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

, a celebrated painter of Ephesus, or, according to others, of Athens, flourished in the time of Socrates, as we learn from Xenophon, who has introduced him in a dialogue, discoursing with that philosopher. He was one of the most excellent painters of his time. Pliny tells us, that it was he who first gave symmetry and just proportions in the art; that he also was the first who knew how to express the truth of character, and the different airs of the face; that he found out a beautiful disposition of the hair, and heightened the grace of the visage. It was allowed even by the masters in the art, that he bore away from all others the glory of succeeding in the outline, in which consists the grand secret of painting. But the same author observes, that Parrhasius became insupportable by his pride; and affected to wear a crown of gold upon his head, and to carry in his hand a baton, studded with nails of the same metal. It is said that, though Parrhasius was excelled by Timanthes, yet he excelled Zeuxis. Among his pictures was a celebrated one of Theseus; and another representing Meleager, Hercules, and Perseus, in a groupe together; as also Æneas, with Castor and Pollux in a third. But of him, or his pictures, the accounts handed down to us are extremely imperfect, and little to be relied on in forming a just estimate of his merit.

, an eminent grammarian in Italy, was born at Cosenza in the kingdom of Naples, in 1470. He was designed for the law, the profession of his ancestors but his inclination was to study classical literature. His family name was Giovanni Paulo Parisio; yet, according to the humour of the grammarians of that age, he adopted that under which we have classed him. He taught at Milan with great reputation, being particularly admired for a graceful delivery, which attracted many auditors to his lectures. He went to Rome during the pontificate of Alexander VI. and was like to have been involved in the misfortunes of the cardinals Bernardini Cajetan, and Silius Savello, whose estates were confiscateed, and themselves banished for conspiring to depose the pope. As it was well known that he had corresponded with these men, he took the advice of a friend, in retiring from Rome. Not long after, he was appointed public professor of rhetoric at Milan, where his superior merit drew upon him the envy of his contemporary teachers, who, by false accusations, rendered his situation so uneasy, that he was obliged to leave Milan, and retire to Vicenza, where he obtained the professorship of eloquence, with a larger salary; and he held this professorship, till the states of the Venetians were laid waste by the troops of the league of Cambray. He now withdrew to his native country, having made his escape through the army of the enemies. He was afterwards sent for by Leo X. who was before favourably inclined to him; and on his arrival at Rome, appointed him professor of polite literature. He had been now some time married to a daughter of Denietrius Chalcondylas; and he took with him to Rome Basil Chalcondylas, his wife’s brother, and brother of Demetrius Chalcondylas, professor of Greek at Milan. He did not long enjoy this employment conferred upon him by the pope: for; being worn out by his studies and labours, he became so cruelly afflicted with the gout, as to lose the use of his limbs. Poverty was added to his other sufferings; and in this unhappy state he left Rome, and returned into Calabria, his native country, where he died of a fever in 1533.

, an excellent physician and polite scholar, was born at Barnstaple, in Devonshire, in March 1705. His father, who was the youngest of nine sons of colonel Parsons, and nearly related to the baronet of that name, being appointed barrack-master at Bolton, in IreJand, removed with his family into that kingdom soon after the birth of his then only son, James, who received at Dublin the early part of his education, and, by the assistance of proper masters, laid a considerable foundation of classical and other useful learning, which enabled him to become tutor to lord Kingston. Turning his attention to the study of medicine, he went afterwards to Paris, where (to use his own words) " he followed the most eminent professors in the several schools, as Astruc, Dubois, Lemery, and others; attended the anatomical lectures of the most famous (Hunaud and Le Caf); and chemicals at the king’s garden at St. Come* He followed the physicians in both hospitals of the Hotel Dieu and La Charite, and the chemical lectures and demonstrations of Lemery and Bonlduc; and in botany, Jussieu. Having finished these studies, his professors gave him honourable attestations of his having followed them with diligence and industry, which entitled him to take the degrees of doctor and professor of the art of medicine, in any university in the dominions of France. Intending to return to England, he judged it unnecessary to take degrees in Paris, unless he had resolved to reside there; and as it was more expensive, he therefore went to the university of Rheims, in Champaign, where, by virtue of his attestations, he was immediately admitted to three examinations, as if he had finished his studies in that academy; and there was honoured with his degrees June 11, 1736. In the July following he came to London, and was first employed by Dr. James Douglas to assist him in his anatomical works, but after some time began to practise. He was elected a member of the royal society in 1740; and, after due examination, was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians, April 1, 1751.

