for occasionally following his authorities too servilely, the wonder ought to be that he found leisure to depart from them so frequently, and to assign reasons, which are not those of a superficial thinker. It is impossible, however, to quit this subject without adverting to the mode of publication which dispersed the work among a class of persons, the purchasers of sixpenny numbers, whom Smollett too easily took for the learned and discerning part of the public. This fallacious encouragement afforded fuel to his irritable temper, by inciting him, not only to the arts of puffing, by which the literary character is degraded, but to those vulgar and splenetic recriminations, of which a specimen has been given, and which must have lowered him yet more, in the opinion of the eminent characters of his day.

As a poet, although Smollett’s pieces are few, they must be allowed to confer a very high rank. It is, indeed, greatly to be lamented that he did not cultivate his poetical talents more frequently and more extensively. The “Tears of Scotland” and the “Ode to Independence,” particularly the latter, are equal to the highest efforts in the pathetic and sublime. In the “Ode to Independence” there is evidently the inspiration of real genius, free from all artificial aid, or meretricious ornament. It may be questioned whether there are many compositions in our language which more forcibly charm by all the enchantments of taste, expression, and sentiment. Some observations on this ode, and usually printed with it, are the production oi professor Richardson. It may be necessary to add, that this ode was left in manuscript by Smollett, and published at Glasgow and London in 1773. “Advice and Reproof” have already been noticed, and are more remarkable for their satirical aim, than for poetical beauties. His songs and other small pieces were introduced principally in his novels and in the “Reprisal.”

, a learned divine, was the son of Andrew Snape, serjeant-farrier to Charles II. and author of “The Anatomy of a Horse,” which has been several times printed in folio, with a considerable number of copperplates and a portrait. It is said that one or other of the family of Snape had been serjeant-farrier to the king for three centuries. The subject of this article was born at Hampton-court, and admitted into Eton college in 1683, and of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1689. After taking his degrees, of B. A. in 1693, and M. A. in 1697, he obtained a fellowship, and went to London, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was elected lecturer of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, and afterwards held the rectory of St. Mary-at-Hill. He was created D. D. in 1705, and represented the university of Cambridge, in that faculty, at the Jubilee atFrancfortin 1707, when the university of Francfort intending to celebrate the jubilee of its foundation by the house of Brandenburgh in 1507, sent a formal invitation to Cambridge to be present at it, or to depute some of the members to represent it. This was accordingly complied with, by sending over Dr. Snape, for divinity, Dr. Peurice for law, Dr. Plumptre for medicine, and William Grigg, M. A. and John Wyvill, M. A. as regent and nonregent masters. These representatives were received with the greatest kindness, the king of Prussia himself assisting at the ceremony. While Dr. Snape was in Germany, he took an opportunity to pay his duty to the princess Sophia of Hanover, and preached a sermon before her, which he afterwards printed under the title of “The just prerogative of Human Nature.”

In 1713, he had been installed a canon of Windsor, and on Feb. 21, 1719, was elected provost of King’s college, although the court-interest was in favour of Dr. Waddington. In 1723 he served the office of vice-chancellor of the university, and gave every satisfaction in discharging the duties of both offices. The revenues of the college were greatly augmented in his time, by the assistance of some fellows of the college, his particular friends. It was said that in 1722 he drew up the address to his majesty, George II. upon the institution of Whitehall preachers, “an address,” says Dr. Zachary Grey, “worthy of the imitation of both universities on all occasions of the like kind, as it was thought to have nothing redundant or defective in it.” He was for a short time rector of Knebworth in Hertfordshire, and afterwards, in 1737, of West-Ildesley in Berkshire. This last he retained till his death, which happened at his lodgings at Windsor castle, Dec, 30, 1742. He was buried at the east end of the south aile of the choir of the chapel, near his wife, who died in 1731. She was, when he married her, the opulent widow of sir Joshua Sharpe, knt. and alderman of London. It remains yet to be added to his preferments that he was several years head master of Eton school. He was a man of great learning and acuteness, and of an amiable temper. His zeal for the principles of the church of England was warm and honest, for it procured him many enemies, and probably obstructed his promotron. In 17 15, '3 vols. 8vo. of his “Sermons” were published by Drs. Berriman and Chapman. He had himself been editor of Dean Moss’s Sermons, and gave that divine a character which was thought to resemble his own. Although we seldom notice such matters, it may be worth while to add that there was a 4to mezzotinto print of him, which, after he was out of fashion, the print-sellers imposed on the public as the portrait of orator Henley.

, son of the preceding, and an excellent mathematician, was born at Leyden in 1591, where he succeeded his father in the mathematical chair in 1613, and where he died in 1626, at only thirty-five years of age. He was author of several ingenious works and discoveries, and was the first who discovered the true law of the refraction of the rays of light; a discovery which he made before it was announced by Des Cartes, as Huygens assures us. Though the work which Snell prepared upon this subject, and upon optics in general, was never published, yet the discovery was very well known to belong to him, by several authors about his time, who had seen it in his manuscripts. He undertook also to measure the earth. This he effected by measuring a space between Alcmaer and Bergen-op-zoom, the difference of latitude between these places being 1° 1′ 30″. He also measured another distance between the parallels of Alcmaer and Leyden; and from the mean of both these measurements, he made a degree to consist of 55,021 French toises or fathoms. These measures were afterwards repeated and corrected by Musschenbroek, who found the degree to contain 57,033 toises. He was author of a great many learned mathematical works, the principal of which are, 1. “Apollonius Batavus;” being the restoration of some lost pieces of Apollonius, concerning Determinate Section, with the Section of a Ratio and Space, in 1608, 4to, published in his seventeenth year; but on the best authority this work is attributed to his father. The present might perhaps be a second edition. 2. “Eratosthenes Batavus,” in 1617, 4to; being the work in which he gives an account of his operations in measuring the earth. 3. A translation out of the Dutch language, into Latin, of Ludolph van Collen’s book “De Circulo & Adscriptis,” &c. in 1619, 4to. 4. “Cyclometricus, De Circuli Dimensione,” &c. 1621, 4to. In this work, the author gives several ingenious approximations to the measure of the circle, both arithmetical and geometrical. 5. “Tiphis Batavus;” being a treatise on Navigation and naval affairs, in 1624, 4to. 6. A posthumous treatise, being four books “Doctrinæ Triangulorum Canonicæ,” in 1627, 8vo: in which are contained the canon of secants; and in which the construction of sines, tangents, and secants, with the dimension or calculation of triangles, both plane and spherical, are briefly and clearly treated. 7. Hessian and Bohemian Observations; with his own notes. 8. “Libra Astronomica & Philosophica;” in which he undertakes the examination of the principles of Galileo concerning comets, 9. “Concerning the Comet which appeared in 1618, &c.”

, a Flemish painter, was born at Antwerp in 1579, and bred up under his countryman Henry Van Balen. His genius first displayed itself only in painting fruit. He afterwards attempted animals, hunting, fish, &c. in which kind of study he succeeded so greatly, as to surpass all that went before him. Snyders’s inclination led him to visit Italy, where he stayed some time, and improved himself considerably. Upon his return to Flanders, he fixed his abode at Brussels: he was made painter to Ferdinand and Isabella, archduke and duchess, and became attached to the house of the cardinal Infant of Spain. The grand compositions of battles and huntings, which he executed for the king of Spain, and the arch-duke Leopold William, deserve the highest commendation: and besides hunting-pieces, he painted kitchens, &c. and gave dignity to subjects that seemed incapable of it; but his works, sir Joshua Reynolds observes, “from their subjects, their size, and we may add, their being so common, seem to be better suited to a hall or ante-room, than any other place.” He died in 1657. Rubens used to co-operate with this painter, and took a pleasure in assisting him, when his pictures required large figures. Snyders has engraved a book of animals of sixteen leaves, great and small.

, son of Matthew Soanen, attorney to the presidial of Riom in Auvergne, and Gilberte Sirmond, niece of the learned Jesuit James Sirmond, was born January 6, 1647, at Riom, and entered the congregation of the Oratory at Paris, 1661, where he chose father Quesnel for his confessor. On quitting that establishment, he taught ethics and rhetoric in several provincial towns, and devoted himself afterwards to the pulpit, for which he had great talents. Having preached at Lyons, Orleans, and Pans, with applause, he was invited to court, preached there during Lent in 1686 and 1688, and being appointed bishop of Senez soon after, acquired great veneration in his diocese by his regular conduct, charity to the poor, and abstemious life. At length, having appealed from the bull Unigenitus to a future council, and refused to listen to any terms of accommodation on the subject, he published a “Pastoral Instruction,” giving an account to his diocesans of his conduct respecting the bull. This “Instruction” gave great offence, and occasioned the famous council of Embrun held 1727, in which M. de Tencin procured it to be condemned as rash, scandalous, &cf, and M. the bishop of Senez to be suspended from all episcopal jurisdiction, and all sacerdotal functions. After this council M. Soanen was banished to la Chaise Dieu, where he died, December 25, 1740, leaving “Pastoral Instructions,” “Mandates,” and “Letters.” The “Letters” have been printed with his Life, 6 vols. 4to. or 8 vols. 12mo. his “Sermons,” 1767, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a man of great learning and abilities, was the third son of Marianus Socinus, an eminent civilian at Bologna, and has by some been reckoned the founder of the Socinian sect, as having been in reality the author of all those principles and opinions, which Faustus Socinus afterwards propagated with more boldness. He was born at Sienna in 1525, and designed by his father for the study of the civil law. With this he combined the perusal of the scriptures; thinking that the foundations of the civil law must necessarily be laid in the word of God, and therefore would be deduced in the best manner from it. To qualify himself for this inquiry, he studied the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic tongues. What light he derived from this respecting the civil law is not known, but he is said to have soon discovered, that the church of Rome taught many tilings plainly contrary to scripture. About 1546 he became a member of a secret society, consisting of about forty persons, who held their meetings, at. different times, in the territory of Venice, and particularly at. Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a general reformation of the received systems of religion, and particularly endeavoured to establish the doctrines afterwards publicly adopted by the Socinians; but being discovered, and some of them punished, they dispersed into other countries; and our Socinus, in 1547, began his travels, and spent four years in France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland; and then settled at Zurich. He contracted a familiarity, and even an intimacy, with the learned wherever he went and Calvin, Melancthon, Builinger, Beza, and others of the same class, were amongst. the number of his friends. But having soon discovered, by the doubts he proposed to them, that he had adopted sentiments the most obnoxious to these reformers, he became an object of suspicion and Calvin, in particular, wrote to him an admonitory letter, of which the following is a part; “Don't expect,” says he, “that I should answer all your preposterous questions. If you chuse to soar amidst such lofty speculations, suffer me, an humble disciple of Jesus Christ, to meditate upon such things as conduce to my edification; as indeed I shall endeavour by my silence to prevent your being troublesome to me hereafter. In the mean time, I cannot but lament, that you should continue to employ those excellent talents with which God has blessed you, not only to no purpose, but to a very bad one. Let me beg of you seriously, as I have often done, to correct in yourself this love of inquiry, which may bring you into trouble.” It would appear that Socinus took this advice in part, as he continued to live among these orthodox divines for a considerable time, without molestation. He found means, however, to communicate his notions to such as were disposed to receive them, and even lectured to Italians, who wandered up and down in Germany and Poland. He also sent writings to his relations, who lived at Sienna. He took a journey into Poland about 1558; and obtained from the king some letters of recommendation to the doge of Venice and the duke of Florence, that he might be safe at Venice, while his affairs required his residence there. He afterwards returned to Switzerland, and died at Zurich in 1562, in his thirty-seventh year. Being naturally timorous and irresolute, he professed to die in the communion of the reformed church, but certainly had contributed much to the foundation of the sect called from his, or his nephew’s name, for he collected the materials that Faustus afterwards digested and employed with such dexterity and success. He secretly and imperceptibly excited doubts and scruples in the minds of many, concerning several doctrines generally received among Christians, and, by several arguments against the divinity of Christ, which he left behind him in writing, he so far seduced, even after his death, the Arians in Poland, that they embraced the communion and sentiments of those who looked upon Christ as a mere man, created immediately, like Adam, by God himself. There are few writings of Laelius exta.it, and of those that bear his name, some undoubtedly belong to others.

In 1579, Socinus retired into Poland, and desired to be admitted into the communion of the Unitarians, or United Brethren; but was refused, on account of his doctrines, to which they did not assent. Afterwards, he wrote a book against James Paheologus; of which complaint was made to Stephen, then king of Poland, as containing seditious opinions; yet this seems without foundation, for Socinus was such a friend to absolute submission, that he even condemned with severity the resistance of the people of the Netherlands against the tyranny of Spain. He found it, however, expedient to leave Cracow, after he had been there four years; and to take sanctuary in the house of a Polish lord, with whom he lived some years; and married his daughter with his consent. In this retreat he wrote many books, which raised innumerable enemies against him. He lost Ins wife in 1587, at which he was inconsolable for many months; and was, about the same time, deprived, by the death of the duke of Tuscany, of a noble pension, which had been settled on him by the generosity that prince. In 1598, he returned again to Cracow, where he became so obnoxious, that the scholars of that place raised a mob of the lower order, who broke into his house, dragged him into the streets, and were with difficulty prevented from murdering him. They plundered his house, however, and burnt some manuscripts which he particularly lamented, and said he would have redeemed at price of his blood. To avoid these dangers for the future. he retired to the house of a Polish gentleman, at a village about nine miles distant from Cracow; where he spent the remainder of his life, and died in 1604-, aged sixtyfive.

His sect did not die with him; but the sentiments of the modern Socinians are widely different from those of their founder, who approached to a degree of orthodoxy nowhere now to be found among them. To enter, however, upon all the varieties of their opinions would occupy a much larger space than is consistent with the plan of this work. Yet all those varieties, and all the shapes and forms on which the modern Socinians, or Unitarians, as they affect to be called, rest their opinions, may be traced to the main principle of Socinianism, as stated by Mosheim. Although, says that writer, the Socinians profess to believe that our divine knowledge is derived solely from the Holy Scriptures; yet they maintain in reality, that the sense of the Scripture is to be investigated and explained by the Dictates of right reason, to which, of consequence, they attribute a great influence in determining the nature, and unfolding the various doctrines of religion. When their writings are perused with attention, they will he found to attribute more to reason, in this matter, than most other Christian societies. For they frequently insinuate artfully, and sometimes declare plainly, that the sacred penmen were guilty of many errors, from a defect of memory, as well as a want of capacity; that they expressed their sentiments without perspicuity or precision, and rendered the plainest things obscure by their pompous and diffuse Asiatic style; and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to employ the lamp of human reason to cast a light upon their doctrine, and to explain it in a manner conformable to truth. It is easy to see what they had in view by maintaining propositions of this kind. They aimed at nothing less than the establishment of the following general rule, viz. that the history of the Jews, and also that of Jesus Christ, were indeed to be derived from the books of the Old and New Testament, and that it was not lawful to entertain the least doubt concerning the truth of this history, or the authenticity of these books in general; but that the particular doctrines which they contain, were, nevertheless, to be understood and explained in such a manner as to render them consonant with the dictates of reason. According to this representation of tilings, it is not the Holy Scripture, which declares clearly and expressly what we are to believe concerning the nature, counsels, and perfections of the Deity; but it is human reason, which shews us the system of religion that we ought to seek in, and deduce from, the divine oracles. This fundamental principle of Socinianism, continues Mosheim, will appear the more dangerous and pernicious, when we consider the sense in which the word reason was understood by this sect. The pompous title of right reason was given, by the Socinians, to that measure of intelligence and discernment, or, in other words, to that faculty of comprehending and judging, which we derive from nature. According to this definition, the fundamental rule of Socinianism necessarily supposes, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose pu.is are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding.; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of an and argument, ai to answer the extent of our limited faculties. Thosr wlio adopt this singular rule, must at the same time grant that the number of religions must be nearly equ~l to that of individuals. For as there is a great variety in the talents and capacities of different persons, so what will appear dnKcolt and abstruse to one, will seem evident and clear to another; and thus the more discerning and penetrating will adopt as divine truth, what the slow and superficial will look upon as unintelligible jargon. This consequence, however, does not at all alarm the Socinians, who suffer their members to explain, in very different ways, many doctrines of the highest importance, and permit every one to follow his particular fancy in composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general, the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the precepts which the gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions.

, the most celebrated of the ancient philosophers, was born at Alopece, a small village of Attica, in the fourth year of the seventy-seventh olympiad, or about 469 years B. C. His parents were far from illustrious, Sophroniscns iiis father being a statuary of no great note, and Phtenareta his mother a midwife; who yet is represented by Plato as a woman of a bold and generous spirit, and Socrates often took occasion to mention both his parents with respect. Sophroniscus brought him up to his own trade, which, on his father’s death, he was obliged to continue for subsistence, and was not unsuccessful. He is said to have made statues of the habited graces, which were allowed a place in the citadel of Athens. But, as he was naturally averse to this profession, he only followed it while necessity compelled him and employed his leisure hours in the study of philosophy and this being observed by Crito, a rich philosopher of Athens, he took him under his patronage, and entrusted him with the instruction of his children and having now opportunities- of hearing the lectures of the most eminent philosophers, Socrates entirely relinquished the business of a statuary.

That Socrates had himself a proper school, which has been denied, may perhaps be proved from Aristophanes, who derides some particulars in it, an-d calls it his “phrontisterium.” Plato mentions the Academy, Lyceum, and a. pleasant meadow without the city on the side of the river Jlissus, as places frequented by him and his auditors. Xenophon affirms that he was continually abroad; that in the morning tie visited the places of public walking and exercise; when it was full, the Forum; and that the rest of the day he sought out (he most populous meetings, where he disputed openly for every one to hear that would; and Plutarch relates, that he did not only teach, when the benches were prepared, and himself in the chair, or in stated hours of reading and discourse, or at appointments in walking with his friends; but even when he played, or eat, or drank, or >vas in the camp or market, or finally when he was in prison; making every place a school of instruction.

The method of teaching which Socrates chiefly made use of, was, to propose a series of questions to the person with whom he conversed, in order to lead him to some unforeseen conclusion. He first gained the consent of his respondent to some obvious truths, and then obliged him to admit othtrs, from their relation, or resemblance, to those to which they had already assented. Without making use of any direct argument or persuasion, he chose to lead the person he meant to instruct, to deduce the truths of which he wished to convince him, as a necessary consequence from his own concessions, and commonly conducted these conference* with such address, as to conceal his design till the respondent had advanced too far to recede. On some occasions, he made use of ironical language, that vain men might be caught in their own replies, and be obliged to confess their ignorance. He never asMimed the air of a morose and rigid preceptor, but communicated useful instruction with all the ease and pleasantry. of polite conversation.

Xenophon represents him as excelling in all kinds of learning. He instances only in arithmetic, geometry, and astrology, but Plato mentions natural philosophy; lilomeneus, rhetoric; and Laertius, medicine. Cicero affirms, that by the testimony of all the learned, anu toe judgment of all Greece, he was, in respect to wisdom, acuteness, politeness, and subtilty, in eloquence, variety, and richness, and in whatever he applied himself to, beyond comparison the first man of his age. As to his philosophy, it may be necessary to observe, that having searched into all kinds of science, he first discovered that it was wrong to neglect those things which concern human life, for the sake of inquiring into those things which do not; secondly, that the things men have usually made the objects of their inquiries, ure above the reach of human understanding, and the source of all the disputes, errors, and superstitions, which have prevailed in the uorld; and, thirdly, that such divine mysteries cannot be made subservient to the uses of human life. Thus, esteeming speculative knowledge so far only as it conduces to practice, be decried in all the sciences what he conceived to be useless, and exchanged speculation for action, and theory for practice: and thus, says Cicero, “first called philosophy down from heaven, and from things involved by. nature in impenetrable secrecy, which yet had employed all the philosophers till his time, and brought her to common life, to inquireafter virtue and vice, good and evil.” That Socrates had an attendant spirit, genius, or daemon, which guarded him from dangers, is asserted by Plato and Antisthenes, who were his contemporaries, and repeated by innumerable authors of antiquity; but what this attendant spirit, genius, or daemon was, or what we are to understand by it, neither antient nor modern writers have in general been able to determine. There is some disagreement concerning the name, and more concerning the nature of it: only it is by most writers agreed, that the advice it gave him was always dissuasive; “never impelling,” says Cicero, “but often restraining him.” It is commonly named his daemon, by which title he himself is supposed to have owned it. Plato sometimes calls it his guardian, and Apuleius his god; because the namv of daemon, as St. Austin tells us, at last grew odious. As for the sign or manner, in which this daemon or genius foretold, and by foretelling, guarded him against evils to come, nothing certain can be collected about it. Plutarch, who rejects some popular absurdities upon the subject, conjectures, first, that it iiiigtit be an apparition; but at last concludes, that it was his observation of some inarticulate unaccustomed sound or voi-e, conveyed to him in an extraordinary way, as happens in dreams. Others confine this foreknowledge of evils within the soul of Socrates himself; and when he said that “his enius advised him,” think that he only meant that “his mind foreboded and so inclined him.” But this is inconsistent with the description which Socrates himself gives of a voice and signs from without. Lastly, some conceive it to be one of those spirits that have a particular care of men; which Maxhmis Tyrius and Apuletus describe in such a manner, that they want only the name of a good angel; and this Laciantius has suppl ed; for, after proving that God sends angels to guard mankind, he adds, “and Socrates affirmed that there was a daemon constantly near him, which had kept him company from a child, and by whose beck and instruction he uidecl his life.” Such are the varieties of opinion entertained unon this singular subject, winch, however, have arisen chiefly out of the prevalence of Platonic ideas, and the desire of exalting Socrates beyond all reason. The account given by Xeriophon, the strictest and truest Socratic, and confirmed by some passages in Plutarch’s treatise “De Genio Socratis,” is perhaps clear and reasonable. It is plainly this, that, believing in the gods of his country, and the divinations commonly in use, Socrates, when he took an omen, said that he proceeded by divine intimation. This he did out of piety, thinking it more respectful to the gods to refer the suggestion to them, than to the voice or other intermediate sign by which they conveyed it. His phrase on this occasion was, To dai/wviov auna ay/Aa'iveiv, which being in some degree ambiguous, as foufumotnignt mean either the divine power abstractedly, 01 -Omh- parricular deity, his e-iemies took advantage of it to accuse him of introducing new deities; and his friends to indulge the vanity of boasting that he had an attendant daemon. This account may be seen at full length, supported by many arguments and proofs from the original authors, in a little tract on this subject, published in 1782*.