On his arrival in London, by the recommendation of his Paris friends, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Dr. Mead, sir Hans Sloane, and Dr. James Douglas. This great anatomist made use of his assistance, not only in his anatomical preparations, but also in his representations of morbid and other appearances, a list of several of which was in the hands of his friend Dr. Maty; who had prepared an eloge on Dr. Parsons, which was never used, but which, by the favour of Mrs. Parsons, Mr. Nichols has preserved at large. Though Dr. Parsons cultivated the several branches of the profession of physic, he was principally employed in midwifery. In 1738, by the interest of his friend Dr. Douglas, he was appointed physician to the public infirmary in St. Giles’s. In 1739 he married miss Elizabeth Reynolds, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, who all died young. Dr. Parsons resided for many years in Red Lion-square, where he frequently enjoyed the company and conversation of Dr. Stukeley, bishop Lyttleton, Mr. Henry Baker, Dr. Knight, and many other of the most distinguished members of the royal and antiquarian societies, and that of arts, manufactures, and commerce; giving weekly an elegant dinner to a large but select party. He enjoyed also the literary correspondence of D'Argenville, Button, Le Cat, Beccaria, Amb. Bertrand, Valltravers, Ascanius, Turberville Needham, Dr. Garden, and others of the most distinguished rank in science. As a practitioner he was judicious, careful, honest, and remarkably humane to the poor; as a friend, obliging and communicative; cheerful and decent in conversation; severe and strict in his morals, and attentive to fill with propriety all the various duties of life. In 1769, finding his health impaired, he proposed to retire from business and from London, and with that view disposed of a considerable number of his books and fossils, and went to Bristol. But he returned soon after to his old house, and died in it after a week’s illness, on the 4th of April, 1770, much lamented by his family and friends. By his last will, dated in October 1766, he gave his whole property to Mrs. Parsons; and, in case of her death before him, to miss Mary Reynolds, her only sister, “in recompence for her affectionate attention to him and to his wife, for a long course of years, in sickness and in health.” It was his particular request that he should not be buried till some change should appear in his corpse; a request which occasioned him to be kept unburied 17 days, and even then scarce the slightest alterution was perceivable. He was buried at Hen don, in a vault which he had caused to be built on the ground purchased on the death of his son James, where his tomb had a very commendatory inscription. A portrait of Dr. Parsons, by Mr. Wilson, is now in the British Museum; another, by Wells, left in the hands of his widow, who died in 1786; with a third unfinished; and one of his son James; also a family piece, in which the same son is introduced, with the doctor and his lady, accompanied by her sister. Among many other portraits, Mrs. Parsons had some that were very fine of the illustrious Harvey, of bishop Burnet, and of Dr. John Freind; a beautiful miniature of Dr. Stukeley; some good paintings, by her husband’s own hand, particularly the rhinoceros which he described in the “Philosophical Transactions.” She possessed also his Mss. and some capital printed books; a large folio volume entitled “Figure quaedam Miscellaneae qu0e ad rem Anatomicam Historiamque Naturalem spectant quas propria adumbravit manu Jacobus Parsons, M. D. S S. R. Ant.” &c. another, called “Drawings of curious Fossils, Shells,” &c. in Dr. Parsons’s Collection, drawn by himself;" &c. &c. Mrs. Parsons professed herself ready to give, on proper application, either to the royal or antiquarian society, a portrait of her husband, and a sum of money to found a lecture to perpetuate his memory, similar to that established by his friend Mr. Henry Baker.