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."

Many years having passed from the first disagreement between Socrates and Anytus, at length Anytus, observing a fit conjuncture, procured Melitus to prefer a bill against him to the senate in these terms: “Melitus, son of Melitus, a Pythean, accuses Socrates, son oi Sophroniscus, an Alopecian. Socrates violates the law, not believing the deities which this city believes, but introducing other new gods He violates the Ihw likewise in corrupting youth: the punishment death.” This bill being preferred upon oath, Crito became bound to the judges for his appearance at the day of trial; till which Socrates employed himself in his usual philosophical exercises, taking no care to provide any defence. On the day appointed, Anytus, Lyco, and Metitus, accused him, and Socrates made his own defence, witu.tut procuring an advocate, as the cu*t>m was, to plead for him. He did not defen-i himself with the tone and language of a suppliant or guilty person, but with the freedom, frrmnfiSS, and spirit, of conscious innocence and superior merit. Many of his friends spoke also inus betialf; and, lastly, Plato, then a young iuan, en Jeavoured to plead, but while attempting to apologize for his youth, was ordered by the court to sit down. The court then proceeding to vote, they found Socrates guilty by two hundred and eighty-one voices. It uas the custom of Athens, as Cicero informs us, when any one was cast, if the fault were not capital, to impose a pecuniary mulct, and the guilty person was asked the highest ratf at which he estimated his offence. This was proposed to Socrates, who told the judges, that to pay a penalty was to own an offence; and that, instead of being condemned for what he stood accused, he deserved to be maintained at the public charge out of the Prytanacum. This being the greatest honour the Athenians could confer, the answer so exasperated the judges, that they condemned him to dea h by eighty votes more.

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.

Socrates left behind him nothing in writing; but his illustrious pupils, Xenophon and Plato, have, in some measure, supplied this defect. The “Memoirs of Socrates,” however, written by Xenophon, afford a much more accurate idea of the opinions of Socrates, and of his manner of teaching, than the Dialogues of Plato, who every where mixes his own conceptions and diction, and those of other philosophers, with the ideas and language of his master. It is related, that when Socrates heard Plato recite his “Lysis,” he said, “How much does this young man make me say which I never conceived!” Xenophon denies that Socrates ever taught natural philosophy, or any mathematical science, and charges with misrepresentation and falsehood those who had ascribed to him dissertations of this kind; probably referring to Plato, in whose works Socrates is introduced as discoursing upon these subjects. The truth appears to be, that the distinguishing character of Socrates was, that of a moral philosopher.

If these opinions concerning the Supreme Being, and the subordinate divinities, be compared, there will be no difficulty in perceiving the grounds upon which Socrates, though an advocate for the existence of one sovereign power, admitted the worship of inferior divinities. Hence he declared it to be the duty of every one, in the performance of religious rites, to follow the customs of his country. At the same time, he taught, that the merit of all religious offerings depends upon the character of the worshipper, and that the gods take pleasure in the sacrifices of none but the truly pious. “The man,” says he, “who honours the gods according to his ability, ought to be cheerful, and hope for the greatest blessings: for, from whom may we reasonably entertain higher expectations, than from those who are most able to serve us? or how can we secure their kindness, but by pleasing them? or, how please them better, than by obedience?”

, ben Abraham, ben Abdulla by his first wife Tanomata, was born at Bonda, a town founded by his father Ibrahim, in the kingdom of Futa or Sanaga, which lies on both sides the river Senegal or Sanaga, and extends as far as the Gambra. Being sent by his father, in Feb. 1731, to sell some slaves to captain Pyke, commander of a trading vessel belonging to Mr. Hunt, and not agreeing about their price, he set out with another black merchant on an expedition across the Gambra; but they were taken prisoners by the Mandingos, a nation at enmity with his own, and sold for slaves to captain Pyke aforesaid, who immediately sent proposals to his father for their redemption. The ship sailing before the return of an answer, Job was carried to Annapolis, and delivered to Mr. Denton, factor to Mr. Hunt. He sold him to Mr. Tolsey of Maryland, from whom, though kindly treated, he escaped; and, being committed to prison as a fugitive slave, discovered himself to be a Mahometan. Being at length conveyed to England, a letter addressed to him by his father fell into the hands of general Og!cthorpe, who immediately gave bond to Mr. Hunt for payment of a certain sum on his delivery, in England. Accordingly, he arrived in England in 1733; but Mr. Oglethorpe was gone to Georgia. Mr. Hunt provided him a lodging at Limehouse; and Mr. Bluet, who first found him out in Maryland, took him down to his house at Cheshunt. The African Company undertook for his redemption, which was soon effected by Nathaniel Brassey, esq. member for Hertford, for 40l. and 20l. bond and charges, by a subscription amounting to 60l. Being now free, he translated several Arabic Mss. for sir Hans Sloane, who got him introduced at court, and after fourteen months stay in London, he returned home loaded with presents to the amount of 500l. He found his father dead, and his native country depopulated by war. He was of a comely person, near six feet high, pleasant but grave countenance, acute natural parts, great personal courage, and of so retentive a memory, that he could repeat the Koran bv heart at fifteen, and wrote it over three times in England by memory.

But the height of his glory was when the dissert dons and civil commotions among the Athenians rendered it necessary to vest the supreme powers of legislator and magistrate in one person, and when in 594 B. C. he was appointed to this high office under the title of Archon. This office he appears to have executed with such wisdom and firmness as to give universal satisfaction, and spread his fame through the most distant parts of the world. In the exercise of his power, he made a new distribution of the people, formed new courts of judicature, and framed a judicious code of laws, which afterwards became the basis of the laws of the twelve tables in Rome. At the opening of this new plan of government, Solon was every day visited by persons, who were desirous, either to propose questions concerning the meaning and application of his laws, or to suggest farther corrections and improvements. Finding these importunities troublesome, he determined to make his escape from the difficult situation in which he was placed, and to leave his laws to their own natural operation. For this purpose he obtained permission from the state to travel. His first voyage was to Egypt. Here he became acquainted with several of the more eminent priests of Heliopolis and Sais, by whom he was instructed in the Egyptian philosophy. One of his preceptors, boasting of the antiquity of the Egyptian wisdom, said to him, “Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children; you have not an old man among you.” From Egypt he sailed to Cyprus, where he formed an intimate friendship with Philocyprus, one of the princes of the island, and assisted him in founding a new city.

It is also related, that he visited Croesus, king of Lydia, and that, during the interview, the following interesting conversation passed between them. Croesus, after entertaining his guest with great splendour, and making an ostentatious display of the magnificence of his palace, desirous to extort from Solon expressions of admiration which he did not seem inclined to bestow, asked him, whom, of all mankind, he esteemed most happy Solon answered, “Tellus, the Athenian.” Crcesns, surprized that Solon should name any other man in preference to himself, requested to be informed of the grounds of this judgment. “Tellus,” replied Solon, “was descended from worthy parents, was the father of virtuous children, whom every one respected, and, at last, fell n tin engagement in which, before he expired, he saw his country victorious.” Croesus, flattering himself that he should at least obtain the second place, in Solon’s judgment, among the fortunate, inquired, whom, next to Tellus, he thought most happy? Solon, in return, said, two youths of Argos, Cleobis and Biton, who while they lived were universally admired for their fraternal affection to each other, and for their dutiful behaviour to their mother; and who, after they had given an illustrious example of filial piety, expired without sorrow or pain. Crcesus, mortified to find the condition of a private citizen of Athens or Argos preferred to his own, could no longer refrain from asking Solon, whether he meant wholly to exclude him from the number of the happy? Solon’s reply is a memorable proof of his wisdom: “The events of future life are uncertain; he who has hitherto been prosperous may be unfortunate to-morrow: let no man therefore be pronounced happy before his death.” This observation made so deep an impression upon the mind of Crcesus, that when afterwards, experiencing a reverse of fortune, he became a prisoner to Cyrus, and was brought forth to be put to death, he cried out, “O Solon! Solon!” Cyrus inquiring into the meaning of the exclamation, Crcesus informed him of what had formerly passed between himself and Solon. The consequence was, that Cyrus, struck with the wisdom of Solon’s remark, set Croesus at liberty, and treated him with all the respect due to his former greatness. The story is attended with some chronological difficulties; but it is so consonant to the character of Solon, and so admirable an example of the moral wisdom of those times, that we could not persuade ourselves to reject it.

Before the king’s departure for Holland, in the summer of the year 1697, his majesty communicated to lord Somers a proposition made by count Tallard, to prevent a war about the succession to the crown of Spain, upon the death of the then monarch of that kingdom; and the chancellor afterwards received a letter from his majesty, then in Holland, informing him, that fresh offers had been made to the same purpose; and requiring him to dispatch full powers, under the great seal, with the names in blank, to empower his majesty to treat with the before mentioned Count. This order he accordingly complied with; and the negociations being immediately entered upon, a treaty was concluded. This was the first Partition-treaty; and in the next session of parliament, which began Nov. 16, 1699, great complaints were made in the House of Commons against the chancellor; and the House being resolved, on Dec. 6, to push the resumption of the grants of the Irish forfeited estates, by tacking it to the land-tax-bill, an address was concerted on April 10, 1700, praying, that “John lord Somers, lord chancellor of England, should be removed for ever from his majesty’s presence and councils;” but the majority of the House voted against any such address. However, the parliament being prorogued the next day, his majesty sent for the lord chancellor, and desired him to surrender the seals voluntarily; but this his lordship declined, thinking that it would imply a consciousness of guilt, He told the king, however, that whensoever his majesty should send a warrant under his hand, commanding him to deliver them up, he would immediately obey it. Accordingly an order was brought to him for this purpose by lord Jersey, upon which the seals were sent to the king. Thus was lord Somers removed from the post of chancellor, the duties of which he had discharged with great integrity and ability; and although this was contrary to the king’s inclinations to make such a sacrifice, “was not sufficient to appease the tory party, who now formed a design to impeach him. This his lordship in some measure anticipated, by sending, os> April 14, 1701, a message to the House of Commons, in which,” having heard tiiat the House was in a debate concerning him, he desired that he might be admitted and heard.“This was granted, and a chair being set by the Serjeant, a little wittiin the bar on the left hand, he had directions to acquaint lord Somers r that he might come in; and on his entrance the Speaker informed him, that he might repose himself in the chair provided for him. His lordship then defended himself with respect to his share in concluding the partition-treaty, which was the principal charge against him in that House, and, according to Burnet,” spoke so fully aud clearly, that, upon his withdrawing, it was believed, if the question had been quickly put, the whole matter had b*>en soon at an end, aud that the prosecution would have been let fall. But his enemies drew out the debate to such a length, that the impression, which his speech had made, was much worn out; and the House sitting till it was past midnight, they at last carried it by a majority of seven or eight to impeach him."

him ably, as well as indignantly, against by no means nice, or in the least degree

The other works attributed to lord Somers, with more or less authority, are, 1. “Dryden’s Satire to his Muse;” but this has been disputed. Mr. Malone says, the author of this severe attack on Dryden has never been discovered. Pope assures us that lord Somers “was wholly ignorant of it;” but, says Mr. Maione, “if Somers had written any part of this libel (we cannot suppose him to have written the scandalous part of it) thirty years before he was acquainted with Pope, is it probable that he would have made a young author of four-and-twenty the depositary of his secret? Two years before this satire was published, he had appeared as a poet; and near two hundred lines of it, that is, nearly two parts out of three, are a political encomium and vindication of the whigs, without any offensive personality, couched in such moderate poetry as is found in Somers’s acknowledged poetical productions.” Lord Somers’s other and acknowledged poems were, 2. “Translation of the Epistle of Dido to Æneas.” 3. “Translation of Ariadne to Theseus.” Of the prose kind were, 4. “Translation of Plutarch’s life of Alcibiades.” 5. “A just and modest Vindication of the proceedings of the two last Parliaments,” 1681, 4to, first written by Algernon Sidney, but ncic-draivn by Somers, published in Baldwin’s collection of pamphlets in the reign of Charles II. The two following are doubtful: 6. “The Security of Englishmen’s Lives, or the trust, power, and duty of the Grand Juries of England explained according to the fundamentals of the English government, &c.”1682, and 1700. 7. “Lord Somers’s Judgment of whole kingdoms in the power, &c. of Kings,” 1710, 8vo, but bearing no resemblance to his style or manner. With more certainty we may add, 8. “A Speech at the conference on the word Abdicated,'” in the General Dictionary, and probably published separately. 9. “Another on the same occasion.” 10. “Speeches at the trial of lord Preston.” 11. “His letter to king William on the Partition-treaty.” 12. “His answer to his Impeachment.” 13. “Extracts from two of his Letters to lord Wharton.” 14. “Addresses of the Lords in answer to Addresses of the Commons.” 15. “The Argument of the lord keeper Somers on his giving judgment in the Banker’s Case, delivered in the exchequer chamber, July 23, 1696.” He is supposed likewise to have written “The preface to Dr. Tindal’s Rights of the Christian Church,” a “Brief History of the Succession, collected out of the records, written for the satisfaction of the E. of H.” This was in favour of the attempt to exclude the duke of York, and was re-printed in 1714. The Mss. of this able statesman and lawyer filled above sixty folio volumes, which were destroyed by fire in Lincoln’s Inn, in 1752. Some remains, which the fire had spared, were published by lord Hardwicke in 1778, 4to, entitled “State Papers, from 1501 to 1726.” This noble editor informs us that the treatise on Grand Jurors, the Vindication of the last Parliament of Charles II. above-mentioned, and the famous last Speech of king William, were all found in the hand-writing of lord Somers. The “Somers Tracts,” so frequently referred to, are a collection of scarce pieces in four sets of four volumes each, 4to, published by Cogan from pamphlets chiefly collected by lord Somers. His lordship left a large and well-chosen library of books, and many curious Mss. Of this collection Whiston, the bookseller, gives the following account " Sir Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls, married one of his sisters the other was married to

which married sir Philip Yorke, who thereby came to the right of the fourth share of that collection, and purchased the other fourth. They consisted of about 6000 articles, and were valued at near 4000l. by Mr. Gyles and Mr. Charles Davies. I was employed, when apprentice to Mr. Gyles, in dividing them between sir Joseph Jekyll and sir Philip Yorke, previous to which I called them over, to see if they answered the catalogue. Every book almost went through my hands four or five times. This gave me a.n opportunity, when young, of attaining the knowledge. of many scarce books, much sooner than the common course of business would have done. The catalogue was excellently well ranged in sciences and their subdivisions, *by the care, I heard, of the rev. Humphrey Wanley. It was about 17X1 the affair was finished. A fine collection of Bibles in all languages made a part."

His distresses, says Dr. Johnson, need not be much pitied: his estate is?aid to have been fifteen hundred a year, which by his death devolved to lord Somervile, of Scotland. His mother, indeed, who lived till ninety, had a jointure of six hundred. Dr. Johnson regrets his not being better enabled to exhibit memorials of a writer, who at least must be allowed to have set a good example to men of his own class, by devoting part of his time to elegant knowledge; and who has shewn by the subjects which his poetry has adorned, thn it is practicable to be at once a skilful sportsman and a man of letters. He tried many modes of poetry; and though perhaps he has not in any reached such excellence as to raise much envy, it may commonly be said at least, that “he writes very well for a gentleman.” His serious pieces are sometimes elevated, and his trifles are sometimes elegant. His subjects are commonly such as require no great depth of thought or energy of expression. His fables are generally stale, and therefore excite no curiosity. Of his favourite, The Two Springs, the fiction is unnatural, and the moral inconsequential. In his Tales there is too much coarseness, with too little care of language, and not sufficient rapidity of narration. As a poet, however, he is chiefly known by his “Chace,” which is entitled to great praise as a descriptive poem.

, an eminent English antiquary, was born at Canterbury, March 30, 1606, according to the account given by his wife and son; but, according to the register of the parish of St. Margaret’s, much earlier, for it represents him to have been baptized Nov. 5, 1598. It was a proper birth-place for an antiquary, being one of the most ancient cities in England; and Somner was so well pleased with it, that, like Claudian’s good old citizen of Verona, within the walls, or in the sight of them, he grew up, lived, and died. He was of a reputable family; and his father was registrar of the court of Canterbury under sir Nathaniel Brent, commissary. At a proper age he was sent to the free-school of that city, where he seems to have acquired a competent knowledge of the Latin language at least. Thence he was removed, and placed as clerk to his father in the ecclesiastical courts of that diocese; and was afterwards preferred to a creditable office in those courts by archbishop Laud. His natural bent in the mean time lay to the study of antiquities; and he took all opportunities of indulging it. He was led early, in his walks through the suburbs and the fields of that city, to survey the British bricks, the Roman ways, the Danish hills and works, the Saxon monasteries, and the Norman churches. This was his amusement abroad; at home he delighted in old manuscripts, leger-books, rolls-and records; his knowledge of which was such, that upon questions concerning descent of families, tenure of estates, dedication of churches, right of tithes, and the history of use and custom, he was consulted by all his neighbours.

In 1640 he published “The Antiquities of Canterbury,” 4to; an accurate performance, and very seasonably executed, as it preserved from oblivion many monuments of antiquity, which were soon after buried by civil discord iti ruin. This work obtained a high character; and Dr. Meric Casaubon, prebendary of Canterbury, and a great encourager of our author in his studies, represents it as “exceedingly useful, not only to -those who desire to know the state of that once flourishing city, but to all that are curious in the ancient English history.” It was reprinted in folio, with cuts, and revised and enlarged by the editor, Nicholas Batteley, to which he added a second part, of his own composition. Thus far Somner had searched only into the Latin writers, and such national records as had been penned since the Norman conquest: but his thirst after antiquities urged him to proceed, and to attain the British and Saxon tongues. To acquire the British, there were rules of grammar, explications of words, and other sufficient memoirs, besides the living dialect, to guide a man of industry and resolution; but the Saxon was extinct, and the monuments of it so few and so latent, that it required infinite courage as well as patience. Encouraged, however, by his friend Casaubon, and being of an active spirit, he did not despair; but, beginning his work, he succeeded so wonderfully, as to be compared with the most knowing rn that way: and he has always been ranked by the best judges among the few complete critics in the Saxon language. His skill in this obliged him to inquire into most of the ancient European languages; and made him also go through the Old Gaelic, Irish, Scotch, and Danish dialects, and yet more particularly the Gothic, Sclavonian, and German. Of his perfection in the latter he gave the world a public specimen on the following occasion. While his friend Casaubon was employed in an essay on the Saxon tongue, he met with an epistle of Lipsius to Schottus, which contained a large catalogue of old German words, in use with that nation eight or nine hundred years before. Casaubon thought that many of them had a great affinity to the Saxon; and, therefore, being then in London, sent down the catalogue to Somner at Canterbury; who in a few days returned his animadversions upon them, and shewed the relation of the German with the Saxon language. They were published as an appendix to Casaubon’s essay in 1650, 8vo; at which time the same Casaubon informs us, il that Somner would have printed all his useful labours, and have written much more, if that fatal catastrophe had not interposed, which brought no less desolation upon letters than upon the land."

Somner' s reputation was now so well established that no monuments of antiquity could be further published without his advice and helping hand. In 1652, when a collection of historians came forth under this title “Histories Anglicanze Scriptores X. ex vet. Mss. mine primuin in lucem editi,” the Appendix, or Glossarium, (SeeyEu-Ric,) was the labour of Mr. Somner: whom sir Roger Twisden, who, with the assistance of archbishop Usher and Mr. Selden, published these historians, represents in the preface as “a man of primitive probity and candour, a most sagacious searcher into the antiquities of his country, and most expert in the Saxon tongue.” Hickes afterwards calls this glossary of Sotnner’s “incomparable, a truly golden work without which the ten historians luid been imperfect and little useful.” Somner’s friends had still more work for him: they observed it was impossible to cultivate any language, or recommend it to learners, without the help of a dictionary; and this was yet wanting to the Saxon. On him, therefore, they laid the mighty task of compiling one: but, as this work required much time and great expence, it became an object to contrive some competent reward and support, besides affording him their countenance and assistance. Sir Henry Spelman had founded at Cambridge a lecture for “promoting the Saxon tongue, either by reading it publicly, or by the edition of Saxon manuscripts, and other books:” and, this lecture being vacant in 1657, archbishop Usher recommended Somner to the patron, Roger Spelman, esq. srrandson of the founder, that “he would confer on him the pecuniary stipend, to enable him to prosecute a Saxon dictionary, which would more improve that tongue, than bare academic lectures.” Accordingly, Somner had the salary, and now pursued the work, in which he had already made considerable progress; for it was published at Oxford in April 1659, with an inscription to all students in the Saxon tongue, a dedication to his patron Roger Speiman, esq. and a preface.

Just before the Restoration, he was imprisoned in the castle of Deal, for endeavouring to procure hands to petition for a free parliament. In 1660, he was made master of St. John’s hospital, in the suburbs of Canterbury; and about the same time auditor of Christ-church, in that city. The same year he published, in quarto, “A treatise of Gnvel-kind, both name and thing, shewing the true etymology and derivation of the one; the nature, antiquity, and original, of the other; with sundry emergent observations, both pleasant and profitable to be known of Kentishtnen and others, especially such as are studious either of the ancient custom, or the common law of this kingdom.” In this work he shewed himself an absolute civilian, and a complete common lawyer, as well as a profound antiquary. This was his last publication: he left behind him many observations in manuscript, and some treatises, one of which, “of the Roman ports and forts in Kent,” was published at Oxford, 1693, 8vo, by James Brome, M. A. rector of Cheriton, and chaplain to the Cinque-ports and “Julii Caesaris Portus Iccius illustratus a Somnero, Du Fresne, et Gibson,” was printed at the same place, 1624, 8vo. To the former is prefixed his life by White Kennet, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. These works were parts of an intended history of the antiquities of Kent.