We shall close this article with an extract from Dr. Maty’s eulogium: “The surprising variety of branches which Dr. Parsons embraced, and the several living as well as dead languages he had a knowledge of, qualified him abundantly for the place of assistant secretary for foreign correspondences, which the council of the royal society bestowed upon him about 1750. He acquitted himself to the utmost of his power of the functions of this place, till a few years before his death, when he resigned in favour of his friend, who now gratefully pays this last tribute to his memory. Dr. Parsons joined to his academical honours those which the royal college of physicians of London bestowed upon him, by admitting him, after due examination, licentiate, on the first day of April, 1751. The diffusive spirit of our friend was only equalled by his desire of information. To both these principles he owed the intimacies which he formed with some of the greatest men of his time. The names of Folkes, Hales, Mead, Stukeley, Needham, Baker, Collinson, and Garden, may be mentioned on this occasion; and many more might be added. Weekly meetings were formed, where the earliest intelligence was received and communicated of any discovery both here and abroad; and new trials were made, to bring to the test of experience the reality or usefulness of these discoveries. Here it was that the microscopical animals found in several infusions were first produced; the propagation of several insects by section ascertained; the constancy of nature amidst these wonderful changes established. His ‘ Remains of Japhet, being historical inquiries into the affinity and origin of the European Languages,’ is a most laborious performance, tending to prove the antiquity of the first inhabitants of these islands, as being originally descended from Gomer and Magog, above 1000 years before Christ, their primitive and still subsisting language, and its affinity with some others. It cannot be denied that there is much ingenuity as well true learning in this work, which helps conviction, and often supplies the want of it. But we cannot help thinking that our friend’s warm feelings now and then mislead his judgment, and that some at least of his conjectures, rest' ing upon partial traditions, and poetical scraps of Irish filids and Welsh bards, are less satisfactory than his tables of affinity between the several northern languages, as deduced from one common stock. Literature, however, is much obliged to him for having in this, as well as in many of his other works, opened a new field of observations and discoveries. In enumerating our learned friend’s dissertations, we find ourselves at a loss whether we should follow the order of subjects, or of time; neither is it easy to account for their surprising variety and quick succession. The truth is, that his eagerness after knowledge was such, as to embrace almost with equal facility all its branches, and with equal zeal to ascertain the merit of inventions, and ascribe to their respective, and sometimes unknown, authors, the glory of the discovery. Many operations which the ancients have transmitted to us, havebeen thought fabulous, merely from our ignorance of the art by which they were performed. Thus the burning of the ships of the Romans at a considerable distance, during the siege of Syracuse, by Archimedes, would, perhaps, still continue to be exploded, had not the celebrated M. Buffon in France shewn the possibility of it, by presenting and describing a model of a speculum, or rather assemblage of mirrors, by which he could set fire at the distance of several hundred feet. Inthe contriving, indeed, though not in the executing of such an apparatus, he had in some measure been forestalled by a writer now very little known or read. This Dr. Parsons proved in a- very satisfactory manner; and he had the pleasure to find the French philosopher did not refuse to the Jesuit his share in the invention, and was not at all offended by the liberty he had taken. Another French discovery, I mean a new kind of painting fathered upon the ancients, was reduced to its real value, in a paper which shewed ouv author was possessed of a good taste for the fine arts: and I am informed that his skill in music was by no means inferior, and that his favourite amusement was the flute. Richly, it appears from these performances, did our author merit the honour of being a member of the antiquarian society, which long ago had associated him to its labours. To another society, founded upon the great principles of humanity, patriotism, and natural emulation, he undoubtedly was greatly useful. He assisted at most of their general meetings and committees and was for many years chairman to that of agriculture always equally ready to point out and to promote useful improvements, and to oppose the interested views of fraud and ignorance, so inseparable from very extensive associations. No sooner was this society formed, than Dr. Parsons became a member of it. Intimately convinced of the nobleness of its views, though from his station in life little concerned in its success, he grudged neither attendance nor expence. Neither ambitious of taking the lead, nor fond of opposition, he joined in any measure he thought right; and submitted cheerfully to the sentiments of the majority, though against his own private opinion. The just ideas he had of the dignity of our profession, as well as of the common links which ought to unite all its members, notwithstanding the differences of country, religion, or places of education, made him bear impatiently the shackles laid upon a great number of respectable practitioners; he wished, fondly wished, to see these broken; not with a view of empty honour and dangerous power, but as the only means observing mankind more effectually, checking the progress of designing men and illiterate practitioners, and diffusing through the whole body a spirit of emulation. Though by frequent disappointments he foresaw, as well as we, the little chance of a speedy redress, he nobly persisted in the attempt; and, had he lived to the final event, would undoubtedly, like Cato, still have preferred the conquered cause to that supported by the gods. Afier having tried to retire from business and from London, for the sake of his health, and having disposed of most of his books with that view, he found it inconsistent with his happiness to forsake all the advantages which a long residence in the capital, and the many connexions he had formed, had rendered habitual to him. He therefore returned to his old house, and died in it, after a short illness, April 4, 1770. The style of our friend’s compositions was sufficiently clear in description, though in argument not so close as could have been wished. Full of Lis ideas, he did not always so dispose and connect them together as to produce in the minds of his readers that conviction which was in his own. He too much despised those additional graces which command attention when joined to learning, observation, and sound reasoning. Let us hope that his example and spirit will animate all his colleagues; and that those practitioners who are in the same circumstances will be induced to join their brethren, sure to find amongst them those great blessings of life, freedom, equality, information, and friendship. As long as these great principles shall subsist in this society, and I tVust they will outlast the longest liver, there is no doubt but the members will meet with the reward honest men are ambitious of, the approbation of their conscience, the esteem of the virtuous, the remembrance of posterity.”