In 1653 he embraced the Popish religion; and, going to Paris in 1654, published, according to custom, a discourse upon the motives of his conversion, which he dedicated to cardinal Mazarine. He went afterwards to Rome, where he made himself known to Alexander VII, by a Latin letter addressed to that pope, in which he inveighed against the envious Protestants, as he called them. Upon his return from Rome, he came over to England; and afterwards published, in 1664, a relation of his voyage hither, which brought him into trouble and disgrace; for, having taken some unwarrantable liberties with the character of a nation with which France at that time thought it policy to be on good terms, he was stripped of his title of “Historiographer of France,” which had been given him by the king, and sent for some time into banishment. His book also was discountenanced and discredited, by a tract published against it in the city of Paris; while Sprat, afterwards bishop of Rochester, refuted its absurdities in “Observations on M. de Sorbiere’s Voyage into England,” 1665, 12mo. This work was reprinted with an English edition of Sorbiere’s voyage, and a life of him in 1709, 8vo. Voltaire has also been very severe upon this work: “I would not,” says he, “imitate the late Mr. Sorbiere, who, having stayed three months in England, without knowing any thing either of its manners or of its language, thought fit to print a relation, which proved but a dull scurrilous satire upon a nation he knew nothing of.”

, founder of the celebrated college called after him, was born October 9, 1201, at Sorbonne, otherwise Sorbon, a little village of Rhetelois in the diocese of Rheinis, whence he had his name. His family was poor and obscure, and not of the blood royal as Dupleix imagined. He distinguished himself as a student at Paris, and after having taken a doctor’s degree, devoted his whole attention to preaching and religious conferences, by which he soon became so celebrated that St. Louis wished to hear him. This prince immediately conceived the highest esteem for Sorbonne, invited him to his own table, took great pleasure in his conversation, and in order to have him more constantly about his person, appointed him his chaplain and confessor. Robert, being made canon of Cambray about 1251, and reflecting on the pains it had cost him to obtain a doctor’s degree, determined to facilitate the acquisition of learning to poor scholars. For this purpose he judged that the most convenient and efficacious plan would be to form a society of secular ecclesiastics, who, living in a community, and having the necessaries of life provided for them, should be wholly employed in study, and teach gratis. All his friends approved the design, and offered to assist him both with their fortunes and their advice. With their assistance, Robert de Sorbonne founded, in 1253, the celebrated college which bears his name. He then assembled able professors, those most distinguished for learning and piety, and lodged his community in the rue des deux portes, opposite to the palace des Thermes. Such was the origin f the famous college of Sorbonne, which proved the model of all others, there having been no society in Europe before that time where the seculars lived and taught in common, 'i he founder had two objects in view wi tins establishment, theology and the arts; but as his predilection was to the former, he composed his society principally of doctors and bachelors in divinity. Some have said that his original foundation was only for sixteen poor scholars (boursiers) or fellows; but it appears by his statutes that from the first establishment, it consisted of doctors, bachelor-fellows, bachelors not fellows, and poor students as at present, or at least lately. The number of fellows was not limited, but depended on the state of the revenues. The number in the founder’s time appears to have been about thirty, and he ordered that there should be no other members of his college than guests and associates (hospites et socii), who might be chosen from any country or nation whaieu-r. A guest, or perhaps as we should call him, a commoner, was required to be a bachelor, to maintain a thesis, tailed, from the founder’s name, Robertine, and was to be admitted by a majority of votes after three different scrutinies. These hospites remained part of the establishment until the last, were maintained and lodged in the house like the rest of the doctors and bachelors, had a right to study in the library (though without possessing a key), and enjoyed all other rights and privileges, except that they had no vote in the assemblies, and were obliged to quit the house on becoming doctors. For an associate, Socius, it was necessary, besides the Robertine thesis, to read a course of philosophical lectures gratis. In 1764, when the small colleges were united with that of Louis-le-grand, the course of philosophy was discontinued, and a thesis substituted in its place, called the second Robertine.

As to the fellowships, they were granted to those only among the Socii who had not forty livres, of Paris money, per annum, either from benefices or paternal inheritance; and when they became possessed of that income, they ceased to be fellows. A fellowship was worth about five sous and a half per week, and was held ten years. At the end of seven years all who held them were strictly examined, and if any one appeared incapable of teaching, preaching, or being useful to the public in some oilier way, he was deprived of his t<-!! /wship. Yet, as the founder was far from wishing to exclude the rich from his college, but, on the contrary, sought to inspire them with a taste for learning, and to revive a knowledge of the sciences among the clergy, he admitted associates, who were not fellows, “Socii uon Bursales.” These were subject to the same examinations and exercises as the Socii, with this only difference, that they paid fn - e sols and a half weekly to the honse, a sum eqnal to that which the fellows received. All the Socii bore and still bear the title of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House and Society of Sorbonne,” whereas the Hospites have only the appellation of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House of Sorbonne.” Their founder ordered that every thing should be managed and regulated by the Socii, and that there should be neither superior nor principal among them. Accord'ngly he forbade the doctors to treat the bachelors as pupils, or the bachelors to treat the doctors as masters, whence the ancient Sorbonists used to say, “We do not live together as doctors and bachelors, nor as masters and pupils; but we live as associates and equals.” In consequence of this equality, no monk of whatever order, has at any time been admitted “Socius of Sorbonne;” and from the beginning of the seventeenth century, whoever is received into the society takes an oath on the gospels, ' That he has no intention of entering any society or secular congregation, the members of which live in common under the direction of one superior, and that if after being admitted into the society of Sorbonne, he should change his mind, and enter any such other community, he will acknowledge himself from that time, and by this single art, to have forfeited all privileges of the society, as well active as passive, and that he will neither do nor undertake any thing contrary to the present regulation.“Robert de Sorbonne permitted the doctors and bachelors to take poor scholars, whom he wished to receive benefit from his house; and great numbers of these poor scholars proved very eminent men. The first professors in the Sorbonne were William de Saint Amour, Odon de Douai, Gerard de Rheims, Laurence the Englishman, Gerard ^'Abbeville, &c. They taught theology gratis, according to the founder’s intention; and from 1253, to the revolution, there have been always six professors at least, who gave lectures on the different branches of that science gratis, even before the divinity professorships were established. Fellowships were given to the poor professors, that is, to those whose incomes did not amount to forty livres; but it appears from the registers of the Sorbonne, that the first professors above mentioned, were very rich, consequently they were not fellows. Robert de Sorbonne ordered that there should always be some doctors in his college who applied particularly to the study of morality and casuistry; whence the Sorbonne has been consulted on such points ever since his time from all parts of the kingdom. He appointed different offices for the government of his college. The first is that of the Proviseur, who was always chosen from among the most eminent persons. Next to him is the Fn‘ciu’, chosen from the Socii bachelors, who presided in the assemblies of the society, at the Robertine acts, at the reading of the Holy Scriptures, at meals, and at the Sorboniques, or acts of the licentiates, for which he fixed the day; he also made two public speeches, one at the first, the other at the last of these. The keys of the gate were delivered up to him every night, and he was the first person to sign all the acts. The other offices are those of” Senieur, Conscripteur, Procureurs, Professors, Librarian, &c.“There is every reason to believe that the Sorbonne, from its foundation, contained thirty-six apartments, and it was doubtless in conformity to this first plan that no more were added when cardinal Richelieu rebuilt it in the present magnificent style. One, however, was afterwards added, making thirty-seven, constantly occupied by as many doctors and bachelors. After Robert de Sorbonne had founded his divinity college, he obtained a confirmation of it from the pope, and it was authorized by letters patent from St. Louis, uho had before given him, or exchanged with him, some houses necessary for that establishment in 1256, and 1258. He then devoted himself to the promotion of learning and piety in his college, and with success, for it soon produced such excellent scholars as spread its fame throughout Europe. Legacies and donations now flowed in from every quarter, which enabled the Sorbonists to study at their ease. The founder had aLvays a particular partiality for those who were poor, for although his society contained some very rich doctors, as appears from the registers and other monumeiHs remaining in the archives of the Sorbonne, yet his establishment had the poor principally in view, the greatest part of its revenues being appropriated to their studies and maintenance. He would even have his college called” the House of the Poor,“which gave rise to the form used by the Sorbonne bachelors, when they appear as respondents, or maintain theses in quality of Antique; and hence also we read on many Mss. that they belong to the” Pauvrcs Matures de Sorbonne.“The founder, not satisfied with providing sufficient revenues for his college, took great pains to establish a library. From the ancient catalogue of the Sorbonne library drawn up in 1289 and 1290, it appears to have consisted at that time of above a thousand volumes; but the collection increased so fast, that a new catalogue became necessary two years after, i. e. in 1292, and again in 1338, at which time the Sorbonne library was perhaps the finest in France. All the books of whatever value were chained to the shelves, and accurately ranged according to their subjects, beginning with grammar, the belles lettres, &c. The catalogues are made in the same manner, and the price of each book is marked in them. These Mss. are still in the house. Robert de Sorbonne (very different from other founders, who begin by laying down rules, and then make it their whole care to enforce the observance of them,) did not attempt to settle any statutes till he had governed his college above eighteen years, and then prescribed only such customs as he had before established, and of which the utility and wisdom were confirmed to him by long experience. Hence it is that no attempt towards reformation or change has ever been made in the Sorbonne; all proceeds according to the ancient methods and rules, and the experience of five centuries has proved that the constitution of that house is well adapted to its purposes, and none of the French colleges since founded have supported themselves in so much regularity and splendour. Robert de Sorbonne having firmly established his society for theological studies, added to it a college for polite literature and philosophy. For this purpose he. bought of William de Cambrai, canon of S. Jean de Maurienne, a house near the Sorbonne, and there founded the college tie Culvi, in 1271. This college, which was also called” the little Sorbonne,“became very celebrated by the great men xvho were educated there, and subsisted till 1636, when it was demolished by cardinal Richelieu’s order, and the chapel of the Sorbocne huilt upon the same spot. The cardinal had, however, engaged to erect another, which should belong equally to the house, and be contiguous to it; but his death put a stop to this plan: and to fulfil his promise in some degree, the family of Richelieu united the college du Plessis to the Sorbonne in 1648. Robert de Sorbonne had been canon of Paris from 1258, and became so celebrated as to be frequently consulted even by princes, and chosen for their arbiter on some important occasions.' He bequeathed all his property, which was very considerable, to the society of Sorbonne, and died at Paris, August 15, 1274, aged seventy-three, leaving several works in Latin. The principal are, a treatise on” Conscience,“another on” Confession,“and” The Way to Paradise,“all which are printed in the” Bibl. Patrum." He wrote also other things, which remain in ms. in the library. The house and society of Sorbonne is one of the four parts of the faculty of theology at Paris, but has its peculiar revenues, statutes, assemblies, and prerogatives.

, a contemporary of the preceding, but more connected with this country, was born at Cordova, and educated among the Dominicans of Salamanca. Having distinguished himself in the duties of the cloister, and made an eqiujl progress in learning, especially divinity and the sacred languages, he was called to court, and was successively confessor to the king of Spain, and to Charles V. of Germany, who employed him to write against the Lutherans. When Philip of Spain married our queen Mary, Soto was one of those Spanish divines who attended him to England, and settled at Oxford, where he was professor of divinity, and sometimes read a Hebrew lecture, as Wood supposes, for Dr. Bruerne, the Hebrew professor. This occurred in 1556; and, the year before, Soto had been incorpora; ed D. D. in this university. After the death of queen Mary, he was called to the council of Trent, where be died in April 1563. He published “Institutiones Chris, tiana?,” 1548, and some other works of the controversial kind against John Brentius, or Brent. Dodd says he was a zealous assertor of church discipline, as appears by a letter which he wrote to pope Pius IV. in his last sickness, in which he insists that the residence of bishops should be declared dejure divino.

, an English divine of great parts and learning, but of very inconsistent character, was the son of a merchant in London, and born at Hackney, in Middlesex, 1633. He was educated in Westminster-school, under Dr. Busby, where he acquired an uncommon share of grammatical and philological learning. In 1648 he made himself remarkable by reading the Latin prayers in the school, on the day in which king Charles was beheaded, and praying for that prince by name. He continued four years at Westminster, and in 1651 was elected thence student of Christchurch, Oxford. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1654; and the same year wrote a copy of Latin verses, to congratulate the protector Cromwell upon the peace concluded with the Dutch. They were published in a collection of poems by the university. The year after, he published another Latin poem, entitled “Musica Incantans; sive Poema exprimens Musicse vires juvenem in insaniam abigentis, et?lusici hide periculum.” This was at that time highly appLuded for the beauty of the language, and was printed at the request of Dr. Fell; but it is said that Dr. South, to his dying day, regretted the publication of it, as a juvenile and trifling performance. He commenced M. A. in June 1657, alter performing all the preparatory exercises for it with the highest applause, and such wit and humour, as justly entitled him to represent the Terra: F'dius, in which character he spoke the usual speech at the celebration of the act the same year. He preached frequently, and (as Wood thinks) without any orders. He appeared, at St. Mary’s, the great champion for Calvinism against Sociniuuism and Arminianisir; and his behaviour was such, and his talents esteemed so exceedingly useful and serviceable, that the heads of that party were considering how to give proper encouragement and proportionable preferment to so hopeful a convert. In the mean time the protector Cromwell died and then, the presbyterians prevailing over the independents,South sided with them. He began to contemn, and in a manner to defy, the dean of his college. Dr. Owen, who was reckoned the head of the independent party; upon which the doctor plainly told him, that he was one who “sate in the seat of the scornful.” The author of the memoirs of South’s life tells us, that he was admitted into holy orders according to the rites and ceremonies of the church or England, in 1658. In July 1659, he preached the assize-sermon at Oxford, in which he inveighed vehemently against the independents; and by this greatly pleased the presbyterians, who made him their acknowledgments. The same year, when it was visible that the king would be restored, he appeared someuhat irresolute, yet was still reckoned a member of “the fanatic ordinary,” as Wood expresses it; but, as his majesty’s restoration approached, he began to exercise his pulpittalents, which were very great, as much against the presbyterians, as he had done before against the independents. Such was the conduct and behaviour of this celebrated divine in the earlier part of his life, as it is described by his contemporary in the university, Mr. Anthony Wood; and if Wood was not unreasonably prejudiced against him, he is, doubtless, to be classed among those time-servers, who know no better use of the great abilities God has given them, than to obtain the favour of those who can reward them best .

He seems to have proceeded as he had begun; that is, he pushed himself on by an extraordinary zeal for the powers that were; and he did not succeed amiss. On Aug. 10, 1660, he was chosen public orator of the university , and at the same time “tugged bird,” says Wood, “such was the high conceit of his worth, to be canon of Christcburch, as belonging to that office; but was kept back by the endeavours of the dean. This was a great discontent to him; and not being able to conceal it, he clamoured at it, and shewed much passion in his sermons till he could get preferment, which made them therefore frequented by the generality, though shunned by some. This person, though he was a junior master, and h;id never suffered for the royal cause, yet so great was his conceit, or so blinded he was with ambition, that he thought he could never be enough loaded with preferment; while others, who had suffered much, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, could get nothing.” South’s talents, however, might be of use, and were not to be neglected; and these, together with his ardent zeal, which he was ever ready to exert on all occasions, recommended him effectually to notice and preferment. In 1661 he became domestic chaplain to lord Clarendon, chancellor of England, and of the university of Oxford; and, in March 1663, was installed prebendary of Westminster. On October the 1st following, he was admitted to the degree of D. D.; but this, as Wood relates, not without some commotion in the university. “Letters were sent by lord Clarendon, in behalf of his chaplain South, who was therein recommended to the doctorate: but some were so offended, on account of certain prejudices against South, whom they looked upon as a mere time-server, that they stiffly denied the passing of these letters in convocation.” A tumult arose, and they proceeded to a scrutiny; after which the senior proctor, Nathaniel Crew, fellow of Lincoln-college, and afterwards bishop of Durham, did “according to his usual perfidy, which,” says Wood, “he frequently exercised in his office; for he was born and bred a presbyterian”) pronounce him passed by the major part of the house; in consequence of which, by the double presentation of Dr. John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry, he was first admitted bachelor, then doctor of divinity.

After the revolution, South took the oath of allegiance to their majesties; though he is said to have excused himself from accepting a great dignity in the church, vacated by a refusal of those oaths. Bishop Kennet says, that at first he made a demur about submitting to the revolution, and thought himself deceived by Dr. Sherlock, “which was the true foundation of the bitter difference in writing: about the Trinity.” Whatever the cause, Dr. South, in 1693, published “Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s book, entitled, ‘A vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity,’ &c. together with a more necessary vindication of that sacred and prime article of the Christian faith from his new notions and false explications of it: humbly offered to his admirers, and to himself the chief of them,” 1693, 4to. Sherlock having published in 1694 a “Defence” of himself against these Animadversions, South replied, in a book entitled, “Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock’s neur notion of the Trinity, and the charge made good in an answer to the Defence,” &c. This was a sharp contest, and men of great note espoused the cause of each; though the cause of each, as is curious to observe, was not the cause of orthodoxy, which lay between them both: for if Sherlock ran into Tritheism, and made three substances as well as three persons of the Godhead, South on the other hand leaned to the heresy of Sabellius, which, destroying the triple personage, supposed only one substance with something like three modes. The victory, nevertheless, was adjudged to South in an extraordinary manner at Oxford, as we have already noticed in the life of Sherlock; for Mr. Bingham of University college, having fallen in with Sherlock’s notions, and asserted in a sermon be to re the university, that “there were three infinite distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, and also that the three persons in the Trinity are three distinct minds or spirits and three individual substances, was censured by a solemn decree there in convocation: wherein they judge, declare, and determine the aforesaid words, lately delivered i;i the said sermon, to be” false, impious, heretical, and contrary to the doctrine of the church of England.“But this decree rather irritated, than composed the differences: and at length the king interposed his authority, by directions to the archbishops and bishops, that no preacher whatsoever in his sermon or lecture, should presume to preach any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, than what was contained in the Holy Scriptures, and was agreeable to the three Creeds and thirty-nine Articles of religion. This put an end to the controversy; though not till after both the disputants, together with Dr. Thomas Burnet, master of the Charter-house, had been ridiculed in a wellknown ballad, called” The Battle Royal.“Burnet about the same time had ridiculed, in his” Arclueologia Philosophica," the literal account of the creation and fall of man, as it stands in the beginning of Genesis; and this being thought heterodox and profane, exposed him to the lash upon the present occasion.

, an English dramatic writer, who has been very improperly admitted by Wood into the “Athenae Oxonienses,” and grossly misrepresented in every particular, was born at Dublin in 1659, and was admitted a student of Trinity college, March 30, 1676, where Dr. Whitenhall was his tutor. In his eighteenth year, he quitted Ireland, and removed to the Middle-Temple, London, where he devoted himself to play-writing and poetry, instead of law. His “Persian Prince, or Loyal Brother,” in 1682, was introduced at a time when the Tory interest was triumphant in England; and the character of the Loyal Brother was no doubt intended to compliment James duke of York, who afterwards rewarded him. After his accession to the throne, Southern went into the army, and served as ensign, upon the duke of Monmouth’s landing, in earl Ferrers’s regiment, before the duke of Berwick had it. This affair being over, he retired to his studies; and wrote several plays, from which he is supposed to have drawn a very handsome subsistence. In the preface to his tragedy called “The Spartan Dame,” he acknowledges, that he received from the booksellers as a price for this play 150l. which was thought in 1721, the time of its being published, very extraordinary. He was the first who raised the advantage of play-writing to a second and third night; which Pope mentions in these lines:

The reputation which Dryden gained by the many prologues he wrote, made the players always solicitous to have one of his, as being sure to be well received by the public. Dryden’s price for a prologue had usually been four guineas, with which sum Southern once presentee; him when Dryden, returning the money, said, “Young man, this is too little, I must have six guineas.” Southern answered, that four had been his usual price: “Yes,” says Dryden, “it has been so, but the players have hitherto had my labours too cheap; for the future I must have six guineas.” Southern also was industrious to draw all imaginable profits from his poetical labours. Dryden once took occasion to ask him, how much he got by one of his plays? Southern said, after owning himself ashamed to tell him, 7OO/.; which astonished Dryden, as it was more by 6OO/, than he himself had ever got by his most successful plays. But it appears that Southern was not beneath the arts of solicitation, and often sold his tickets at a very high price, by making applications to persons of quality and distinction; a degree of servility, which Dryden might justly think below the dignity of a poet, and more in the character of an under-player. Dryden entertained a high opinion of Southern’s abilities; and prefixed a copy of verses to a comedy of his, called “The Wife’s Excuse,” acted in 1692. The night that Southern’s “Innocent Adultery” was first acted, which has been esteemed by some the most adocting play in any language, a gentlemnu took occasion to ask Dryden, “what was his opinion of Southern’s genius?” who replied, “that he thought him such another poet as Otway.” Such indeed was Dry den’s opinion of his talents, that being unable to finish his “Cieomenes,” he consigned it to the care of Southern, who wrote one half of the fifth act of that tragedy, and was with reason highly flattered by this mark of the author’s confidence and esteem. Of all Southern’s plays, ten in number, the most finished is “Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave:” which is built upon a real fact, related by Mrs. Beha in a novel. Besides the tender and delicate strokes of passion in this play, there are many shining and manly sentiments; and some have gone so far beyond the truth as to say, that the most celebrated even of Shakspeare’s plays cannot furnish so many striking thoughts, and such a glow of animated poetry. Southern died May 26, 1746, aged eighty-five. He lived the last ten years of his life in Tothill street, Westminster, and attended the abbey service very constantly; being particularly fond of church music. He is said to have died the oldest and the richest of his dramatic brethren. Oldys, in his ms additions to Gildon’s continuation of Langbaine, says, that he remembered Mr. Southern “a grave and venerable old gentleman. He lived near Covent-garden, and used often to frequent the evening prayers there, always neat and decently dressed, commonly in black, with his silver sword and silver locks; but latterly it seems he resided at Westminster.” The late poet Gray, in a letter to Mr. Walpole, dated from Burnham in Buckinghamshire, in Sept. 1737, has also the following observation concerning this author: “We have old Mr. Southern at a gentleman’s house a little way off, who often comes to see us; he is now seventy-seven years old, and has almost wholly lost his memory; but is as agreeable an old man as can be; at least I persuade myself so when I look at him, and think of Isabella and Oroonoko.” Mr. Mason adds in a note on this passage, that “Mr. Gray always thought highly of his pathetic powers, at the same time that he blamed his ill taste for mixing them so injudiciously with farce, in order to produce that monstrous species of composition called Tragi-comedy.” Mr. Southern, however, in the latter part of his life, was sensible of the impropriety of blending tragedy and comedy, and used to declare to lord Corke his regret at complying with the licentious taste of the time. His dramatic writings were for the first time completely published by T. Evans, in 3 vols. 12mo.