, an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Dedham, in Essex, in 1729. His family was ancient, and settled at Hadleigh, in Suffolk, as early as the reign of HenryV1I. where some of their descendants still reside. He lost his father when veryyoung, and owed the care of his education to his maternal uncle, the rev. Thomas Smythies, master of the grammar school at Lavenham, in Suffolk, with whom he continued till he went to Cambridge, where he was entered of Sidney Sussex college, and took his degrees there of B. A. in 1752, and M. A. in 1776. After he had taken orders he was appointed to the free school of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and remained there till 1761, when he was presented to the school and curacy of Wye by Daniel earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham. In the sedulous discharge of the twofold duties of this preferment he was engaged upwards of half a century, and was distinguished by his urbanity, diligence, and classical talents, nor was he less esteemed in his clerical character. He was also presented to the rectory of Eastwell, in 1767, by the same patron, and to the small rectory of Snave in 1776, by archbishop Cornwallis, who enhanced the value of this preferment by a very kind letter, in which his grace testified his high respect for the character and talents of the new incumbent. Mr. Parsons was the author of several publications, among which were, The nine first papers in the second volume of the “Student,” published in 1750; “On advertising for Curates;” a paper in The World; “The inefficacy of Satire, a poem,” 176G, 4to; “Newmarket, or an Essay on the Turf,” 1774, 2 vols.; “Astronomic Doubts, a pamphlet,” 1774; “A volume of Essays,” 1775; “Dialogues of the Dead with the Living,” 1782; “Simplicity,” a poem, 1784; and “Monuments and Painted Glass in upwards of 100 churches, chiefly in the eastern part of Kent,” 1794, 4to. This work, which is interspersed with judicious remarks and interesting anecdotes by the compiler, is become scarce, owing to the fire in Mr. Nichols’s premises, but is highly valuable to the antiquary and lover of such researches. Mr. Parsons also established a Sunday school at Wye; and recommended and contributed much to their establishment in the county of Kent by a sermon and some letters which he published on this occasion. The last years of his life were passed in great retirement; alternately engaged in the discharge of his ministerial functions, and in literary pursuits and correspondence, which, however, were interrupted by the loss of his sight about a year before his death, and at the same time by a very painful disorder. He bore these trials with exemplary patience and resignation. It was his frequent practice, when on his bed, and free from the more excruciating pains of his disorder, to compose moral, lively, and religious pieces, which he afterwards dictated to a faithful amanuensis, who wrote them down. He died at Wye, June 12, 1812, in the eighty-third year of his age.

, in both which ways he wrote his name, a celebrated English Jesuit, was the son of a blacksmith, at Nether Stowey, near Bridgewater in Somersetshire, where he was born in 1546; and, appearing to be a boy of extraordinary parts, was taught Latin by the vicar of the parish, who conceived a. great affection for him t, and contributed to his support at Oxford, where he was admitted of Baliol college in 1563. In the university he became so remarkable, as an acute disputant in scholastic exercises, then much in vogue, that, having taken his first degree in arts in 1568, he was the same year made probationer fellow of his college. He soon after became the most famous tutor in the society, and when he entered into orders, was made socius sacerdos, or chaplain fellow. In 1572 he proceeded M. A. was bursar that year, and the next dean of the college; but it is said that being charged by the society with incontinency, and embezzling the college-money, to avoid the shame of a formal expulsion, he was permitted, out of respect to his learning, to resign, which he did in Feb. 1574, obtaining leave to keep his chamber and pupils as long as he pleased, and to have his commons also till the ensuing Easter. These last circumstances have induced some writers to think that it was merely a change of religious principles which occasioned his resignation.

Here they hired a large house, in the name of lord Paget; and, meeting the heads of their party, communicated to them a faculty they brought from the pope, Gregory XIII. dispensing with the Romanists for obeying queen Elizabeth; notwithstanding the bull which had been published by his predecessor Pius V. absolving the queen’s subjects from their oath of allegiance, and pronouncing an anathema against all that should obey her. They then dispersed themselves into different parts of the kingdom; the mid-land counties being chosen by Parsons, that he might be near enough to London, to be ready upon all emergencies. Carnpian went into the North, where they had the least success. The harvest was greatest in Wales. Parsons travelled about the country to gentlemen’s houses, disguised either in the habit of a soldier, a gentleman, a minister, or an apparitor; and applied himself to the work with so much diligence, that, by the help of his associates, he entirely put an end to the custom, that had till then prevailed among the papists, of frequenting the protestant churches, and joining in the service. And notwithstanding the opposition made by a more moderate class of papists, who denied the pope’s deposing power, and some of whom even took the oath of allegiance, yet, if we may believe himself, he had paved the way for a general insurrection before Christmas. But all his desperate designs were defeated by the vigilance of lord Burleigh; and Campian being discovered, imprisoned, and afterwards executed, Parsons, who was then in Kent, found it necessary to revisit the continent, and went to Rouen in Normandy. He had contrived privately to print several books for the promotion of his cuuse, while he was in England: and now being more at ease, he composed others, which he likewise procured to be dispersed very liberally. In 1583, he returned to Rome, being succeeded in his office of superior to the English mission by a person named Heyward. The management of that mission, however, was left to him by Aquaviva, the general of the order; and he was appointed prefect of it in 1592. In the interim, having procured for the English seminary before mentioned, at Rome, a power of choosing an English rector in 1586, he was himself elected into that office the following year.

Thus, for instance, as Mr. Gee remarks in his introduction to the Jesuit’s memorial, Parsons treated with the duke of Guise to erect a seminary for such a purpose in Normandy; and he now prevailed with Philip II. to extend these foundations in Spain: so that in a short time they could boast not only of their seminaries at Rome and Rheims, but of those at Valladolid, Seville, and St. Lucar in Spain, at Lisbon in Portugal, and at Douay and St. Omers in Flanders. In all these, their youth were educated with the strongest prejudices against their country, and their minds formed to all the purposes that Parsons had in his head. Among other favourite objects, he obliged them to subscribe to the right of the Infanta of Spain to the crown of England, and defended this position in his “Conference about the next succession to that crown,” which went so far as to assert the lawfulness of deposing queen Elizabeth. The secular priests likewise inform us, that, after the defeat of his designs to dethrone that queen, while he stayed in England, he consulted with the duke of Guise in France upon the same subject; and endeavoured to make a list of catholics, who, under the conduct of the duke, were to change the state of England, upon pretence of supporting the title of Mary queen of Scots.

After the defeat of the armada in 1588, he used every means in his power to persuade the Spanish monarch to a second invasion; and when he failed in this, he endeavoured to raise a rebellion in England, urging the earl of Derby to appear at the head of it, who is said to have been poisoned, at his instigation, for refusing to acquiesce. Nor did he stop here. We find sir Ralph Winwood informing secretary Cecil from Paris, in 1602, of an attempt to assassinate the queen that year by another English Jesuit, at the instigation of father Parsons; and when all these plans proved abortive, he endeavoured to prevent the succession of king James by several means; one of which was, exciting the people to set up a democratic form of government, for which he had furnished them with principles in several of his books. Another was, to persuade the pope to make his kinsman the duke of Parma king of England, by joining with the lady Arabella, and marrying her to the duke’s brother, cardinal Farnese. Cardinal d'Ossat gives the king of France a large account of both these projects in one of his letters; and in another mentions a third contrivance which Parsons had communicated to him, and whose object was, that the pope, the king of France, and the king of Spain, should first appoint by common consent a successor for England, who should be a catholic; and then should form an armed confederacy to establish him on the throne.

The death of his friend cardinal Allen, however, in 1594, diverted his attention for a while from these weighty public affairs, to the objects of his private ambition. As it was chiefly by his interest, that the cardinal had obtained the purple (see Alan or Allen, William), he conceived great hopes of succeeding him in it. The dignity was worth his utmost endeavours, and he spared no pains to compass it. Among other efforts he employed some Jesuits to obtain in Flanders a petition to the king of Spain, in his favour, subscribed by great numbers of the lowest of the people, as well as those of superior rank. He applied also to that monarch by John Piragues, one of his prime confidents, but received no answer; and then went himself to Rome in 1596, under pretence of settling some disputes, that had arisen in the English college there during his absence. He had the year before been complimented, in a letter from some of the principal persons of his order there, on the assured prospect of success; and upon his arrival was visited, among others of the highest rank, by cardinal Bellarmin, who encouraged him to wait upon the pope. At this interview he entertained the pontiff with an artful account of the reports that were spread all over Flanders, and even at Rome, of his holiness’ s design to confer the purple upon him, and that the king of Spain had written to his holiness upon the occasion. Father More, who furnishes these particulars, tells us further, that Parsons made a modest speech, as usual on such occasions, intimating that he feared he was unworthy of so high an honour: but he was much mortified when the pope, Clement VIII. who was more in the secret than he supposed, assured him, that he had heard nothing from the Spaniards upon any such subject; that idle reports were not to be minded; that he was very well satisfied with his services, and exhorted him to continue in the same course. The truth appeared to be, that the pope having received many complaints of him from the secular clergy, instead of bringing him into the sacred college, had some thoughts of stripping him of the posts he already possessed. Disappointed in this attempt, and threatened with such disgrace, Parsons withdrew on pretence of health to Naples, and did not return to Rome till after the death of Clement in 1606.