At the university he studied hard, and lived retired, delighted with the opportunities for improvement which a college life affords, and in Easter term, 1749, took his degree of A. B. and was on the list of honours on the first tripos. Some unpleasant occurrences in his family, however, obliged him to leave the university, after a residence of little more than four years; and he now retired to his father’s house at Alwalton, where, by the assistance of books from the library of Dr. Neve, who was rector of the parish, he was enabled to continue his studies. In Sept. 1752, he was ordained deacon, and in the same month, 1754, priest, by his friend and patron, Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, who in the last mentioned year gave him the rectory of Woolley, in Huntingdonshire, worth about 120l. a year. The circumstances attending this preferment are too highly honourable to the character of Mr. Southgate to be omitted in even a short sketch of his life. This living became vacant during the minority of a Mr. Peacock, who was the patron, and was himself intended for the church. His guardians, not being able to agree as to the person they should present, suffered it to lapse to the bishop; who mentioned these circumstances to Mr. Southgate when he presented htm to the living; and although the bishop left him entirely clear of any promise or restraint respecting it; as soon as Mr. Peacock had taken orders, Mr. Southgate went to his lordship, and resigned the living. During the time that he held it, he had to rebuild a considerable part of the premises, and to make such repairs, that he may be said rather to have acted like a faithful steward to Mr. Peacock than the real rector of the parish; so that when he resigned it, after possession for more than five years, he had not saved out of the income one shilling. The bishop, on his resignation, said, “You have done, Richard, what I knew you would do; you have behaved like a Christian and a good man; and I have this additional motive for thinking myself bound to provide for you.”

This obligation, however, appears to have been forgotten, for although the bishop lived till 1766, and had various opportunities of fulfilling his promise, Mr. Southgate received no other promotion from him, and never shewed the least sign of disappointment, but on the contrary endeavoured to apologize for the bishop, which perhaps few of our readers will be inclined to do, as the only plea was “a constitutional weakness which too easily yielded to the incessant requests of the importunate, or the powerful solicitations of the great.”

Before Mr. Southgate settled in London, he successively served several curacies in the country, and was frequently in the habit of reading prayers and preaching at three different churches: and it appears from his journal that he Ik:i unfreqnently served four different churches in one day. During this time he found the want of books, and of persons of literature to converse with, were insurmountable obstacles to his improvement in knowledge, and had to lament that small country villages could not supply these; on which account he formed the resolution of coming to London. Accordingly. Jan. 2, 1763, having received a recommendation from bishop Thomas to Dr. Nicolls, rector of St. James’s, Westminster, became to London, and was immediately engaged by that gentleman as one of the subcurates of St. James’s, and served this cure till 1766. In December of the preceding year he entered upon the curacy of St. Giles’s, to which he was oppoiuted by Dr. Gaily, on the recommendation of Dr. Parker, the successor of Dr. Nicolls in St. James’s, and this last cure he reilined till the time of his death. In serving it, he is universally acknowledged to have exhibited the portraiture of a learned, pious, and most iudeiatigably conscientious parish priest. The duties of this extensive parish were not more urgent than the wants of its numerous poor, and in works of charity Mr. Soutligate was eminently distinguished. “If,” says one oi his. biographers, “hi any parts of his pastoral office, more than in others, he was particularly laborious, it was in visiting, catechising, and exhorting the poor. In the parish of St. Giles’s, the baptisms at the font are daily, and very numerous; on which occasions, he constantly catechised, or lectured, the sponsors, awfully impressing upon them the high importance of an attention, not only to the ge there undertaken, but to the various obligations and privileges of the Christian life: and the good seed so judiciously and season.;bly sown, at those times, could not but be eminently fruitful. In visiting the sick, and particularly the sick poor, he was almost every day engaged, as his iniimate friends well know, and his journal testifies; praying with, and exhorting the afflicted to submit patiently to the chastising hand of God, counselling the profane, and inconsiderate, to reflect upon, and amend their ways, and admonbhing all to flee from the wrath to come, and accept the salvation tendered in the gospel, on the terms it prescribes. When he became able, his prayers and exhortations were frequently accompanied with his alms, administering at once to the spiritual and bodily wants of his poor parishioners,” &c. &,c.

, an English Jesuit and poet, was born in 1560, and is said to have descended from an ancient family, either in Norfolk or Suffolk. Being sent abroad for education, he became a Jesuit at Rome, Oct. 1578. In 1585, he was appointed prefect of studies in the English college there, and not long after was sent as a missionary into England. His chief residence was with Anne countess of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London. After carrying on his mission for some time, he was, in July 1592, apprehended and examined with the strictest rigour, but having evaded the questions put to him, was imprisoned for three years, and as he affirmed, underwent the torture several times. He owned that he was a priest and a Jesuit, that he came into England to preach the truths of the catholic religion, and was prepared to lay down his life for it. In Feb. 1595, he was tried at the bar of the King’s Bench, Westminster, and executed the next day at Tyburn. He was a man of singular parts, says Dodd, and happy in a peculiar talent of expressing himself in the English language, both in prose and verse. Edmund Bolton, whom Warton calls a sensible critic, speaks of Southwell’s works in the same strain of panegyric “Never must be forgotten St. Peter’s complaint, and those other serious poems said to be father Southwell’s: the English whereof, as it is most proper, so the sharpness and light of wit is very rare in them.” Mr. Headley seems first to have revived the memory of Southwell, as a poet, by some curious specimens, in which he has been followed by Mr. Ellis. “There is a moral charm,” says Headley, “in the little pieces of Southwell, that will prejudice most readers of feeling in their favour.” Unless, however, there were encouragement for republication, which is not very probable, Southwell’s fame must principally rest on these specimens, as his works are rarely to be met with; yet Mr. Ellis remarks that the few copies known to exist, are the remnant of at least twenty-four different editions, of which eleven were printed between 1593 and 1600.

The titles of his principal works, are, 1. “A consolation for Catholicks imprisoned on account of religion.” 2. “A supplication to queen Elizabeth,” Lond. 1593. 3. “St. Peter’s Complaint, with other poems,” Lond. 1593. 4. “Maeoniae, or certain excellent Poems and spiritual Hymns,” omitted in the preceding collection, ibid. 1595. 5. “The Triumphs over death,” ibid. 1595, 1596. 6. “Rules of a good life, with a letter to his father.” 7. “Marie Magdalen’s Funeral Teares,” ibid. 1609, reprinted in 1772 by the rev. W. Tooke, with some alterations to make it read easy.

, or Sousa. See Faria.

, so named in Italy, and usually so called, was born in 1589, at Xativa, a city in Spain, about ten leagues from Valentia. Though his parents were not in circumstances to give him the education in painting which his early genius deserved, he contrived to travel into Italy, and there applied to his art under the greatest masters. He first resided at Parma, where he so completely studied the works of Correggio, as to be able to imitate his style and colouring with great success. He then removed to Rome, where he changed his manner altogether, and adopted Caravaggio as his model. Like that master, he painted with bold and broad lights and shadows, and gave so extraordinary a degree of force to his pictures, that the works of most other artists, when placed near them, appear comparatively tame and feeble. In his colouring he is esteemed equal to Caravaggio, and superior to him in correctness of design; yet inferior in sweetness and mellowness of touch. It is said, that a cardinal having become his patron at Rome, and given him apartments in his own palace, he became indolent, and unable to exert his talents; in order to do justice to which, he found it necessary to return to that poverty in which he was bred, and therefore voluntarily renounced this asylum, and fixed himself at Naples. Here his works being greatly admired, and his pencil being, after a time, constantly employed by the viceroy of Naples, and other potentates of Europe, he gradually rose to that affluence, the sudden acquisition of which, had produced so bad an effect. It was not so now; he continued to paint historical pictures, and sometimes portraits, which are dispersed throughout Europe; but he rarely worked for the churches or convents. His principal works are at Naples, and in the Escurial in Spain.

The genius of Spagnoletto naturally inclined him to subjects of horror, which, therefore, he selected from sacred and profane history; such as the martyrdoms of saints, the torments of Ixion and Prometheus, or Cato tearing out his own bowels. He also delighted in designing old men emaelated by mortification, such as saints and hermits, his pictures on which subjects were much admired by the Spaniards and Neapolitans. “St. Jerome was one of his darling subjects; he painted, he etched him, in numerous repetitions, in whole lengths and bait figures. He delighted in the representation of hermits, anchorets, prophets, apostles, perhaps less to impress the mind with gravity of character, and the venerable looks of age, than to strike the eye with the incidental deformities attendant on decrepitude, and the picturesque display of bone, vein, and tendons, athwart emaciated muscle. As in design he courted excrescence or meagreness, so in the choice of historic subjects he preferred to the terrors of ebullient passions, features of horror, cool assassination, and tortures methodized, the spasms of Ixion; and St. Bartholomew under the butcher’s knife.” An extraordinary story is related by Sandrart, of the effect of one of his pictures on the imagination of a pregnant woman, and on her child; but as the possibility of such effects is by no means ascertained, we shall not venture to relate it. The force of his colouring, the extraordinary relief of his figures, and the singular strength of his expression, certainly make his pictures likely to affect the mind as powerfully as those of any master who can be mentioned.

These numerous works did not, however, contain all the series of Spallanzani’s labours. He had been occupied a considerable time upon the phenomena of respiration; their resemblances and differences i:i a great number of species of animals; and he was busily employed in reducing to order his researches upon this subject. He left a large collection of experiments, and new observations upon animal reproductions, upon sponges, the nature of which he determines, and upon many interesting phenomena, which he knew how to draw out of obscurity. He had almost finished his voyage to Constantinople, and had amassed considerable materials for a history of the sea, France, Germany, and England, were all eager to avail themselves of his works by means of translations, tie was admitted into the academies and learned societies of London, Stockholm, Gottingen, Holland, Lyons, Bologna, Turin, Padua, Mantua, and Geneva. He was a correspondent of the academy of sciences of Paris and of Montpelier: and received from the great Frederick himself the diploma of member of the academy of Berlin, holding even often a direct correspondence with him. This eminent philosopher died Feb. 17, 1798, not less admired for his private very amiable character, than for the extensive reputation which his lectures, his experiments, and his publications had established. Highly, however, as his experiments have been commended, we must enter our protest against the cruelty with which they were mostly accompanied, and cannot think that the value of the object to be attained, or indeed any object, can justify the destruction of so many living creatures by the most painful and lingering torments.

, editor of Lactantius, &c. the son of Archibald Spark, minister of Northop in Flintshire, was born in 1655, and was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1672. After taking his degrees in arts, and being ordained, he was appointed chaplain to sir George Jeffries, who promoted him when he became chancellor, to what benefices, or at what times, Wood has not discovered; but at his death, which took place at Bath, Sept. 7, 1692, he was rector of Ewehurst in Surrey, to which he had been instituted in 1687, and of Norton, or Hogsnorton, near Bosworth, in Leicestershire, a prebendary of Lichfield and of Rochester; and D. D. Wood says, he “left behind him the character of a learned man, but confident and forward without measure; and by his excesses, and too much agitation in obtaining spiritualities, he brought himself into an ill disposition of body, which, contrary to his expectation, brought him, in the prime of his years, to his grave.” He published a good edition of “Lactantii Firmiani opera quae extant, ad fidem Mss. recognita, et commentariis illustrata,” Oxon. 1684, 8vo; and “Notae in libros sex novae historic Zozini comitis,” ibid. 1679, 8vo; dedicated to his old master Dr. Busby, and translated into English in 1684, by another hand.

, a well-known English historian, was born at Farington in Cheshire, about 1555, and brought up to the business of a taylor, and became a freeman of the company of Merchant-taylors in the city of London. He had probably shewn some taste for literature, as sir Fulk Grevile, a patron of learning, took him from his shop-­board, and supported him in his study of English history and antiquities. By such encouragement he published, in 1606, his “Theatre of Great-Britain;” which was afterwards reprinted, particularly in 1650, under this title: “The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the isles adjoyning. With the shires, hundreds, cities, and shire-townes within the kingdome of England, divided and described by John Speed,” folio. Nicolson observes, that these maps “are extremely good; and make a noble apparatus, as they were designed, to his history: but his descriptions of the several counties are mostly short abstracts of what Camden had said before him.” In 1614 he published, in folio, “The History of Great Britain under the conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; their originals, manners, warres, coines, and scales, with the successions, lives, actes, and issnes of the English monarchs, from Julius Cæsar to our most gracious sovereigne king James;” dedicated to James I. He borrowed many of his materials from Camden; and was supplied with many by sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, and other antiquaries, with whom he was well acquainted. There are prefixed to it commendatory poems in Latin, French, and English, by sir Henry Spelman and others; and many writers have spoken of it in terms of high commendation. Speed was not only an historian, but also a divine; for, in 1616, he published a work in 8vo, called “The Cloud of Witnesses, or the Genealogies of Scripture, confirming the truth of holy history and humanity of Christ.” This was prefixed to the new translation of the Bible in 1611, and printed for many years in the subsequent editions, particularly of the folio and quarto sizes, and king James I. gave him a patent for securing the property of it to him and his heirs.

After remaining at Congham about a year, he was admitted of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to the law as a profession. This, however, he appears to have studied rather in a general way, as far as respected the laws, customs, and constitution of his country, and at the same time cultivated polite literature and antiquities. When almost of age, he returned to Norfolk, and married Eleanor, the daughter of John Le Strange, a gentleman of an ancient family in the same county. He now employed himself in rural and domestic affairs, studying also, at intervals, the constitution and antiquities of his country; and having some property, either paternal or acquired by his marriage, he was enabled to add to it by certain purchases, particularly of the lease of Blackburgh and Wrongey abbies in Norfolk. Besides a family of his own, he had the guardianship of sir Hamon Le Strange, Kis brother-in-law, and during his minority, resided at Hunstanton, the seat of sir Hamon. The first fruit of his studies, said to have been begun when very young, was a Latin treatise on coats of arms, entitled “Aspilogia,” in which he displays a considerable fund of curious information; and he frequently employed himself in making transcripts of several foundation-charters of the monasteries of Norfolk and Suffolk. Having been admitted a member of the original society of antiquaries, he became acquainted with those celebrated lovers of that science, Camden, sir Robert Cotton, and others, whose conversation improved his knowledge, and decided his taste for pursuits similar to what had engaged their attention. In 1594 he is thought to have written “A Discourse concerning the Coin of this kingdom,” chiefly with a view to prove the immense treasures which had been drawn from England, in consequence of the usurpations of the pope.

In 1604 he served as high sheriff of Norfolk, of which county he furnished Speed with a description, and being now distinguished for his abilities, he was sent by king James three several times into Ireland as one of the commissioners for determining the unsettled titles to lands and manors in that country; and at home was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the oppression of exacted fees in all the courts and offices of England, as well ecclesiastical as civil; which bishop Hacket calls “a noble examination and full of justice.” This gave rise to his learned treatise “De Sepultura,” or of “Burial Fees,” in which he proved the existence of very exorbitant exactions. These employments, however, having tended to the injury of his fortune, the government was so sensible of his services, that a present of 300l. was made him, not as a full recompence“(for so it is expressed in the king’s writ), but only” as an occasional remembrance," till something more equal to his merit could be done for him. He was also knighted by James I. who had a particular esteem for him; as well on accountof hisknown capacity for business, as his extensive learning, especially in the laws and antiquities of our nation, which were the constant subjects of his researches. With a view to pursue those researches with more advantage than was possible in a country residence, he determined to remove to London. Accordingly in 1612, he sold his stock upon the farms, let out his estate to tenants, and removed with his family to the metropolis, where he had a house in Barbican.

While here employed in investigating “the grounds of the law from original records,” which engaged him in a perusal of the fathers, councils, and ancient historians, he was for some time diverted from this pursuit by a conversation with his uncle, Mr. Francis Sanders, who complained to him of the many crosses and disappointments he had met with in a building he had then in hand upon the glebe of his appropriated parsonage at Congham. Sir Henry, who had a profound veneration for church-property, told his uncle that this was a judgment upon him for defrauding the church, and that it was utterly unlawful to keep appropriated parsonages in lay hands; and finding him somewhat impressed with what he had said, he expatiated more fully on the subject in a written paper, which, owing to Mr. Sanders’s death, never reached him. It was, however, published under the title “De non temerandis Ecclesiis,” or, “Churches not to be violated.” He reprinted it in 1615, 8vo, and about the same time a defence of it against an anonymous writer, with a Latin epistle to Mr. Richard Carew, who had made some objections to his treatise. The effect of sir Henry’s arguments was very extraordinary; for several persons actually parted with their impropriations. That he was sincere himself is sufficiently obvious, for being possessed of the impropriation of Middleton in Norfolk, he disposed of it for the augmentation of the vicarage, and also some additions to Congham which lies near it. It is said likewise that during the whole of his life, almost at every law-term in London, he was consulted by various lay-impropriators as to the mode by which they might restore their unlawful possessions of this kind; and some are reported to have thanked him for his book, declaring that they would never purchase any appropriate parsonages to augment their estates.

In the course of those antiquarian studies which respect the on<iin and foundation of our laws, he frequently found himself impeded by obsolete words. These he began to collect by degrees, with references to the places where they occur, and by comparing these places was enabled to form, at least some very probable conjectures as to the meaning of them. This labour he soon experienced must be assisted by a knowledge of the Saxon, which at that time was very rare, and his helps consequently were few, yet by dint of industry he acquired a very considerable knowledge of this language, and before 1626 had, in a great measure, prepared his “Glossary” for the press, and because he would not depend upon his own judgment, he printed one or two sheets by way of specimen, for the perusal of his friends. These were so satisfied, that he received ample encouragement from the most learned persons of that age: at home, from Usher, Williams, then lord keeper, Selden, and sir Robert Cotton; abroad, from Rigaltius, Salmasius, Peiresc, and others; as also from Bignonius, Meursius, and Lindenbrokius, whose assistance he very gratefully acknowledges. Upon this, he published it as far as to the end of the letter L. Why he went no farther, is varioasly explained. Some have fancied, that he stopped at the letter M, because he expressed certain sentiments, under the heads “Magna charta,” and “Maximum consilium,” which his friends were afraid might give offence; “that not being a season,” says bishop Gibson, “to speak freely, either of the prerogative of the king, or the liberty of the subject, both which upon many occasions would have fallen in his way.” The author has told us, in an advertisement bcfore the book, that he chose to entitle his work, “Archacologus,” rather than “Glossarium,” as we commonly call it: for a glossary, strictly speaking, is no more than a bare explication of words; whereas this treats more especially of things, and contains entire discourses and dissertations upon several heads. For this reason, it was thought worthy not only to be consulted upon occasion, like common lexicons or dictionaries; but it ought to be carefully perused and studied, as the greatest treasure extant of the ancient customs and constitutions of England.