The character of father Parsons was variously represented by protestants and catholics, but even the latter are not agreed. More recent writers seem little disposed to elevate it, although belonging to the same communion. Berrington, who has drawn a very impartial character, begins with asserting that “intrigue, device, stratagem, and all the crooked policy of the Machiavelian school,” are associated with the sound of his name. Dodd, the general biographer of the popish writers, is not without a considerable degree of impartiality in characterizing Parsons, but yet appears more zealous to defend him than strict impartiality admits. Parsons, however, was certainly a man of talents, and beyond comparison the best writer of his party.

His works are, 1. “A brief Discourse, containing the Reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church,” with a Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, under the fictitious name of John Howlet, dated Dec. 15, 1530. 2. “Reasons for his coming into the Mission of England, &c.” by some ascribed to Campian. 3. “A brief Censure upon two Books, written against the Reasons and Proofs.” 4.“A Discovery of John Nichols, misreported a Jesuit” all written and printed while the author was in England. 5. “A Defence of the Censure given upon his two Books, &c.” 1583. 6. “De persecutione Anglicana epistola,” Rome and Ingolstadt, 1582. 7. “A Christian Directory,” 1583. 8. “A Second Part of a Christian Directory, &c.” 1591. These two parts being printed erroneously at London, Parsons published an edition of them under this title: “A Christian Directory, guiding men to their Salvation, &c. with m.my corrections and additions by the Author himself.” This book is really an excellent one, and was afterwards put into modern English by Dr. Stanhope, dean of Canterbury; in which form it has gone through eight or ten editions. 9. “Responsio ad Eliz. Reginse edictum contra Catholicos,” Romae, 1593, under the name of And. Philopater. 10. “A Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, &c.” 1594, under the feigned name of Doleman. This piece was the production of cardinal Allen, Inglefield, and others, who furnished the materials, which Parsons, who had a happy talent this way, put into a proper method. Parsons’s style is among the best of the Elizabethan period. 11. “A temperate Wardword to the turbulent and seditious Watchword of sir Fr. Hastings, knight, 7 ' &c. 1599, under the same name. 12.” A Copy of a Letter written by a Master of Arts at Cambridge, &c.“published in 1583. This piece was commonly called” Father Parsons’s Green Coat,“being sent from abroad with the binding and leaves in that livery, but there seems reason to doubt whether this was his (see Ath. Ox. vol. II. new edit, note, p. 74). 13.” Apologetical Epistle to the Lords of her Majesty’s Privy Council, &c.“1601. 14.” Brief Apology, or Defence of the Catholic Ecclesiastical Hierarchy erected by pope Clement VIII. &c.“St. Omers, 1601. 15.” A Manifestation of the Folly and bad Spirit of secular Priests,“1602. 16.” A Decachordon often Quodlibetical Questions/' 1602. 17. “De Peregrinatione.” 18. “An Answer to O. E. whether Papists or Protestants be true Catholics,” 1603. 19. “A Treatise of the three Conversions of Paganism to the Christian Religion,” published (as are also the two following) under the name of N. D. (Nicholas Doleman), in 3 *6ls. 12mo, 1603, 1604. 20. “A Relation of a Trial made before the king of France in 1600, between the bishop of Evreux and the lord Plessis Mornay/' 1604. 21.” A Defence of the precedent Relation, &c.“22.” A Review of ten public Disputations^ &c. concerning the Sacrifices and Sacrament of the Altar,“1604. 23.” The Forerunner of Bell’s Downfall of Popery,“1605. 24.” An Answer to the fifth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, &c.“1606, 4to, published under the name of a Catholic Divine. 25.” De sacris alienis non adeundis, questiones duae,“1607. 26.” A Treatise tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Thomas Morton (afterwards bishop of Durham),“1607. 27.” The Judgment of a Catholic Gentleman concerning king James’s Apology, &c.“1608. 28.” Sober Reckoning with Thomas Morton,“1609. 29.” A Discussion of Mr. Barlow’s Answer to the Judgment of a Catholic Englishman concerning the Oath of Allegiance,“1612. This book being left not quite finished at the author’s death, was afterwards completed and published by Thomas Fitzherbert. The following are also posthumous pieces: 30.” The Liturgy of the Sacrament of the Mass,“1620. 31.” A Memorial for Reformation, &c.“thought to be the same with” The High Court and Council of the Reformation,“finished after twenty years’ labour in 1596, but not published till after Parsons’s death; and republished from a copy presented to James II. with an introduction and some animadversions by Edward Gee, under the title of,” The Jesuits Memorial for the intended Reformation of the Church of England under their first Popish Prince,“1690, 8vo. 32. There is also ascribed to him,” A Declaration of the true Causes of the great Troubles pre-supposed to be intended against the Realm of England, &c. Seen and allowed, anno 1581.“33. Parsons also translated from the English into Spanish,” A Relation of certain Martyrs in England,“printed at Madrid 1590, 8vo.Several of his Mss. are preserved in Baliol college library, particularly a curious one entitled” Epitome controversiarum, hujus temporis."

From this time he had full liberty to indulge his genius in mathematical pursuits. He understood Euclid’s Elements as soon as he cast his eyes upon them. At sixteen years of age he wrote a treatise on Conic Sections, which was accounted a great effort of genius; so much so, that Des Cartes, who had been in Holland a long time, upon, reading it, fancied that M. Pascal the father was the real author of it. At nineteen he contrived an admirable arithmetical machine, which would have done credit as an invention to any man versed in science, and, much more to such a youth.

All these experiments, however, only ascertained effects, without demonstrating the causes. Pascal knew that Torricelli conjectured that those phenomena- which he had observed were occasioned by the weight of the air, though they had formerly been attributed to Nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum: but if Torricelli’s theory were true, he reasoned that the liquor in the barometer tube ought to stand higher at the bottom of a hill, than at the top of it. In order therefore to discover the truth of this theory, he made an experiment at the top and bottom of a mountain in Auvergne, called le Puy de Dome, the result of which gave him reason to conclude that the air was indeed heavy. Of this experiment he published an account, and sent copies of it to most of the learned men in Europe. He also renewed it at the top and bottom of several high towers, as those of Notre Dame at Paris, St. Jaques de la Boucherie, &c. and always remarked the same difference in the weight of the air, at different elevations. This fully convinced him of the general pressure of the atmosphere; and from this discovery he drew many useful and important inferences. He composed also a large treatise, in which he fully explained this subject, and replied to all the objections that had been started against it. As he afterwards thought this work rather too prolix, and being fond of brevity and precision, he divided it into two small treatises, one of which he entitled “A Dissertation on the Equilibrium of Fluids;” and the other, “An Essay on the Weight of the Atmosphere.” These labours procured Pascal so much reputation, that the greatest mathematicians and philosophers of the age proposed various questions to him, and consulted him respecting such difficulties as they could not resolve. Upon one of these occasions he discovered the solution of a problem proposed by Mersenne, which had baffled the penetration of all that had attempted it. This problem was to determine the curve described in the air by the nail of a coach-wheel, while the machine is in motion; which curve was thence called a roullette, but now commonly known by the name of cycloid. Pascal offered a reward of 40 pistoles to any one who should give a satisfactory answer to it. No person having succeeded, he published his own at Paris; but, as ie began now to be disgusted with the sciences, he would not set his real name to it, but sent it abroad under that of A. d'Ettonville. This was the la’st work which he published in the mathematics; his infirmities, from a delicate constitution, though still young, now increasing so much, that he was under the necessity of renouncing severe study, and of living so recluse, that he scarcely admitted any person to see him. Another subject on which Pascal wrote very ingeniously, and in which he has been spoken of as an inventor, was what has been called his Arithmetical Triangle, being a set of figurate numbers disposed in that form. But such a table of numbers, and many properties of them, had been treated of more than a century before, by Cardan, Stifelius, and other arithmetical writers.

The works of Pascal were collected in five volumes octavo, and published at Paris in 1779. This edition of Pascal’s works may be considered as the first published; at least the greater part of thern were not before collected into one body; and some of them had remained only in manuscript. For this collection the public were indebted to the abbot Bossut, and Pascal deserved to have such an editor. “This extraordinary man,” says he, “inherited from nature all the powers of genius. He was a geometrician of the first rank, a profound reasoner, and a sublime and elegant writer. If we reflect, that in a very short life, oppressed by continual infirmities, he invented a curious arithmetical machine, the elements of the calculation of cnances, and a method of resolving various problems respecting the cycloid; that he fixed in an irrevocable manner the wavering opinions of the learned respecting the weight of the air; that he wrote one of the completest works which exist in the French language; and that in his thoughts there are passages, the depth and beauty of which are incomparablewe shall be induced to believe, that a greater genius never existed in any age or nation. All those who had occasion to frequent his company in the ordinary commerce of the world, acknowledged his superiority; but it excited no envy against him, as he was never fqnd of shewing it. His conversation instructed, without making those who heard him sensible of their own inferiority; and he was remarkably indulgent towards the faults of others. It may be easily seen by his Provincial Letters, and by some of his other works, that he was born with a great fund of humour, which his infirmities could never entirely destroy. In company, he readily indulged in that harmless and delicate raillery which never gives offence, and which greaily tends to enliven conversation; but its principal object generally was of a moral nature. For example, ridiculing those authors who say,” my book, my commentary, my history; they would do better,“added he,” to say our book, our commentary, our history; since there are in them much more of other people’s than their own."