About the time that he disposed of the unsold copies of his “Glossary,” sir William Dugdale acquainted sir Henry Spelman, that many learned men were desirous to see the second part published, and requested of him to gratify the world with the work entire. Upon this, he shewed sir William the second part, and also the improvements which he had made in the first; but told him, at the same time, the discouragement he had met with in publishing the first part. Upon his death, all his papers came into the hands of sir John Spelman, his eldest son; a gentleman, who had abilities sufficient to complete what his father had begun, if death had not prevented him. After the restoration of Charles II. archbishop Sheldon and chancellor Hyde inquired of sir William Dugdale, what became of the second part, and whether it was ever finished; and, upon his answering in the affirmative, expressed a desire that it might be printed. Accordingly it was published by sir William in 1664; but, as Gibson says, “the latter part in comparison of the other is jejune and scanty; and everyone must see, that it is little more than a collection, out of which he intended to compose such discourses, as he has all along given us in the first part, under the words of the greatest import and usefulness.” It was surmised, for it never was proved, that because sir William Dugdale had the publishing of the second part, he inserted many things of his own, which were not in sir Henry Spelman’s copy; and particularly some passages, which tend to the enlargement of the prerogative, in opposition to the liberties of the subject. This- is noticed by Mr. Atwood, in his “Jus Anglorum ab antique” and the authenticity of it is vindicated, and some curious particulars are related concerning it, by Dr. Brady, in his “Animadversions on Jani Anglorum f'acies nova,” Bishop Gibson also assures us, that the very copy from which it was printed, is in the Bodleian library in sir Henry’s own hand, and exactly agrees with the printed book; and particularly under the word “Parlamentum,” and those other passages, upon which the controversy was raised. So far then as the copy goes, for it ends at the word “Riota,” it is a certain testimony, that sir William Dugdale did no more than mark it for the printer, and transcribe here and there a loose paper; and, though the rest of the copy was lost before it carne to the Oxford library, on which account there is not the same authority for the Glossary’s being genuine of the letter R; yet it is not likely, that sir William had any more share in these last letters of the alphabet, than he had in any of the rest. There was a third edition in 1687, illustrated with commentaries, and much enlarged. In 1627, sir Henry compiled a history of the civil affairs of the kingdom, from the conquest to Magna Charta, taken from the best historians, and generally in their own words. This was printed by Wilkins at the end of his edition of the Saxon laws. His next great work was his “Collection of the Councils, Decrees, Laws, and Constitutions of the English church from 1066 to 1531.” In this he was particularly encouraged by the archbishops Abbot, Laud, and especially Usher. The deceased bishop Andrews had suggested this scheme to Dr. Matthew Wren, who had made some progress, but desisted when he heard that sir Henry Spelman was engaged in the same design. Archbishop Abbot lived to see some part of the copy, and greatly approved of it. He branched his undertaking into three parts, assigning an entire volume to each division: I. “From the first plantation of Christianity to the coming in of the Conqueror in 1066.” 2. “From the Norman conquest to the casting off the pope’s supremacy, and the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII.” 3. “The History of the Reformed English Church, from Henry VIII. to his own time.” The volume, which contained the first of these heads, was published in 1639, about two years befoiv death, with his own annotations upon the more difficult places. The second volume of the “Councils,” was put into the hands of sir William Dugdale, by the direction of Sheldon and Hyde. Sir William made considerable additions to it ont of the archbishop’s registers and the Cottonian library; and it was published in 1664, but with abundance of faults, occasioned by the negligence of either the copier, or corrector, or both. His revival of Saxon literature was of great importance to the study of antiquities. He had found the excellent use oi" that language in the whole course of his studies, and much lamented the neglect of it both at home and abroad; which was so very general, that he did not then know one man in the world, who perfectly understood it. This induced him to found a Saxon lecture in the university of Cambridge, allowing lOl. per annum to Mr. Abraham Wheelocke, presenting him to the vicarage of Middleton in the county of Norfolk, and giving him likewise the profits of the impropriate rectory of the same church; both which were intended by him to be settled in perpetuity as an endowment of that lecture: but sir Henry and his eldest son dying in the compass of two years, the civil wars breaking forth, and their estate being sequestered, the family became incapable of accomplishing his design.

After sir John’s death, his father’s papers came into the hands of his son-in-law, sir Ralph Whitfield. In 1647, the rev. Jeremiau Stevens, who had assisted sir Henry in preparing the first volume of the “Councils,” printed from sir Henry’s Mss. a work entitled “Sir Henry Spelman’s larger Treatise concerning Tithes,” &c. in which the author shews the danger of changing tythes for any other kind of' maintenance, as of a pecuniary stipend, which the alteration in the value of money might affect. He observes, that any change of the laws, which have existed above a thousand years, and of a right settled by common law, will produce wany mischiefs, especially to the crown, in the payment of tenths and first-fruits; and he proves the propriety of this kind of support above all others, from this circumstance, that it puts the clergy on the same tooting with the people, feeing equally gainers or losers according to the prices in times of plenty and scarcity.

In 1656, a volume was published, entitled “Villare Anglicum; or a view of the towns of England, collected by the appointment, at the charge, and for the use, of that learned antiquary sir Henry Spelman.” Bishop NicolsbH thinks this wasjointly composed by sir Henry and Mr. Dodsworth. In 1663, Mr. Stevens, before mentioned, who appears to have been particularly entrusted with such of sir Henry’s Mss. as might be thought fit for the press, began to print his “History of Sacrilege,” a very singular attempt under the existing government, for as sir Hemy makes the alienation of church property by our former monarchs to be sacrilege, his arguments must have had a very powerful effect on those who had now overturned the whole property and constitution of the church. Accordingly we are told that the printing was interrupted until the fire of London, and then the whole was destroyed in that calamity. Gibson, however, published it afterwards from the manuscript copy given by bishop Barlow to the Bodleian library.

Among the manuscripts left by sir Henry, was “A Scheme of the Abbreviations, and such other obsolete forms of writing as occur in our ancient Mss. to facilitate the reading of ancient books and records.” Of this we have a transcript, purchased at Mr. Cough’s sale, entitled “Archaismus Graphicus ab Henrico Spelman, in usum filiorum conscriptus.” There were likewise found among his Mss. “A Discourse on the ancient Government of England in general,” “Of Parliaments in particular” and “A Catalogue of the places and dwellings of the archbishops and bishops of this realm, now or of former times, in which their several owners have ordinary jurisdiction, as of a parcel of their diocese, though they be situate within the precinct of another bishop’s diocese.” This appears to have been drawn up in the reign of James I. for the use of the archbishop of Canterbury. Some of these, and his other miscellaneous tracts, were published by Mr. Gibson, afterwards bishop of London, first as “The English Works of sir Henry Spelman,” to which, in 1698, he added “The Posthumous Works,” and both collections were reprinted in one vol. fol. in 1723. Some correspondence between Spelman and Wheelocke is among the Harleian Mss. No. 7041.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

1747. Of this work of acknowledged taste and learning“, Mr. Gray has been thought to speak too contemptuously in his Letters. His chief objection is, that the author has illustrated his subject from the Roman, and not from the Greek poets; that is, that he has not performed what he never undertook; nay, what he expressly did not undertake. A third edition appeared in folio in 1774, and the abridgment of it by N. Tindal has been frequently printed in 8vo. There is a pamphlet with Spence’s name to it in ms. as the author, called” Plain Matter of Fact, or, a short review of the reigns of our Popish Princes since the Reformation; in order to shew what we are to expect if another shouKl happen to reign over us. Part I.“1748, 12mo. He was installed prebendary of the seventh stall at Durham, May 24, 1754; and published in that year” An account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy at Edinburgh,“8vo, which was afterwards prefixed to his poems. The prose pieces which he printed in” The Museum“he collected and published, with some others, in a pamphlet called” Moralities, by sir Harry Beaumont,“1753. Under that name he published,” Crito, or a Dialogue on Beauty,“and” A particular account of the emperor of China’s Gardens, near Pekin, in a letter from F. Attiret, a French missionary now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris;“both in 1752, Hvo, and both reprinted in Dodsley’s” Fugitive Pieces.“He wrote” An Epistle from a Swiss officer to his friend at Rome,“first printed in” The Museum,“and since in the third volume of” Dodsley’s Collection.“The several copies published under his name in the Oxford Verses are preserved by iNichols, in the” Select Collection,“1781. In 175S he published” A Parallel, in the manner of Plutarch, between a most celebrated Man of Florence (Magliabecchi), and one scarce ever heard of in England (Robert Hill, the Hebrew Taylor),“12mo, printed at Strawberry Hill. In the same year he took a tour into Scotland, which is well described in an affectionate letter to Mr. Shenstone, the collection of several letters published by Mr. Hull in 1778. In 17c3 he communicate i to Dr. Wartun several excellent remarks on Virgil, which he had made when he wasbroad, and some few of Mr. Pope’s. West Finchale Priory (the scene of the holy Godric’s miracles and austerities, who, from an itinerant merchant, turned hermit, and wore out three suits of iron cloaths), was now become Mr. Spence’s retreat, being part of his prebendal estate. In 1764 he was well pourtrayed by Mr. James Ridley, in his admirable” Tales of the G nil,“under the name of” Pbesoi Ecnep> (his name rrad backwar l>) iervise of the groves,“and a panegyrical letter from nim to that ingenious moralist, under the same signature, is inserted i-i 4k Lexers of Emi'-eni Persons,” vol. III. p. 139. In 1764 he paid the last kind office to the remains of his friend Mr. Dodsley, who died on a visit to him at Durham. He closed his literary labours with “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil with some other classical observations; by the late Mr. Holdsworth. Published, with several notes and additional remarks, by Mr. Speutv,” 4to. This volume, of which the greater part was printed off in 1767, was published in February 1768; and on the iiOth of August following, Mr. Spence was unfortunately drowned in a caiidl in his garden at Byrieet in Surrey. Being, when the accident inppened, quite alone, it could only be conjectured in what manner it happened but it was generally supposed to have been occasioned by a fit while he was standing near the brink of the water. He was found flat upon his face, at the edge, where the water was too shallow to cover his head, or any part of his body. He was interred at Byfleet church, where is a marble tablet inscribed to his memory. The duke of Newcastle possesses some ms volumes of anecdotes of eminent writers, collected by Mr. Spence, who in his lifetime communicated to Dr. Warton as many of them as related to Pope; and, by permission of the noble owner, Dr. Johnson has made many extracts from them in his “Lives of the English Poets.” These have lately been announced for publication. Mr. Spence’s Explanation of an antique marble at Ciandon place, Surrey, is in “Gent. Mag.” 1772, p. 176 “Mr. Spence’s character,” says a gentleman who bad seen this memoir before it was transplanted into the present work, " is properly delineated and his Polymetis is justl vindicated from the petty criticisms of the; fastidious Gray *. In Dr. Johnson’s masterly preface to Dry den,

About a month after being elected master of Corpus, he was preferred by the king to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, in 1672 to a prebend of Ely, and in 1677 to the deanery of that church. In 1669 he published a Latin dissertation concerning Urim and Thummim, reprinted in 1670, In 1683 iie resigned the rectory of Landbeach in favour of his kinsman, William vSpencer, A. M. fellow of the collage; and 1685 published at Cambridge, in 2 vols. folio, his celebrated work, “De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus et etiruiu rationibus libri tres.” His professe<i view in explaining the reasons of the Mosaic ritual, was to vindicate the ways of God to men, and clear the Deity, as he tells in his preface, from arbitrary and fantastic humour; with which some, not discerning these reasons, had been ready to charge him, and thence had fallen into unbelief. But this attempt very much displeased all those, who think the divinity of any doctrine or institution weakened, in prOTportion as it is proved to be rational; and one great objection to it, even among some who are not irrationalists, is, the learned author’s having advanced, that many rites and cen monies of the Jewish nation are deduced from the practices of their heathen and idolatrous neighbours. This position uuve no small offence, as greatly derogatory from the aivine institution of those rites; and many writers attacked it both at home and abroad, particularly Herman Wit>iiis 1:1 his “^gyptiaca,” sir John Marsham, Caimet, and Shi.ckford. His position has been, since their time, shortU and ably refuted in a treatise by Dr. Woodward, entitled “A Discourse on the worship of the ancient Egyptians,” communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by Dr. Lort in 1775, and more recently (1799) by the late Rev. William Jones, in his“Considerations on the religious worship of ttie Heainens.” Mr. Jones says, that Dr. Spencer, “preposterously deduced the rites of the Hebrews from therites of the Heathens; and so produced a work of learned appearance, and composed in elegant Latin, but disgraceful to Christian divinity, dishonourable to the church of England, and affording a very bad example to vain scholars who should succeed him.” Others, however, saw no ill consequences from admitting it; and the work upon the whole has been highly valued, for extensive erudition and research. The author afterwards greatly enlarged it, particularly with the addition of a fourth book; and his papers, being committed at his death to archbishop Tenison, were bequeathed by that prelate to the university of Cambridge, together with the sum of 50l. to forward the printing of them. At length Mr. Leonard Chappelow, fellow of St. John’s-college, and professor of Arabic, being deputed by the university, and offered the reward, undertook a new edition of this work, with the author’s additions and improvements; and published it at Cambridge, in 1727, in 2 vols. folio. It was also previously reprinted at the Hague in 1686, 4to and at Leipsic in 1705.

The religious meetings, or Colleges of Piety, as they were called, tended, in several instances, to inflame the people with a blind and intemperate zeal, and produced tumults, and various complaints; lill at length, in many places, severe laws were passed against the Pietists. Spener settled for a time at Dresden, and afterwards at Berlin, where be held important offices of ecclesiastical trust under the elector of Brandenburg, and where he died i.> 1705, aged severity. He was a man of eloquence and piety; and certainly far from intending to produce dissentions and schisms. His pious works were published in the German language; but he wrote some in Latin on genealogy and heraldry; such as “Opus heraldicum” “Theatrum nobilitati.-” “Sylloge historico-gen^alogica,” &c. His son, James Charles Spener, wrote a “Historia Germanica universalis et pragmatica,” 2 vols. 8vo, and “Notitia Germaniæ antiquæ,” 1717, 4to, both works of authority. He died in 1730.

, 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.

After the publication of the “Faerie Queene,” Spenser returned to Ireland. During his absence in the succeeding year, the fame he had now obtained, induced his bookseller to collect and print his smaller pieces, one of which only is said to have been a republication. The title of this collection is, “Complaints, containing sundrie small Poemes of the World’s Vanitie, viz. 1. The Ruines of Time. 2. The Teares of the Muses. 3. Virgil’s Gnat. 4. Prosopopoia, or Mother Hubberd’s Tale. 5. The Ruines of Rome, by Bellay. 6. Muiopotinos, or the Tale of the Butterflie. 7. Visions of the World’s Vanitie. 8. Bellaye’s Visions, 9. Petrarche’s Visions.”

It is conjectured that in the same year appeared his “Amoretti,” or “Sonnets,” in which the poet gives the progress of his addresses to a less obdurate lady than Rosalind, and whom he afterwards married, if the “Epithalamion,” published along with the “Sonnets,” is allowed to refer to that event. Mr. Todd deduces from various passages that his mistress’s name was Elizabeth, and that the marriage took place in Ireland, on St. Barnabas’ day, 1594. Other biographers seem to be of opinion that he had lost a first wife, and that the courtship of a second inspired “Amoretti.” Where we have no other evidence than the expression of a man’s feelings, and that man a poet of excursive imagination, the balance of probabilities may be equal. Spenser was now at the age of forty-one, somewhat too late for the ardour of youthful passion, so feelingly given in his sonnets; but on the other hand, if he had a first wife, we have no account of her, and the children he left are universally acknowledged to have been by the wife he now married.

It is necessary, however, in this place, to notice a question which has been started, and contested with much eagerness by Spenser’s biographers and critics, namely, whether any part of the “Faerie Queene” has been lost, or whether the author did not leave the work unfinished as we now have it. Sir James Ware informs us that the poet finished the latter part of the “Faerie Queene” in Ireland, “which was soone after unfortunately lost by the disorder and abuse of his servants, whom he had sent before him into England.” The authority of sir James Ware, who lived so near Spenser’s time, and gave this account in 1633, seems entitled to credit, but it has been opposed by Fenton, who thinks, with Dryden, that “upon sir Philip Sidney’s death, Spenser was deprived both of the means and spirit to accomplish his design,” and treats sir James Ware’s account as a hearsay or a fiction. Dr. Birch, on the other hand, contends that the event of sir Philip Sidney’s death was not sufficient to have prevented Spenser from finishing his poem, since he actually gave the world six books of it after his patron’s death. The author of Spenser’s life in the “Biographia Britannica,” after gaining some advantage over Dr. Birch’s inferences from incorrect dates, argues against the probability of a manuscript of the last six books, principally from the shortness of the poet’s life after the year 1596. The late Dr. Farmer is of the same opinion, but appears perhaps somewhat too hasty in asserting that the question may be effectually answered by a single quotation. The quotation is from Brown’s “Britannia’s Pastorals,” 1616, and merely amounts to this—that Spenser died

There are some circumstances respecting Spenser’s death which have been variously represented. Mr. Todd, from unquestionable evidence, has fixed the day, January 16, 1598-9, and the place, an inn or lodging-house in King-­street, Westminster; the time therefore which elapsed from his arrival in England to his death, was very short. But it has been asserted that he died in extreme poverty, which, considering how recently he was in England, and how highly favoured by the queen only a month before he was compelled to leave Ireland, seems wholly incredible. The only foundation for the report appears to be an expression of Camden intimating that he returned to England poor, which surely might be true without affording any reason to suppose that he remained poor. His pension of fifty pounds, no inconsiderable sum in his days, continued to be paid; and why he should have lost his superior friends at a time when he was a sufferer in the cause of government, is a question which may be asked without the risk of a satisfactory answer. The whining of some contemporary poets affords no proof of the fact, and may be rejected as authority; but the reception Mr. YVarton has given to the report of Spenser’s poverty is entitled to higher regard. It might indeed be considered as decisive, if Mr. Todd’s more successful researches did not prove that he founds all his arguments upon the mistaken supposition that Spenser died in Ireland. Nor will Mr. Warton’s agree with the lamentations of the poets, for they represent Spenser as poor by the neglect of his friends and country; and Mr Warton, as dying amidst the desolations of rebellion.

Spenser’s remains were interred in Westminster Abbey, near those of Chaucer, and the funeral expenses defrayed by the earl of Essex, a nobleman very erroneous in political life, but too much a friend to literature to have allowed Spenser to starve, and afterwards insult his remains by a sumptuous funeral. His monument, however, which has been attributed to the munificence of Essex, was erected by Anne, countess of Dorset, about thirty years after Spenser’s death. Stone was the workman, and had forty pounds for it. That at present in Westminster Abbey was erected or restored in 1778.

It does not appear what became of Spenser’s wife and children. Two sons are said to have survived him, Sylvanus and Peregrine. Sylvanus married Ellen Nangle, or Nagle, eldest daughter of David Nangle of Moneanymy in the county of Cork, by whom he had two sons, Edmund and William Spenser. His other son, Peregrine, also married and had a son, Hugolin, who, after the restoration of Charles II. was replaced by the court of claims in as much of the lands as could be found to have been his ancestor’s. Hugolin, however, attached himself to the cause of James II. and after the Revolution was outlawed for treason and rebellion. Some time after, his cousin William, son of Svlvanus, became a suitor for the forfeited property, and recovered it by the interest of Mr. Montague, afterwards earl of Halifax, who was then at the head of the Treasury. He had been introduced to. Mr. Montague by Congreve, who, with others, was desirous of honouring the descendant of so great a poet. Dr. Birch describes him as a man somewhat advanced in years, but unable to give any account of the works of his ancestor which are wanting. The family has been since very imperfectly traced.

, an eminent nonjuving divine, was the son of the rev. Edward, or Edmund Spinckes, rector of Castor, Northamptonshire, and was born there in 1653 or 1654. His father came from New Kngland with Dr. Patrick, afterwards bishop of Ely, and, being a nonconformist, had been ejected from Castor and from Overton Longviil in Huntingdonshire. His mother, Martha, was daughter of Thomas Elmes, of Lilford in Huntingdonshire. After being initiated in classical learning under Mr. Samuel Morton, rector of Haddon, he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, under Mr. Bainbrigg, March 22, 1670; and matriculated on July 9, the same year. In the following year, by the death of his father, he obtained a plentiful fortune, and a valuable library; and, on the 12th of October, 1672, tempted by the prospect of a Rustat scholarship, he entered himself of Jesus- college, where, in nine days, he was admitted a probationer, and May 20, 1673, sworn a scholar on the Iiustat foundation. “This,” Mr. T. Baker observes in the registers, “was for his honour; for the scholars of that foundation undergo a very strict examination, and afterwards are probationers for a year. And as these scholarships are the best, so the scholars are commonly the best in college, and so reputed.” He became B. A. early in 1674; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; was M. A. in 1677; and admitted into priest’s orders Dec. 22, 1678. After residing some time in Devonshire, as chaplain to sir Richard Edgcomb, he removed to Petersham, where, in 1681, he was associated with Dr. Hickes, as chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. On the duke’s death, in 1683, he removed to St. Stephen’s Waibrook, London, where he continued two years, curate and lecturer. In 1685 the dean and chapter of Peterborough conferred on him the rectory of Peakirk or Peaking cum Glynton, in Northamptonshire, where he married Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Rutland, citizen of London. On July 21, 1687, he was made a prebendary of Salisbury; in the same year, Sept. 24, instituted to the rectory of St. Mary, in that town; and three days after, was licensed to preach at Stratford subter Castrum, or Mid en -castle, in Wilts, for which he had an annual stipend of 80l. Being decided in his attachment to the Stuart family, he was deprived of all his preferments in 1690, for refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary. He was, after this period, in low circumstances, but was supported by the benefactions of the more wealthy ftonjurors; and on the third of June, 1713, he was consecrated one of their bishops, receiving that title from the hands of Dr. Hickes. He died July 28, 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of the parish of St. Faith, on the north side of St. Paul’s, London, where an inscription is engraven on a white marble stone. By his wife, who lived but seven days after him, he had many children, of whom two survived their parents: William Spinckes, esq. who, by industry and abilities, acquired a plentiful fortune; and Anne, married to Anthony Cope, esq. Mr. Nelson was the particular friend of Mr. Spinckes, who was a proficient in the Greek, Saxon, and French languages, and had made some progress in the oriental. He is said to have been “low of stature, venerable of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was orthodox in the faith: his enemies being judges. He had uncommon learning and superior judgment; and his exemplary life was concluded with a happy death. His patience was great; his self-denial greater; his charity still greater; though his temper seemed his cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution and grace), having never been observed to fail him in a stage of thirty-nine years.”. He assisted in the publication of Grabe’s Septuagint, Newcourt’s Repertorium, Howell’s Canons, Potter’s Clemens Alexandrinus, and Walker’s “Sufferings of the Clergy.” His own works were chiefly controversial, as, 1. An answer to “The Essay towards a proposal for Catholic Communion, &c.” 1705. 2. “The new Pretenders to Prophecy re-examined, &c.” 1710. 3. Two pamphlets against HoadJy’s “Measures of Submission,” 1711 and 1712. 4. Two pamphlets on “The Case stated between the church of Rome and the church of England,” as to supremacy, 1714 and 1718. 5. Two pamphlets against “Restoring the prayers and directions of Edward Vlth’s Liturgy,” 1718, &c. &c. His most popular work was “The Sick Man visited, &c.” 1712. A portrait of him, by Vertue, from a painting by Wollaston, is prefixed to this work, of which a sixth edition was published in 1775, containing a short account of his life, and an accurate list of his publications.

, an atheistical philosopher, was the son of a merchant, who was originally a Portuguese; and was born at Amsterdam about 1633. He learned Latin of a physician, who taught it at Amsterdam; and who is supposed to have been but loose in the principles of religion. He also studied divinity for many years; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to philosophy. He was a Jew by birth; but soon began to dislike the doctrine of the Rabbins; and discovered this dislike to the synagogue. It is said that the Jews offered to tolerate him, provided he would comply outwardly with their ceremonies, and even promised him a yearly pension, being unwilling to lose a man who was capable of doing such credit to their profession; but he could not comply, and by degrees left their synagogue; and was excommunicated. Afterwards he professed to be a Christian, and not only went himself to the churches of the Calvin i>t., or Lutherans, but likewise frequently exhorted others to go, and greatly recommended some particular preachers. His tirst apostacy was to Mennonism, on embracing which, he exchanged his original name, Baruch, for that of Benedict. He removed from Amsterdam, whither he had gone to avoid the Jews, to the Hague, where he subsisted as an optical-instrument-maker, and led a frugal and retired life, the leisure of which he devoted to study. While known only as a deserter from Judaism, he was invited by the elector Palatine to fill the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg; but from an apprehension that his liberty would, in that situation, be abridged, he declined the proposal. He lived in retirement, with great sobriety and decency of manners, till a consumption brought him to an early end, in 1677.

Spinoza, in his life-time, published “Tractatus theologico-politicus,” “A Treatise theological and political,” which was reckoned his great work; and after his death were published five treatises: 1. Ethics demonstrated geometrically. 2. Politics. 3. On the Improvement of the Understanding. 4. Epistles and Answers. 5. A Hebrew Grammar. The impieties contained in these treatises excited general indignation; and refutations were sent forth from various quarters, by writers of all religious persuasions, in which the empty sophisms, the equivocal definitions, the false reasonings, and all the absurdities of the writings of Spinoza are fully exposed. The sum of his doctrine, according to Brucker, is this: The essence of substance, is to exist. There is in naaire only one substance, with two modifications, thought and extension. This substance is infinitely diversified, having within its own essence the necessary causes of the changes through which it passes. No substance can be supposed‘ td’ produce or create another; therefore, besides the substance of the universe there can be no other, but all things are comprehended in it, and are modes of this substance, either thinking or extended. This one universal substance, Spinoza calls God, and ascribes to it divine attributes. He expressly asserts, that God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things. His doctrine is, therefore, not to be confounded with that of those ancient philosophers, who held God to be To Trar, “The Universal Whole;” lor, according to them, the visible and intellectual worlds are produced by emanation from the eternal fountain of divinity; that is, by an expanding, or unfolding, of the divine nature, which was the effect of intelligence and design; whereas, in the system of Spinoza, all things are immanent, and necessary modifications of one universal substance, which, to conceal his atheism, he calls God. Nor can Spinozism be with any propriety derived, as some have imagined, from the Cartesian philosophy; for, in that system, two distinct substances are supposed; and the existence of Deity is a fundamental principle.

, a learned Lutheran divine, descended from a grandfather who had been ennobled by the emperor Ferdinand II. was born Sept. 11, 1639. His father dying when he was about seven years of age, the care of him devolved on a mother whose affection repaired that loss. In 1654 he began his academical studies at Leipsic, and was honoured with the degree of M. A. in 1658. He afterwards, as was much the custom in those days with men destined for literarylife, visited other eminent schools or colleges, at Wittemberg, Leyden, Cologne, Mentz, &c. and lastly Basil, where he formed a friendship with John Buxtorf. He had not quite completed his intended excursions, when in 1661 he was recalled to Augsburgh, to be deacon of the church of St. James. This office he filled until 1682, when he was made pastor of the same church, and iti 1690 was appointed elder. This, however, he did not long enjoy, as he died Jan. 7, 1691, in the fifty-second year of his age. He was a laborious student, and seems particularly to have studied literary history and biography, and his works on these subjects are noticed with respect by Morhoff, whose opinion, we confess, we are inclined to prefer to that of either Moreri or Baillet. He wrote some few books against infidelity, and some sermons: but among those of the classes we have mentioned, are, 1. “De re literaria Sinensinm commentarius,” Leyden, 16*60, 12mo. 2. “Sacra Bibliothecarum illustrium arcana retecta, sive Mss. theologicorum, in præcipuis Europie bibliothecis extantium de^signatio cum preliminari dissertatione, speciniine Uovib Bibliotbecae un'iversalis, et coronide philologica,” Augsburgh, 1668, 8vo. 3. “Templum honoris reseratum, in quo quinquagVnta illustrium hujus at-vi orthodoxorum theologarum, pbilologorumque imagines exhibentur,” ibid. 1673, 4to. It has beeu objected to these lives, which are accompanied with weltengraven portraits, that the author deals too much in generalities, and too little in facts; but this was a common fault with the early biographers. On the other hand, we have found him very correct in what he has given, and particularly in the lists of the works of the respective authors. 4. “Felix Litteratus,” ibid. 1673, “Infelix Litteratus,” ibid. 1630, and “Litteratus felicissimus,” are three works which Spizelius wrote on a subject that has lately engaged theingeniouspen of Mr. D'Israeli, in the “Calamities of Authors.” Mr. D‘Israeli blames our author’s ponderosity, but allows that he is not to be condemned because he is verbose and heavy; and he has reflected more deeply than Valerianus, his predecessor on the subject, by opening the moral causes of those calamities which he describes. Spizelius wrote a life of himself under the title of; ’ Ad Litteratos homines autor felicis, infelicis, felicissimique litterati de seipso.“We know not whether this was printed separately, but it was inserted in Pipping’s collection, entitled” Sacer decadum Septenarius memoriam Theologorum nostrae setatis renovatam exhibens," Leipsic, 1705, 8vo, a work which we have not seen.

, a learned Frenchman, was the son of a merchant, and born at Lyons Dec. 25, 1609. He. was sent early to learn Latin, at Ulm in Germany, whence- his grandfather had removed for the sake of settling in commerce, and he made a proficiency suitable to his uncommon parts. He gained some reputation by a Latin poem on the deluge and last conflagration, composed by him at fourteen, which Bayle says would have done honour to an adult. At his return from Germany, he was sent to Paris; and studied philosophy under Rodon, and mathematics and astronomy under John Baptist Morin. From 1627, he applied himself to medicine for three or four years; and quitting Paris in 1632, went to Montpellier, where he was . received a doctor in that faculty. Two years after, he was admitted a member of the college of physic at Lyons: at which place be practised with great success in his profession, till the time of his death. He was made, in 1645, a kind of honorary physician to the king. He maintained a correspondence with all the learned of Europe, and especially with Guy Patin, professor of physic at Paris: above 150 of whose letters to Spon were published after his death. He was perfectly skilled in the Greek language, and understood the German as well as his own. He always cultivated his talent for Latin poetry, and even versified the aphorisms of Hippocrates, but did not publish them. He published, however, in 1661, the prognostics of Hippocrates in hexameter verse, which he entitled “Sibylla Medica;” and dedicated them to his friend Guy Patin. He was a benefactor to the republic of letters, by occasioning many productions of less opulent authors to be published at Lyons, under his inspection and care. He died Feb. 21, 16S4, after an illness of about two months.

, son of the preceding, was born at Lyons in 1647. After an education of great care, he was admitted doctor of physic at Montpellier in 1667, and a member of the college of physicians at Lyons in 1669. These two years he spent at Strasburg with Boeder; and there becoming very intimate with Charles Patin, he contracted, probably from that gentleman, a strong passion for antiquities. Some time after, Vaillant, the king’s antiquary, passing through Lyons to Italy in quest of medals and other antiquities, Spon accompanied him. He afterwards, in 1675 amj 1676, made a voyage to Dalmatia, Greece, and the Levant, in company with Mr. (afterwards sir) George Wheler (see Wheler); of all which places he has given us an account, which was published in English. Whether he was weak by constitution, or injured his health in this voyage, does not appear; but he afterwards became a valetudinarian. Being of the reformed religion, he was obliged to emigrate in 1685, when the edict of Nantes was revoked. He intended to retire to Zurich, the freedom of which city had been bestowed in an honorary manner upon his father, and was upon the road thither; but wintering at Vevay, a town upon the lake Leman, he died there in 1686. He was a member of the academy of the Ricovrati at Padua; of that of the Beaux Esprits, esublishevi Nismes by letters patent in 1682 and he would have b; an ornament to any society, being a man of great learnir, and integrity.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family in that country. His grandfather was killed in the battle of Floddon-field with his king, James IV.* He was born in 1565; and the writer of his life telU us, as something very important, that among the rest r were present at his birth, “not ordinary gossipers,” says he, “but women of good note,” there was one who, in a sober, though prophetic fit, taking the child in her arms, called aloud to the rest in these or the like terms, “You may all very well rejoice at the birth of this child-, for he will become the prop and pillar of this church, and the main and chief instrument in defending it.” He shewed from his childhood a very ready wit, great spirit, and a good memory; and, being educated in the university of Glasgow, arrived so early to perfection, that he received his degree in his sixteenth year. Having made himself a thorough master of profane learning, he applied himself to sacred; and became so distinguished in it, that at eighteen he was thought fit to succeed his father, who was minister of Calder.

openly, he went to England, and was or emolument. He died Dec.5, \5%^.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1636, at Tallaton in Devonshire, the son of a clergyman; and having been educated, as he tells of himself, not at Westminster or Eton, but at a little school by the church-yard side, became a commoner of Wadham college, in Oxford, in 1651; and, being chosen scholar next year, proceeded through the usual academical course, and in 1657 became M. A. He obtained a fellowship, and commenced poet. In 1659, his poem on the death of Oliver was published, with those of Dryden and Waller. In his dedication to Dr. Wilkins he appears a very willing and liberal encomiast, both of the living and the dead. He implores his patron’s excuse of his verses, both as falling so “infinitely below the full and sublime genius of that excellent poet who made this way of writing free of our nation,” and being “so little equal and proportioned to the renown of the prince on whom they were written; such great actions and lives deserving to be the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies.” He proceeds “Having so long experienced your care and indulgence, and been formed, as it were, by your own hands, not to entitle you to any thing which my meanness produces, would be not only injustice but sacrilege.” He published the same year a poem on the “Plague of Athens;” a subject recommended to him doubtless by the great success of Lucretius in describing the same event. To these he added afterwards a poem on Cowley’s death. After the Restoration he took orders, and by Cowley’s recommendation was made chaplain to the witty and profligate duke of Buckingham, whom he is said to have helped in writing “The Rehearsal,” and who is said to have submitted all his works to his perusal . He was likewise chaplain to the king. As he was the favourite of Wilkins, at whose house began those philosophical conferences and inquiries which in time produced the royal society, he was consequently engaged in the same studies, and became one of the fellows and when, after their incorporation, something seemed necessary to reconcile the public to the new institution, he undertook to write its history, which he published in 1667. This is one of the few books which selection of sentiment and elegance of diction have been able to preserve, though written upon a subject flux and transitory *. The “History of the Royal Society” is now read, not with the wish to know what they were then doing, but how their transactions are exhibited by Sprat. They have certainly been since exhibited far better by Dr. Birch, and more recently by Dr. Thomson. In the next year he published “Observations on Sorbiere’s Voyage into England, in a letter to Mr. Wren.” This is a work not ill performed; but was rewarded with at least its full proportion of praise. In 1668 he published Cowley’s Latin poems, and prefixed in Latin the life of the author, which he afterwards amplified, and placed before Cowley’s English works, which were by will committed to his care. Ecclesiastical dignities now fell fast upon him. In 166S he became a prebendary of Westminster, and had afterwords the church o*f St. Margaret, adjoining to the abbey. He was in 1680 made canon of Windsor, in 1683 dean of Westminster, and in 1684 bishop of Rochester. The court having thus a claim to his diligence and gratitude, he was required to write the “History of the Rye-house Plot;” and in 1685 published “A true account and declaration of the horrid Conspiracy against the late King, his present Majesty, and the present Government;” a performance which he thought convenient, after the revolution, to ex­* This work was attacked by Mr. ing betwixt H. and Dr. Merret;"

gends no histories: or a specimen of in the History of the Royal Society, as

entitled " Cainpanella revived, or an Whereunto is acMed the letter of a

royal society, and an apology against More relating unto Henry Sttibbe, physome of their cavils. With- a post- sician at Warwick.“script concerning the quarrel dependtenuate and excuse. The same year, being clerk of the closet to the king, he was made dean of the chapel-royal; and the year afterwards received the last proof of his master’s confidence, by being appointed one of the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs. On the critical day, when the Declaration distinguished the true sons of the church of England, he stood neuter, and permitted it to be read at Westminster, but pressed none to violate his conscience; and, when the bishop of London was brought before them, gave his voice in his favour. Thus far he suffered interest or obedience to carry him; but farther he refused to go. When he found that the powers of the ecclesiastical commission were to be exercised against those who had refused the Declaration, he wrote to the lords, and other commissioners, a formal profession of his unwillingness to exercise that authority any longer, and withdrew himself from them. After they had read his letter, they adjourned for six months, and scarcely ever met afterwards. When king James was frighted away, and a new government was to be settled, Sprat was otxe of those who considered, in a conference, the great question, whether the crown was vacant, and manfully spoke in favour of his old master. He complied, however, with the new establishment, and was left unmolested; but, in 1692, a strange attack was made upon him by one Robert Young and Stephen Blackhead, both men convicted of infamous crimes, and both, when the scheme was laul, prisoners in Newgate. These men drew up an Association, in which they whose names were subscribed, declared their resolution to restore king James; to seize the princess of Orange, dead or alive; and to be ready with thirty thousand men to meet kingJam.es when he should land. To this they put the name of Sancroft, Sprat, Marlborough, Salisbury, and others. The copy of Dr. Sprat’s name was obtained by a fictitious request, to which an answer” in his own hand“was desired. His hand was copied so well, that he confessed it might have deceived himself. Blackhead, who had carried the letter, being sent again with a plausible message, was very curious to see the house, and particularly importunate to be let into the study; where, as is supposed, he designed to leave the Association. This, however, was denied him, and he dropt it in a flower-pot in the parlour. Young now laid an information before the privy-council; an.d May 7, 16.92, the bishop was arrested, and kept at a 01 essenger’s, under a strict guard, eleven days. His house was searched, and directions were given that the flower-pots should he inspected. The messengers, however, missed the room in which the paper was left. Blackhead went therefore a third time; and, rinding his paper where he had left it, brought it away. The bishop, having been enlarged, was, on June the 10th and I 3th, examined again before the privy-council, and confronted with his accusers. Young persisted with the most obdurate impudence, against the strongest evidence; but the resolution of Blackhead bydegrees gave way. There remained at last no doubt of the bishop’s innocence, who, with great prudence and diligence, traced the progress, and detected the characters of the two informers, and published an account of his own examination and deliverance; which made such an impression upon him, that he commemorated it through lii'e by a yearly day or thanksgiving. With what hope, or what interest, the villains had contrived an accusation which they must know themselves utterly unable to prove, was never discovered. After this, the bishop passed his days in the quiet exercise of his function. When the cause of Sacheverell put the public in commotion, he honestly appeared among the friends of the church. He lived to his seventyninth year, and died May 20, 1713. Burnet is not very favourable to his memory; but he and Burnet were old rivals. On some public occasion they both preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days an indecent custom: when the preacher touched any favourite topic in a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the like animating hum but he stretched out his hand to the congregation, and cried,” Peacf, peace, I pray you, pet;ci -.“” This,“says Dr. Johnson,” I was told in my youth by an old man, who had been no careless observer of the passages of those times.“”Burnet’s sermon,“says Salmon,” was remarkable for sedition, and Sprat’s for loyalty. Burnet had the thanks of the house; Sprat had no thanks, but a good living from the King; which,“he said,” was of as much value as the thanks of the Commons.“Sprat was much admired in his day for the elegance of his prose style, but that is not to be measured by the standard of modern times. In his political sentiments he changed so often, and so easily accommodated himself to the varied circumstances of the times in which he lived, that the praise of consistency cannot be given. Yet we have seen that on some occasions he stood almost alone in vindication of conduct which did him honour. The works of Sprat, besides his few poems, are, 2.” The History of the Royal Society.“3.” The Life of Cowley.“4.” The Answer to Sorbiere.“5.” The History of the Rye-house Plot.“6.” The relation of his own Examination.“And, 7. a volume of” Sermons.“Dr. Johnson says,” I have heard it observed, with great justness, that every book is of a different kind, and that each has its distinct and characteristical excellence.“In his poems he considered Cowley as a model; and supposed that as he was imitated, perfection was approached. Nothing therefore but Pindaric liberty was to be expected. There is in his few productions no want of such conceits as he thought excellent; and of those our judgment may be settled by the first that appears in his praise of Cromwell, where he says that Cromwell’s” fame, like man, will grow white as it grows old.“According to Spence, in his Anecdotes, Pope used to call Sprat” a worse Cowley."

* In this character, from an iin- ter’s (or the o!<l lady’s) steward." His

“Dr. Squirt, apothecary toAhni Ma- man of Angola.” 1750 he was presented by archbishop Herring to the rectory of St. Anne, Westminster (then vacant by the death of Dr. Felling), being his grace’s option on the see of London, and for which he resigned his living of Topsfield in favour of a relation of the archbishop. Soon after, Dr. Squire was presented by the king to the vicarage of Greenwich in Kent; and, on the establishment of the household of the prince of Wales (his present majesty), he was appointed his royal highness’s clerk of the closet. In 1760 he was presented to the deanry of Bristol; and on the fast day of Feb. 13, 1761, preached a sermon before the House of Commons; which appeared of course in print. In that year (on the death of Dr. Ellis) he was advanced to the bishopric of St. David’s, the revenues of which were considerably advanced by him. He died, after a short illness, occasioned by his anxiety concerning the health of one of his sons, May 6, 1766. As a parish minister, even after his advancement to the mitre, he was most conscientiously diligent in the duties of his function; and as a prelate, in his frequent visits to his see (though he held it but five years), he sought out and promoted the friendless and deserving, in preference, frequently, to powerful recommendations, and exercised the hospitality of a Christian bishop. In private life, as a parent, husband, friend, and master, no man was more beloved, or more lamented. He was a fellow of the royal and antiquary societies, and a constant attendant upon both. He married one of the daughters of Mrs. Ardesoif, a widow lady of fortune (his parishioner), in Soho Square. Some verses to tier *' on making a pinbasket,“by Dr. (afterwards sir James) Marriott, are in the fourth volume of Dodsley’s collection. By her the bishop left two sons and a daughter, but she did not long survive him. A sermon, entitled” Mutual Knowledge in a future State," &c. was dedicated to her, with a just eulogium on his patron, by the unfortunate Dr. Dodd *, in 1766. Besides several single sermons on public occasions, bishop

nock,“expressive of gr it tudc- *.> hi; Adv.mc'd and snr.e,” fee. friendly patron. < >: p i'qiiiic, Squire published the following pieces: l. “An enquiry into the nature of the English Constitution; or, an historical essay on the Anglo-Saxon Government, both in Germany and England.” 2. “The ancient History of the Hebrews vindicated; or, remarks on the third volume of the Moral Philosopher,” under the name of F'iu-opiia.ies Cantabrigiensis, Cambridge, 1741. This, Leland says, contains many solid and ingenious remarks 3. “Two Assays, I. A defence of the ancient Greek Chronology; II. An enquiry into the origin of the Greek Language,” Cambridge, 1741. 4. “Plutarchi de Iside et Osirid, 1 liber, Graece et Anglice; Grseca recensuit, emendavit, Com.Tieni-ariis auxit, Versionem novam Anglicanam adjecit Samuel Squire, A.M. Archidiaconus Bathoniensis; acces.serunt Xylandri, Baxteri, Bentleii, Marklandi, Conjecturae et Emendationes,” Cantab. 1744. 5. “An Essay on the Balance of Civil Power in England,” 174, 8vo, which was added to the second edition of the Enquiry, &c. in 1753. 6. “Indifference for Religion inexcusable, or, a serious, impartial, and practical review of the certainty, importance, and harmony of natural and revealed Religion,” London, 1748, again in 1759, 12mo. 7. “Remarks upon Mr. Carte’s specimen of the General History of England, very proper to be read by all such as are contributors to that great work,” 1748, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of Religion made easy to young persons, in a short and familiar Catechism. Dedicated to the late Prince Frederick,” London, 1763. 9. “A Letter to the right hon. the earl of Halifax on the Peace,” 1763, 8vo, by Dr. Dodd, received great assistance from bishop Squire. He also left in ms. a Saxon Grammar compiled by himself. A just and welldrawn character of archbishop Herring, one of his early patrons, was prefixed by bishop Squire to the archbishop’s “Seven Sermons.”

, a learned and laborious divine, was born in 1680, but in what part of the kingdom, or where educated, is not knoun. Somewhat late in life he added the degree of A. M. to his name, but he does not c ccur in the lists of the Oxford or Cambridge graduates, and his right to the degree must have proceeded either from Lambeth, or some of the northern universities. He was some time minister of the English church at Amsterdam, and afterwards successively curate at Richmond, Ealmg, and Finchley, in all which places he was much respected. In 1733 he was presented to the vicarage of Benham Valence, alias Beenham, in Berkshire, where he died Oct. 11, 1752, aged seventy-two, and was buried in the parish church. A neat tablet is inscribed to his memory, intimating the support he gave to the cause or the Christian faith, and referring to his numerous works for a testimony of his merit.

The earliest of his publications, or at least the first which Brought him into notice was, l. “The miseries and great hardships of the Inferior Clergy in and about London; and a modest plea for their rights and better usage; in a letter to a right rev. prelate,” 1722, 8vo. 2. “Memoirs of' bishop Atterbury, from his birth to his banishment,” 1723, 8vo. 3. “A Funeral Sermon on the death of Dr. Brady,” 172G, 8vo. 4. “A complete body of Divinity,” 1729, folio. 5. “A fair state of the Controversy between Mr. Woolston: his adversaries containing the substance of what he asserts in his discourses against the literal sense of our blessed Saviour’s miracles; and what Bp. Gibson, Bp. Chandler, Bp. Smalbroke, Bp. Sherlock, Dr. Pearce, Mr. Ray, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Chandler, &c. have advanced against him,” 1730, 8vo. This, which Leland calls a <' clear account,“is not a mere; compilation, but shows the author intimately acquainted with the controversy, and fully able to strengthen the cause for which Woolston was opposed. As this work was soon out of print, he incorporated its principal contents in a larger volume, entitled, 6.” A Defence of the Christian Religion from the several objections or' Antiscripturists,“&c. 1731, 8vo. 7.” Reflections on the nature and property of Languages,“1731, 8vo. 8.” The Book-binder, Book-printer, and Book-seller confuted, or the Author’s vindication of himself from the calumnies in a paper industriously dispersed by one Edition. Together with some Observations on the History of the Bible, as it is at present published by the said Ediin. By the rev. Mr. Stackhouse, curate of Finchley,“17.'J2, 8vo. This v scarce pamphlet, of which but one copy is known (now in the curious collection of James Bindley, esq.) relates to a squabble Mr. Stackhouse had with Ediin (who appears to have been a mercenary bookseller of the lower order, and a petty tyrant over his poor authors), respecting Mr. Stackhouse’s” History of the Bible.“Stackhouse, however, engaged afterwards with more reputable men, and produced, 9. his” New History of the Bible, from the beginning of the world to the establishment of Christianity,“1732, 2 vols. folio. This has always been considered as a work of merit, and has been often reprinted the best edition is said to be that of 1752, of which the engravings are of a very superior cast to what are usually given in works published periodically. 10.” A Sermon on the 30th of January.“1736, 8vo. 11.” A Sermon on the Decalogue,“1743, 8vo. 12.” A new and practical Exposition oo the Creed,“1747, folio. 13.” Vana doctrinae emolumenta,“1752, 4to. This is a poem, and his last publication, in which he deplores his miserable condition in the language of disappointment and despair. Besides these, he had been, we know not at what period, the author of, 14.” An Abridgment of Burnet’s Own Times,“8vo. 15.” The art of Short- hand,“4to. 16.” A System of Practical Duties,“8vo. Long after his death, if they were not re-publications, appeared, under his name, a” Greek Grammar,“and” A general view of Ancient History, Chronology, and Geography, &c." 4to. There was a rev. Thomas Stackhouse, styled minister of St. Mary Magdalen at Bridgnorth in Shropshire, who communicated to the Royal Society som-e extracts from a topographical account of Bridgnorth (Phil. Trans, vol. XLIV.) but whether this was our author does not appear.

, a very eminent German chemist, was born in Franconia in 1660, and educated in the science of medicine, of which he was made professor in 1694, when the university of Hall was founded. His reputation, by means of his lectures, his publications, and the success of his practice, was soon very highly advanced: and in 1716 he was invited to Berlin, where he became physician to the king, and even a counsellor of state. He lived in great celebrity to the age of seventy-five, when he died, in 1734. As a chemist, Stahl was unrivalled in his day, and was the inventor of the doctrine of phlogiston, which, though it may yield to the newer theory of Lavoisier and the French chemists, was admitted by the best philosophers for nearly half a century. As a physician he bad some fancies, and was particularly remarkable for his doctrine of the absolute power of the soul over the body. He maintained that every muscular action, whether attended with consciousness or not, proceeds from a voluntary act of the mind. This theory he, as well as his folJowers, carried too far; but from it he derived many cautions of real importance to physicians, for attending to the state of the mind in every patient. His works are very numerous, but the principal of them are these, 1. “Experimenta et observationes Chemicae et Physicoe,” Berlin, 1731, 8vo. 2. “Dissertationes Medica,” Hall, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Theoria medica vera,“Hall, 1703, 4to. 4.” Opusculum chemico-physico-medicum,“Hall, 1715, 8vo. 5.” Thoughts on Sulphur,“Hall, 1718, 8vo, written in German. 6.” Negotium otiosum, seu skiamachia adversus positiones aliquas fundamentales Theorise verae Medicina?, a viro quodam celeberrimo intenta, sed enervata,“Hall, 1720, 4to. Here he chiefly defends his theory of the soul’s action on the body. 7.” Fundamenta chymiae,“Norimb. 1723, 4to. 8. A treatise in German,” On Salts,“Hall, 1723, 8vo. He was also deeply skilled in metallurgy, and wrote, 9.” Commentarium in Metallurgiam Beccheri,“1723, and 10.” Instructions on Metallurgy," in German, Leipsic, 1720, 8vo.

James, earl Stanhope, was, as a politician, possessed of great abilities, integrity, and disinterestedness; as a military man, he was thought to possess the duke of Mariborough’s talents, without his weaknesses. In private life he was very amiable. He is said to have been learned, and a curious inquirer into ancient history. About 1718 or 1719, he sent a set of queries to the abbe Vertot, respecting the constitution of the Roman senate, which the abbe answered, and both the letter and the answer were published in 1721, and long after animadverted upon by Mr. Hooke in the collection of treatises he published on that subject in 1758.

, fourth earl of Chesterfield, was born in London, on the 22d of September 1694. He was the son of Philip third earl of Chesterfield by his wife lady Elizabeth Savile, daughter of George marquis of Halifax. He received his first instructions from private tutors, under the care of his grandmother, lady Halifax and, at the age of eighteen, was sent to Trinity- hall, Cambridge. $ere he studied assiduously, and became, according to his own account, an absolute pedant. “When I talked my best,” he says, “I talked Horace; when I aimed at being facetious, I quoted Martial; and when I had a mind to be a fine gentleman, I talked Ovid. I was convinced that none but the ancients had common sense; that the classics contained every thing that was either necessary, or useful, or ornamental to men: and I was not without thoughts of wearing the toga virilis of the Romans, instead of the vulgar and illiberal dress of the moderns.” He was, however, only two years exposed to this danger, for in the spring of 1714, lord Stanhope left the university for the tour of Europe, but without a governor. He passed the summer of that year at the Hague, among friends who quickly laughed him out of his scholastic habits, but taught him one far more disgraceful and pernicious, as he himself laments, which was that of gaming. Still his leading object was that of becoming an eminent statesman, and of this, among all his dissipations, he never lost sight. From the Hague he went to Paris, where, he informs us, he received his final polish, under the tuition of the belles of that place.

On the llth of January, 1745, he was again sent ambassador and plenipotentiary to Holland, and succeeded in the purposes of his embassy, beyond the hopes of those who had employed him. He took his leave of the statesgeneral eight days after the battle of Fontenoy, and hastened to his office of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to which he had been nominated before he went to Holland. That he filled this difficult office at a very critical time, with the greatest dignity and ability, is well known, and few viceroys have succeeded so completely in conciliating the esteem and confidence of the Irish nation. He left it, however, in April 1746. His services there and in Holland had succeeded in removing the prejudices of the king, at whose express desire he accepted the place of principal secretary of state in November the same year, and returned no more to Ireland. He retired from this office on the 6th. of January 1748, even more to the regret of the king, whom he had conciliated by his manners as well as his services, than he had entered at first into administration. He was, however, determined to the step, by finding that he could not carry measures in the cabinet, which appeared to him of the highest political importance. His health also had greatly declined, he was troubled by frequent attacks of vertigo, and appears from this time to have determined to preserve himself free from the fatigues of office. His retirement was amused and dignified by literature and other elegant pursuits; and the chief part of his miscellaneous works bear date after this period. Deafness corning upon him, in addition to his other complaints, he did not often take an active part in the business of the House of Lords, but in the debates concerning the alteration of the style, which took place in February 1751, he distinguished himself by an eloquent speech in favour of the measure. Of this he speaks with modesty in one of his letters to his son. Every one complimented him, and said that he had made the whole very clear to them, “when, God knows,” says he, “I had not even attempted it. I could as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well. Lord Macclesfield,” he adds, “who had the greatest share in forming the bill, and is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterwards with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of; but as his words, his periods, and his utterance were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me.”

When Stanley had finished this work, which was when in his thirtieth year, he undertook to publish “Æschylus,” the most obscure and intricate of all the Greek poets; and after employing much pains in restoring his text and illustrating his meaning, produced an accurate and beautiful edition of that author, under the title of “Æschyli Tragrediae Septem, &c. Versione et Commentario Thorn ae JStanleii,” 1663 and 1664, two dates, but the same edition, folio. Dedicated to sir Henry Puckering Newton, baronet. The merits of this celebrated edition are sufficiently known. Morhoff, Fabricius, and Harles, have all stated its excellencies; and the labours of every preceding commentator, the fragments of the lost dramas, with the entire Greek scholia, are embodied in it. De Bure observes, that when Pauw gave out his proposals for printing an edition of Æschylus, the work of Stanley sunk in value but when Pauw’s edition actually appeared, the learned were disappointed, and Stanley’s edition rose in price and value. Good copies are now very rare. Besides these monuments of his learning, which are published, there were many other proofs of his unwearied application, remaining in manuscript after his death, in the library of More, bishop of Ely, and now in the public library at Cambridge; namely, his large “Commentaries on JEschylus,” in 8 vols. folio; his “Adversaria, or Miscellaneous Remarks,” on several passages in Sophocles, Euripides, Callimachus, Hesychius, Juvenal, Persius, and other authors of antiquity ' Copious Prelections on Theophrastus’s Characters;“and” A Critical Essay on the First-fruits and Tenths of the Spoil,", said in the epistle to the Hebrews to be given by Abraham to Melchisedeck.

, an historian, poet, and divine of the sixteenth century, was born in Dublii^ probably about 1545 or 1546. His father James Stanyhurst was a lawyer, recorder of Dublin, and speaker of the House of Commons in several parliaments. He published; in Latin, “Piae Orationes” “Ad Corsagiensem Decanum Epistoke,” and three speeches, in English, which he delivered as speaker, at the beginning of the parliaments of the 3d and 4th Philip and Mary, and the 2d and llth of Elizabeth. He died Dec. 27, 1573, leaving two sons, Walter and Richard. Of Walter our only information is, that he translated “Innocentins de contemptu Mundi.”

Richard had some classical education at Dublin, under Peter White, a celebrated school-master, whence he was sent to Oxford in 1563, and admitted of University-college. After taking one degree in arts, he left Oxford, and undertook the study of the law with diligence, first at FurnivaPsnn, and then at Lincoln’s-inn, where he resided for some time. He then returned to Ireland, married, and turned Roman Catholic. Removing afterwards to the continent, he is said by A. Wood to have become famous for his learning in France, and the Low Countries. Losing his wife, while he was abroad, he entered into orders, and was made chaplain, at Brussels, to Albert archduke of Austria, who was then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. At this place he died in 1618, being universally esteemed as an excellent scholar in the learned languages, a good divine, philosopher, historian, and poet. He kept up a constant correspondence with Usher, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, who was his sister’s son. They were allied, says Dodd, “in their studies as well as blood; being both very curious in searching after the writings of the primitive ages. But their reading had not the same effect. The uncle became a catholic, and took no small pains to bring over the nephew.” Stanyhurst published several works, tke first of which was written when he had been only two years at Oxford, and published about five years after. Ic was a learned commentary on Porphyry, and raised the greatest expectations of his powers, being mentioned with particular praise, as the work of so young a man, by Edmund Campion, the Jesuit, then a siudent of St. John’seollege. It is entitled “Harmonia, seu catena dialectics in Porphyrium,” Lond. 1570, folio. 2. “De rebus in Hibernia gestis, lib, iv.” Antwerp, 1584, 4to. According t*v Keating, this work abounds, not only in errors, but misrepresentations, which Stanyhurst afterwards acknowledged. 3. “Descriptio Hiberniac,” inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle. 4. “De vita S. Patricii, Hiberniae Apostoli, lib. ii.” Antw. 1587, 12mo. 5. “Hebdotnada Mariana,” Antw. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Hebdomacla Euclmristiea,” Douay, 1614, 8vo. 7. “Brevis prsemonitio pro futura concertatione cum Jacobo Usserio,” Douay, 1615, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of the Catholic Religion.” 9. “The four first books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English Hexameters,” 1583, small 8vo, black letter. To these are subjoined the four first Psalms the first in English Iambics, though he confesses, that “the lambical quantitie relisheth somwhat unsavorly in our language, being, in truth, not al togeather the toothsomest in the Latine.” The second is in elegiac verse, or English hexameter or pentameter. The third is a short specimen of the asclepiac verse; thus “Lord, my dirye foes, why do they multiply.” The fourth is in sapphics, with a prayer to the Trinity in the same measure. Then follow, “certayne poetical conceites,” in Latin and English: and after these some epitaphs. The English throughout is in Roman measures. The preface, in which he assigns his reasons for translating after Phaer, is a curious specimen of quaintness and pedantry. Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, seems not to have attended to these reasons, such as they are; but thus speaks of the attempt of Stanyhurst: “After the associated labours of Phaier end Twyne, it is hard to say what could induce Robert [Richard] Stanyhurst, a native of Dublin, to translate the four first books of the Æneid into English hexameters, which he printed at London, in 15S3, and dedicated to his brother Peter Plunket, the learned baron of Dusanay [Dunsanye], in Ireland. Stanyhurst was at that time living at Leyden, having left England for some time, on account of the [his] change of religion. In the choice of his measure he is more unfortunate than his predecessors, and in other respects succeeded worse. Thomas Naishe, in his Apology of Pierce Pennilesse, printed in 1593, observes, that * jltany hurst, the otherwise learned, trod a foul, lumbring, boistrcus, wallowing measure, in his translation of Virgil. He had never been praised by Gabriel Harvey for his labour, it therein he had not been so famously absurd.' Harvey, Spenser’s friend, was one of the chief patrons, if not the inventor of the English hexameter here used by Stanyhurst.” His translation, opens thus:

, founder of Exeter college, and of Hart-hall, Oxford, was so named from Stapledon t: in the parish of Cookberry, the ancient residence of the family. Prince thinks he was born at Annery, in the parish of Monklegh, near Great Torrington, in Devonshire. All we have of his history begins with his advancement to the bishopric in 1307. He is said to have been of “great parentage,” and his installation was graced by ceremonies of magnificent solemnity. On his arrival at Exeter, he alighted from his horse at Eastgate, and walked on foot, the or nnd being smoothed and covered with black cloth,

All the steps of his political life were marked with honours. He was chosen one of the privy-council to Edward II. appointed lord treasurer, and employed in embassies, and other weighty affairs of state, in which his abilities and integrity would have been acknowledged, had he not lived in a period of remarkable turbulence and injustice. In 1325 he accompanied the queen to France in order to negociate a peace, but her intentions to depose her husband were no longer to be concealed, and the bishop, whose integrity her machinations could not corrupt, continued to attach himself to the cause of his unfortunate sovereign, and fell an early sacrifice to popular fury. In 1326 he was appointed guardian of the city of London during the king’s absence in the west, and while he was taking measures to preserve the loyalty of the metropolis, the populace attacked him, Oct. 15, as he was walking the streets, and beheaded him near the north door of St. Paul’s, together with sir Richard Stapledon, his brother. Godwin informs us that they buried the bishop in a heap of sand at the back of his house, without Temple-l>ar. Walsingham says they threw it into the river; but the former account seems most consistent with popular malevolence and contempt. Exeter house was founded by him as a town residence for the bishops of the diocese, and is said to have been very magnificent. It was afterwards alienated from the see, and by a change of owners, became first Leicester, and then Essex house, a name which the scite still retains. It appears that the queen soon after ordered the body of the murdered bishop to be removed and interred, with that of his brother, in Exeter cathedral. In the 3d Edward III. 1330, a synod was held at London before Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, to make inquiry into bishop Stapledon’s death; and his murderers, and all who were any way privy or consenting to the crime, were executed. His monument, in the north aile of Exeter cathedral, was erected by the rector and fellows of Exeter college. Among the mu,niments of the dean and chapter of Exeter, there is an account of the administration of his goods, by Richard Braylegh, dean of Exeter, and one of his executors; by which it appears that he left a great many legacies to poor scholars, and several sums of money, from twenty to sixty shillings, for the repairing of bridges in the county, and towards building Pilton churc.i, &c.

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

When he was young, he fell in love with, and married a widow, daughter of Claudius Apollinaris, a musician of Naples. He describes her in his poems, as a very beautiful, learned, ingenious, and virtuous woman, and a great proficient in his own favourite study of poesy. Her society was a solace to him in his heavy hours, and her judgment of no small use in his poem, as he himself has confessed to us in his “Sylvas.” He inscribed several of his verses to her, and as a mark of his affection behaved with singular tenderness to a daughter which she had by a former husband. During his absence at Naples for the space of twenty years, she behaved with the strictest fidelity, and at length followed him, and died there. He had no children by her; and therefore adopted a son, whose death he bewails in a very pathetic manner. It appears that he sold a tragedy called “A<;ave” to Paris, already mentioned, and that what he got by this and Domitian’s bounty had set him above want. He informs us that h'e had a small country seat in Tuscany, where Alba formerly stood. With regard to his moral character, from what we can collect, he appears to have been religious almost to superstition, an affectionate husband, a loyal subject, and good citizen. Some critics, however, have not scrupled to accuse him of gross flattery to Domitian: and that he paid his court to him with a view to interest, cannot be denied, yet his advocates are willing to believe that his patron had not arrived to that pitch of wickedness and impiety at the time he wrote his poem, which he showed afterwards. Envx made no part of his composition. That he acknowledged merit, wherever he found it, his Genethliacon of Lucan, and Encomia on Virgil, bear ample testimony. He carried his reverence for the memory of the latter almost to adoration, constantly visiting his tomb, and celebrating his birthday with great solemnity. His tragedy of “Agave” excepted, we have all his works, consisting of his “Sylvae,” or miscellaneous pieces, in five books, his “Tbebaid” in twelve, and his “Achilleid” in two.

Statins, by the general verdict of modern critics, is ranked among those authors, who, by their forced conceits, violent metaphors, swelling epithets, and want of just decorum, have a strong tendency to dazzle, and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity, and nature. Dr. Warton, in his “Essay on Pope,” who trarislatec part of the “Thebaid,” has many just remarks on authors of this cast, but allows that Statius has passages of true sublimity, and had undoubtedly invention, ability, and spirit. We must not confound Publius Papinius Statius, as some have done, with another Statius, whose surname was Surculus; or, as Suetonius calls him, Ursulus. This latter was, indeed, a poet, as '.veil as the other; but he lived at Tolosa in Gaul, and taught rhetoric in the reign of Nero.

, the first of a class of writers called the British Essayists, which is peculiar to this country, was born at Dublin in 1671. Mis family, of English extraction, was genteel. His father, who was a counsellor at law, and private secretary to James, the first duke of Ormond, sent his son, then very young, to London, where he was placed in the Charter-house by the duke, who was one of the governors of that seminary. From thence he was removed to Merton college, Oxford, and admitted a postmaster in 1691. In 1695 he wrote a poem on the funeral of queen Mary, entitled the “Procession.” His inclination leading him to the army, he rode for some time privately in the guards. He became an author first, as he tells us himself, when an ensign of the guards, a way of life exposed to much irregularity; and, emg thoroughly convinced of many things, of which he often repented, and which he more often repeated, he wrote for his own private use a little book called “The Christian Hero,” with a design principally to fix upon his own mind a strong impression of virtue and religion, in opposition to a stronger propensity towards unwarrantable pleasures. This secret admonition was too weak; and therefore, in 1701, he printed the book with his name, in hopes that a standing testimony against himself, and the eyes of the world upon him in a new light, might curb his desires, and make him ashamed of understanding and seeming to feel what was virtuous, and yet of living so contrary a life. This, he tells us, had no other effect, but that, from being thought a good companion, he was soou reckoned a disagreeable fellow. One or two of his acquaintance thought fit to misuse him, and try their valour upon him; and every body, he knew, measured the least levity in his words or actions with the character of “The Christian Hero.” Thus he found himself slighted, instead of being encouraged, for his declarations as to religion; so that he thought it incumbent upon him to enliven his character. For this purpose he wrote the comedy, called u The Funeral, or Grief a- la- Mode,“which was acted in 1702; and as nothing at that time made a man more a favourite with the public than a successful play, this, with some other particulars enlarged upon to -advantage, obtained the notice of the king; and his name, to be proTided for, was, he says, in the last table-book ever worn by the glorious and immortal William the Third. He had before this obtained a captain’s commission in lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, by the interest of lord Cutts, to whom he had dedicated his” Christian Hero,“and who likewise appointed him his secretary. His next appearance as a writer, as he himself informs us, was in the office of Gazetteer; where he worked faithfully, according to order, without ever erring, he says, against the rule observed by all ministries, to keep that paper very innocent and very insipid. He received this appointment in consequence of being introduced by Addison to the acquaintance of the earls of Halifax and Sunderland. With Addison he had become acquainted at the Charter-house. His next productions were comedies;” The Tender Husband“being acted in 1703, and” The Lying Lover“in 1704. In 1709 he began” The Taller;“the first number of which was published April 12, 1709, and the last Jan. 2, 1711. This paper greatly increased his reputation and interest; and he was soon after made one of the commissioners of the Stamp-office. Upon laying down” The Tatler,“he b'egan, in concert with Addison,” The Spectator,“which began to be published March 1, 1711 after that,” The Guardian,“the first paper of which came out March 12, 1713; and then,” The Englishman,“the first number of which appeared Oct. 6, the same year. Besides these works, he wrote several political pieces, which were afterwards collected, and published under the title of” Political Writings," 1715, 12mo. Oneofthes6 will require to be mentioned particularly, because it was attended with remarkable consequences relating to himself.

Having a design to serve in the last parliament of queen Anne, he resigned his place of commissioner of the Stampoffice, in June 1713; and was chosen member for the borough of Stockbridge in Hampshire; but he did not sit long in the House of Commons, before he was expelled for writing “The Englishman,” being the close of a paper so called, and “The Crisis.” This last is one of his political writings, and the title at full length runs thus "The Crisis, or a Discourse representing, from the most authentic records, the just causes of the late happy Revolution, and the several settlements of the crown of England and Scotland on her majesty; and, on the demise of her majesty without issue, upon the most illustrious princess Sophia, electress and duchess-dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants, by previous acts

Vol. XXVIII. A A of both parliaments of the late kingdoms of England and Scotland, and confirmed by the parliament of Great-Britain. With some seasonable remarks on the danger of a popish successor.“He explains in his” Apology for himself,“the occasion of his writing this piece. He happened one day to visit Mr. William Moore of the Inner-Temple; where the discourse turning upon politics, Moore took notice of the insinuations daily thrown out, of the danger the Protestant succession was in; and concluded with saying-, that he thought Steele, from the kind reception the world gave to what he published, might be more instrumental towards curing that evil, than any private man in England. After much solicitation, Moore observed, that the evil seemed only to flow from mere inattention to the real obligations under which we lie towards the house of Hanover: if, therefore, continued he, the laws to that purpose were reprinted, together with a warm preface, and a well-urged peroration, it is not to be imagined what good effects it would have. Steele was much struck with the thought and prevailing with Moore to put the law- part of it together, he executed the rest; yet did not venture to publish it, till it had been corrected by Addison, Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and others. It was immediately attacked with great severity by Swift, in a pamphlet published in 1712, under the title of,” The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of the author of the Crisis:“but it was not till March 12, 1715, that it fell under the cognizance of the House of Commons. Then Mr. John Hungerford complained to the House of divers scandalous papers, published under the name of Mr. Steele; in which complaint he was seconded by Mr. Auditor Foley, cousin to the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Auditor Harley, the earl’s brother. Sir William Wyndham also added, that” some of Mr. Steele’s writings contained insolent, injurious reflections on the queen herself, and were dictated by the spirit of rebellion.“The next clay Mr. Auditor Harley specified some printed pamphlets published by Mr. Steele,” containing several paragraphs tending to sedition, highly reflecting upon her majesty, and arraigning her administration and government.“Some proceedings followed between this and the 18th, which was the day appointed for the hearing of Mr. Steele; and this being come, Mr. Auditor Folejr moved, that before they proceed farther, Mr. Steele should declare, whether he acknowledged the writings that bore his name? Steele declared, that he” did frankly and ingenuously own those papers to he part of his writings; that he wrote them in behalf of the house of Hanover, and owned them with the same unreservedness with which he abjured the Pretender.“Then Mr. Foley proposed, that Mr. Steele should withdraw; but it was carried, without dividing, that he should stay and make his defence. He desired, that he might be allowed to answer what was urged against him paragraph by paragraph; but his accusers insisted, and it was carried, that he should proceed to make his defence generally upon the charge against him. Steele proceeded accordingly, being assisted by his friend Addison, member for Malmsbury, who sat near him to prompt him upon occasion; and spoke for near three hours on the several heads extracted from his pamphlets. After he had withdrawn, Mr. Foley said, that,” without amusing the House with long speeches, it is evident the writings complained of were seditious and scandalous, injurious to her majesty’s government, the church and the universities;“and then called for the question. This occasioned a very warm debate, which lasted till eleven o'clock at night. The first who spoke for Steele, was Robert Walpole, esq. who was seconded by his brother Horatio Walpole, lord Finch, lord Lumley, and lord Hinchinbrook: it was resolved, however, by a majority of 245 against 152, that” a printed pamphlet, entitled l The Englishman, being the close of a paper so called,‘ and one other pamphlet, entitled * The Crisis,’ written by Richard Steele, esq. a member of this House, are scandalous and seditious libels, containing many expressions highly reflecting upon her majesty, and upon the nobility, gentry, clergy, and universities of this kingdom; maliciously insinuating, that the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover is in danger under her majesty’s administration; and tending to alienate the good affections of her majesty’s good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them:“it was resolved likewise, that Mr. Steele,” for his offence in writing and publishing the said scandalous and seditious libels, be expelled this House.“He afterwards wrote” An Apology for himself and his writings, occasioned by his expulsion,“which he dedicated to Robert Walpole, esq. This is printed among his” Political Writings/' 1715, I2i“. He had no'v nothing to do till the death of the queen, but to indulge himself svith his pen; and accordingly, in 1714, he published a treatise, entitled” The Romish Ecclesiastical History of late years.“This is nothing more than a description of some monstrous and gross popish rites, designed to hurt the cause of the Pretender, which was supposed to be gaining ground in England: and there is an appendix subjoined, consisting of particulars very well calculated for this purpose. In No. I. of the appendix, we have a list of the colleges, monasteries, and convents of men and women of several orders in the Low Countries; with the revenues which they draw from England. No. II. contains an extract of the” Taxa Cameroe,“or” Cancellariat Apostolicse,“the fees of the pope’s chancery; a book, printed by the pope’s authority, and setting forth a list of the fees paid him for absolutions, dispensations, indulgencies, faculties, and exemptions. No. 111. is a bull of the pope in 1357, given to the then king of France; by which the princes of that nation received an hereditary right to cheat the rest of mankind. No. IV. is a translation of the speech of pope Sixtus V. as it was uttered in the consistory at Rome, Sept. 2, 1589; setting forth the execrable fact of James Clement, a Jacohine friar, upon the person of Henry III. of France, to be commendable, admirable, and meritorious. No. V. is a collection of some popish tracts and positions, destructive of society and all the ends of good government. The same year, 1714, he published two papers: the first of which, called” The Lover;“appeared Feb. 25; the second,” The Reader," April 22. In the sixth number for May 3, we have an account of his design to write the history of the duke of Marlborough, from the date of the duke’s commission of captain general and plenipotentiary, to the expiration of those commissions: the materials, as he tells us, were in his custody, but the work was never executed.

, an eminent painter, was born at Leyden, in 1636, and was successively the disciple of Knufter, Brower, and Van Goyen, who had such a high opinion of him, that he thought he disposed of his daughter prudently when he gave her in marriage to Jan Steen. Jan Steen, however, was not prudent, for, although he had many opportunities of enriching himself, by other occupations as well as by his profession, he frequently was reduced, by an idle, intemperate, and dissipated course of life, to work for the subsistence of himself and his family. He had a strong manly style of painting, which might become even the design of Raphael, and he showed the greatest skill in composition, and management of light and shadow, as well as great truth in the expression and character of his figures. One of his capital pictures is a mountebank attended by a number of spectators, in which the countenances are wonderfully striking, full of humour, and uncommon variety. Houbraken mentions another remarkable picture painted by this master, representing a wedding, consisting of the old parents, the bride, the bridegroom, and a lawyer or notary. The notary is described as thoroughly engaged in attending to the words which he was to write down; the bridegroom appears in a violent agitation, as if dissatisfied with the match; and the bride seems to be in tears every character evidencing the ready and humorous invention of the artist. Houbraken also mentions a third picture, equally excellent, representing the funeral of a quaker; in which each face is distinguished by a peculiarly humorous cast of features, and the whole has a wonderful air of nature and probability. In designing his figures he preserved a proper distinction of the ranks and conditions of the persons introduced in his subject, by their forms, their attitudes, their air of expression; and in this respect appears worthy of being studied by other painters. His works did not bear an extraordinary price during his life, as he painted only when he was necessitous, and sold his pictures to answer his immediate demands. But after his death they rose amazingly in their value, and are rarely to be purchased, few paintings bearing a higher price, as well on account of their excellence as of their scarcity. He died in 1689, aged fifty-three, but Houbraken fixes his death in 1678, aged forty-two, eleven years earlier than other writers.

, a celebrated commentator on the works of Shakspeare, was the only son of George Steevens, esq. of Stepney, many years an East India captain, and afterwards a director of the East India company, who died in 1768. He was born at Stepney, May 10, 1736, and was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, about 1751 or 1752. He seems to have left the university without taking a degree, although not without accumulating a considerable degree of classical knowledge, and exhibiting that general acuteness and taste which he afterwards more fully displayed, particularly on subjects of ancient English literature. His attention, probably very early in life, was by some means attracted to the works of our great dramatic bard Shakspeare, who furnished Mr. Steevens throughout the whole of his life with constant employment. Shakspeare was the property which he thought himself bound to cultivate, improve, protect, and display to the best advantage; and it must be allowed that in illustrating this author, he stands unrivalled. His first appearance as an editor of Shakspeare was in 1766, when he was about thirty years old. At this time he published twenty of Shakspeare’s plays in 4 vols. 8vo, about a year after Dr. Johnson’s edition of the whole works had appeared. In this edition Mr. Steevens performed chiefly the office of a collator of these twenty plays with the quarto and subsequent editions; but about the same time he published, in the newspapers, and probably otherwise, a circular address, announcing his intention of an edition of all the plays with notes and illustrations. In this address, which we believe is not now generally known, he requests assistance from the public, which he says “is not desired with a lucrative view to the editor, but to engage the attention of the literary world. He will no more trust to his own single judgment in the choice of the notes he shall admit or reject, than he would undertake the work in confidence of his own abilities. These shall in their turn be subjected to other eyes and other opinions; and he has reason to hope, from such precautions, that he shall bici fairer for success than from any single reliance. He is happy to have permission, to enumerate Mr. Garrick among those who will take such a trouble on themselves; and is no less desirous to see him attempt to transmit some part of that knowledge of Shakspeare to posterity, without which, he can be his best commentator no longer than he lives.”

He then proceeds to assure those who may think proper to assist him, that their contributions shall appear with or without their names, as they shall direct; and that he will gladly pay those whose situation in life will not admit of their making presents of their labours, in such proportion as Mr. Tonson (his bookseller) shall think to be adequate to their merits. What follows is the language of a man who knew not himself, or who concealed his real character and intent, and who was at no very distant period to prove himself, unquestionably a most acute, yet at the same time a most arrogant, supercilious, and malignant critic on his fellow-labourers.

“The characters of living or dead commentators,” says Mr. Steevens in his present real or assumed humility, “shall not be wantonly traduced, and no greater freedom of language be made use of, than is necessary to convince, without any attempts to render those ridiculous, whose assertions may seem to demand a confutation. An error in a quotation, or accidental misrepresentation of a fact, shall not be treated with the severity due to a moral crime, nor as the breach of any other laws than those of literature, lest the reputation of the critic should be obtained at the expence of humanity, justice, and good manners; and by multiplying notes on notes we should be reduced at last, * to fight for a spot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause.' The ostentation of bringing in the commentaries of others, merely to declare their futility, shall be avoided; and none be introduced here, but such as tend to the illustration of the author.” He concludes with signing his name, and requesting that letters may be addressed to him at Mr. Tonson’s. About the same time he opened a kind of correspondence in the St. James’s Chronicle, then the principal literary newspaper, the object of which was to obtain hints and remarks on any passages of Shakspeare which individuals might think themselves able to illustrate. What returns were made to these applications, we know not, but it appears that he became acquainted about this time with Dr. Johnson, and in 1770 they were both employed in that edition of the whole of Shakspeare’s plays which was first called “Johnson and Steevens’s edition,” and which was published in 1773, 10 vols. 8vo. In 1778 it was again reprinted, with the same names, but entirely under the care and with the improvements of Mr. Steevens; and again in 1785, when he availed himself of the assistance of Mr. Isaac Reed, although merely as superintendant of the press. It was a work of which Mr. Steevens would never surrender the entire care to any one, and his jealousy, as an editor of Shakspeare, was the cause of those many splenetic effusions for which he has been so justly blamed, and his character disgraced. This kind of hostility, in which Mr. Steevens unfortunately delighted, was not confined to the commentators on Shakspeare. He had from the earliest period that can be remembered a disposition to display his talents for ridicule at the expence of those who were, or whom he thought, inferior to himself. He was never more gratified than when he could irritate their feelings by anonymous attacks in the public journals, which he would, in their presence, affect to lament with all the ardour of friendship. Nor was he content to amuse himself with the sufferings of those who were candidates for literary fame, a species of inhumanity in which he had some contemporaries, and has had many successors, but would even intrude into the privacies of domestic life, and has been often, we fear too justly, accused of disturbing the happiness of families, by secret written insinuations, the consequences of which he could not always know, and must therefore have enjoyed only in imagination. But as such artifices long practised could not escape detection, his character for mischievous duplicity became known, and not long after the publication of the second edition of his Shakspeare, in conjunction with Dr. Johnson, he lived, in the language of that great man, “the life of an outlaw.” He was scarcely respected even by those who tasted his bounty (for he could at times be bountiful), and was dreaded as a man of great talents and great powers both of pen and tongue, with whom nevertheless it was more dangerous to live in friendship than in hostility.

Previous to the publication of the edition of 1773, he had become acquainted with Mr. Malone, a gentleman who had either formed for himself, or had adopted from Mr. Steevens that system of criticism and illustration by which alone the text of Shakspeare could be improved, and Mr. Steevens very soon discovered that Mr. Malone might be a very useful coadjutor. A friendship too-k place which appeared so sincere on the part, of Mr. Steevens, that having formed a design of quitting the office of editor, he most liberally made a present to Mr. Malone of his valuable collection of old plays; and probably this friendly intercourse might have continued, if Mr. Malone conld have been content to be the future editor of “Johnson and Steevens’s Shakspeare,” and to have contributed his aid as the junior partner in the firm. But unfortunately for their friendship, Mr. Malone thought himself qualified to become ostensible editor, and his first offence seems to have been the publication, in 1780, of two supplementary volumes to the edition of 1778; and having entered on the same course of reading our ancient English authors, which Mr. Steevens had pursued with so much benefit in the illustration of Shakspeare, he determined to appear before the public as an editor in form. To this design Steevens alludes with characteristic humour, in a letter to Mr. Warton, dated April 16, 1783: “Whatever the vegetable spring may produce, the critical one will be prolific enough. No less than six editions of Shakspeare (including CapelTs notes, with Collins’s prolegomena) are now in the mash-tub. I have thrown up my licence. Reed is to occupy the old red lattice, and Malone intends to froth and lime at a little snug booth of his own construction. Ritson will advertise sour ale against his mild.” In this notice of Mr. Malone there is nothing very offensive but the final breach between them was occasioned by a request on the part of Mr. Steevens which cannot easily be justified. To the edition of Shakspeare, published in 1785, Mr. Malone had contributed some notes in which Mr. Steevens’s opinions were occasionally controverted. These Mr. Steevens now desired he would retain in his new edition, exactly as they stood before, that he iniirht answer them and Mr. Malone refusing what was so unreasonable (see Malone), the other declared that all communication on the subject of Shakspeare was at an end between them. Malone’s edition appeared in 1790, and Mr. Steevens’s being reprinted in 1793, 15 vols. 8vo, he at once availed himself of Mr. Malone’s labours, and took every opportunity to treat his opinions with most sarcastic contempt. This edition of 1793, however, has always been reckoned the most complete extant, and although it has been twice reprinted, with some additions which Mr. Steevens bequeathed to Mr. Reed, the demand for the 1793 is still eager with the collectors, partly, we presume, on account of its being the last which Mr. Steevens superintended; partly on account of the accuracy of the printing, in which he had the assistance of Mr. Reed and Mr. Harris, librarian of the Royal Institution; and partly because the additions to the subsequent one are not thought of sufficient value to induce the possessors to part with a monument to Mr. Steevens’s merit erected by his own hands.

In preparing this edition, it is said "he gave an instance of editorial activity and perseverance which is without example. To this work he devoted solely, and exclusively of all other attentions, a period of eighteen months; and during that time, he left his house every morning at one o'clock with the Hampstead patrole, and proceeding without any consideration of the weather or the season, called up the compositor and woke all his devils:

“At the chambers of Mr. Reed, where he was allowed to admit himself, with a sheet of the Shakspeare letter-press ready for correction, and found a room prepared to receive him, there was every book which he might wish to consult: and on Mr. Reed’s pillow he could apply, on any doubt or sudden suggestion, to a knowledge of English literature, perhaps equal to his own. This nocturnal toil greatly accelerated the printing of the work, as, while the printers slept, the editor was awake; and thus, in less than twenty months, he completed his edition.”

The latter years of his life he passed chiefly at his house at Hampstead, neither visited nor visiting. That cynic temper which he had so much indulged all his life at the expence of others, became his own tormentor in his last days; and he died without the consolations of religion or the comforts of friendship, Jan. 22, 1800. He was buried in the chapel at Poplar, where, in the north aile there is a monument to his memory by Flaxtnan, and some encomiastic verses by Mr. Hayley, the truth of which may be questioned. Let us hear, however, what has been advanced in his favour:

“Though Mr. Steevens,” says an eulogist, " is known rather as a commentator, than as an original writer, yet, when the works which he illustrated, the learning, sagacity, taste, and general knowledge which he brought to the task, and the success which crowned his labours, are considered, it would be an act of injustice to refuse him a place among the first literary characters of the age. Mr. Steevens possessed that knowledge which qualified him, in a superior degree, for the illustration of Shakspeare; and without which the utmost critical acumen would have proved abortive. He had, in short, studied the age of Shakspeare, and had employed his persevering industry in becoming acquainted with the writings, manners, and laws of that period, as well as the provincial peculiarities, whether of language or custom, which prevailed in different parts of the kingdom, but more particularly in those where Shakspeare passed the early years of his life. This store of knowledge he was continually encreasing, by the acquisition of the rare and obsolete publications of a former age, which he spared no expence to obtain; while his critical sagacity and acute observation were employed incessantly in calling forth the hidden meanings of the great dramatic bard, from their covert; and consequently enlarging the display of his beauti

“Mr. Steevens was a classical scholar of the first order. He was equally acquainted with the belles lettres of Europe. He had studied history, ancient and modern, but particularly that of his own country. He possessed a strong original genius, and an abundant wit; his imagination was of every colour, and his sentiments were enlivened with the most brilliant expressions. His colloquial powers surpassed those of other men. In argument he was uncommonly eloquent; and his eloquence was equally logical and animated. liis descriptions were so true to nature, his figures were so finely sketched, of such curious selection and so happily grouped, that he might be considered as a speaking Hogarth. He would frequently, in his sportive and almost boyish humoursj condescend to a degree of ribaldry but little above O'Keefe with him, however, it lost all its coarseness, and assumed the air of classical vivacity. He was indeed too apt to catch the ridiculous, both in characters and things, and indulge an indiscreet animation wherever he found it. He scattered his wit and his humour, hisgibes and his jeers, too freely around him, and they were not lost for want of gathering. Mr. Steevens possessed a very handsome fortune, which he managed with discretion, and was enabled by it to gratify his wishes, which he did without any regard to expence, in forming his distinguished collections of classical learning, literary antiquity, and the arts connected with it. His generosity also was equal to his fortune; and though he was not seen to give eleemosynary sixpences to sturdy beggars or sweepers of the crossings, few persons distributed bank-notes with more liberality; and some of his acts of pecuniary kindness might be named, which could only proceed from a mind adorned with the noblest sentiments of humanity. He possessed all the grace of exterior accomplishment, acquired at a period when civility and politeness were characteristics of a gentleman.”

, an eminent musical composer, was born in 1655, as the German authorities say, at Leipsic, but Handel and the Italians make him a native of Castello Franco, in the Venetian state. In his youth he was a chorister of St. Mark’s, where his voice was so much admired by a German nobleman, that, obtaining his dismission, he took him to Munich in Bavaria, and had him educated, not only in music under the celebrated Bernabei, but in literature and theology sufficient, as was there thought, for priest’s orders; in consequence of which, after ordination, he was distinguished by the title of abate, or abbot, which he retained until late in life, when he was elected bishop of Spiga. In 1671, at the age of nineteen, he published his “Psalms,” in ei^ht parts. He likewise published “Sonate a quattroStromenti,” but his chamber duets are the most celebrated of his works, and indeed, of that species of writing. In his little tract, “Delia certezza Dei principii della Musica,” he has treated the subject of musical imitation and expression, according to Martini, like a philosopher, and agreeable to mathematical principles. This work was so admired in Germany, that it was translated into the language of that country, and reprinted eight times. He composed several operas likewise between the years 1695 and 1699, for the court of Hanover, where he resided many years as maestro di capella, and these were afterwards translated into German, and performed to his music at Hamburgh. About 1724, after he had quitted the court of Hanover, where he is s;dd to have resigned his office in favour of Handel, he was elected president of the academy of ancient music at London. In 1729, he went into Italy to see his native country and relations, but returned next year to Hanover; and soon after having occasion to go to Francfort, he was seized with an indisposition, of which he died there in a few days, aged near eighty. There are, perhaps, no compositions more correct, or fugues in which the subjects are more pleasing, or answers and imitations more artful, than are to be found in the duets of StefFani, which, in a collection made for queen Caroline, and now in the possession of his majesty, amount to near one hundred.

, called The Old, was born at Steenwyck, in 1550, and was the disciple of John de Vries, who excelled in painting architecture and perspective. In imitation of the style of his master, Stenwyck chose the same subjects; but surpassed him and all his contemporaries, in the truth, neatness, transparence, and delicacy, of his pictures. His subjects were the insides of superb churches and convents, of Gothic architecture, and generally views of them by night, when they were illuminated by flambeaux, tapers, or a number of candles fixed in magnificent lustres, or sconces. He was a thorough master of the true principles of the chiaroscuro, and distributed his lights and shadows with such judgment, as to produce the most astonishing effects; but as he was not expert at designing figures, those that appear in any of his compositions were inserted by Brueghel, Van Tulden, and other eminent artists. The genuine pictures of this master, who died in 1603, aged fifty -three, are extremely scarce, and very highly prized in ev ry part of Europe.

, an able grammarian, lived at Constantinople towards the end of the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century. He composed a geographical dictionary, which comprized, not only the names of places, and those of their inhabitants, the origin of cities, population, colonies, c. but also historical, mythological, and grammatical illustrations. There remains only of this work a very indifferent extract or abridgment, made by Hermolaus, a grammarian, and dedicated by him to the emperor Justinian. A fragment, indeed, has been recovered, which contains the article Dodona and some others, enough to make us regret the loss of the entire work.