, a celebrated Benedictine of the ninth century, was born at Soissons, and carefully educated by the monks of Notre Dame in his native city, in the exterior part of their abbey. He afterwards took the religious habit under St. Adelard in the abbey of Corbey, and daring the exile of his abbot Wala, who succeeded Adelard, wrote, about the year 831, a treatise “On the Body and Blood of Christ” for the instruction of the young monks at New Corbey in Saxony, where he teaches, that the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, which was crucified, rose again, and ascended into heaven, is really present in the Eucharist. This treatise made a great noise in the reign of Charles the Bald. Bertram (otherwise Ratram), John Scotus Erigena, and some others, wrote against Paschasius, who was then abbot of Corbey; and Frudegard, abbot of New Corbey, wrote to him on the subject about the year 864, informing him that many persons understood in a figurative sense the words “this is my Body; this is my Blood,” in the institution of the Eucharist, and supported themselves on the authority of St. Augustine. Paschasius on the other side maintained that he taught nothing in his treatise different from the faith of the church, nor from what had been universally believed from the time of the apostles; but these disputes, together with some disturbances raised against him, induced him to resign his abbey, and he died soon after, April 26, in the year 865. He was only a deacon, having declined taking priest’s orders from a principle of humility. Claude, and several other protestant writers, have asserted that Paschasius was the first who taught the doctrine of the real presence; but the popish writers maintain that this doctrine has been always believed and taught in the Romish church. His remaining works are, “Commentaries” on St. Matthew, on Psalm xliv. and on the Lamentations of Jeremiah; “The Life of St. Adelard,” and other works in the Library of the Fathers, which Father Sirmond printed separately at Paris, 1618, folio. Father d'Acheri, in torn. XII. of his “Spicilegium, has published Paschasius Ratbert’s treatise” De Partu Virginis;“another question much agitated in the ninth century. His treatise” De Corpora Christ!" has been inserted by Martenne in his collection, where it is more accurate than in P. Sirmond’s edition.

After a few weeks stay at this university, he arrived in England; and, bringing proper testimonials with him to Oxford, was incorporated M. A. there, in June 1624. Here he began to teach Hebrew and the mathematics privately, but at the end of the year took a tour into France with some gentlemen of Germany; and spending the winter at Paris, attended the lectures of Gabriel Sionita, regius professor of Syriac and Arabic: who, having left off reading in public some years for want of auditors, was prevailed upon by Pasor to resume those exercises in his own house. Having much improved himself under this excellent master, he returned to Oxford in 1625, and had chambers in Exeter college, in which he preferred residing, notwithstanding the plague had dispersed the students, rather than go to Ireland with archbishop Usher, who offered him his table and a handsome pension. As soon as the infection ceased, he had some pupils, either in divinity or the oriental tongues; and in the latter he was tutor to the celebrated Pococke. Afterwards, upon his petition, he was appointed to read public lectures in Arabic, Chaldee, and Syriac, twice a week in term time, in the divinity-school; for which he was handsomely rewarded. He held this temporary professorship for about three years from Oct. 1626, during which time he also delivered a Hebrew lecture in Now college. In 1629 he accepted an invitation to be professor of moral philosophy at Groningen; and, upon the death of Muller, the mathematical professor, six years after, Pasor succeeded to that chair; but when, in 1645, he was raised to that of divinity, of which faculty he was then created doctor, he resigned his mathematical professorship, retaining that of moral philosophy. All these favours induced him to remain at Groningen, where he died Jan. 28, 1658.

He published few books, for wbich he is said to have given two reasons: first, “Because he was not willing that youth should be diverted from reading the good books already published;” and secondly, “Because he did not care that the booksellers should risk their money.” He published, however, while at Oxford, an “Oratio pro linguæ Arabicæ professione, publice ad academicos habita in Schola Theologica universitatis Oxon. 25 Oct. 1626,” Oxon. 1627, 4to. He was also editor of those useful works which his father (who died in 1637) compiled for the use of Greek scholars, and which were at one time very popular; viz. his “Manuale GrsEcorum vocum Novi Testamenti, deque Graecis N. Testament!, accentibus.” Leyden, 1634, 12mo, often reprinted at Herborn, Amsterdam, and other places “Syllabus sive idea omnium Novi Test, dictionum, seu dialectorum,” 12mo, Amsterdam, Franeker, Francfort, &c &c. “Lexicon Graeco- Latin urn in N. Testamentum,” 8vo. There are editions of this printed at London, Amsterdam, Geneva, c. and two at least with Leusden’s improvements, Amsterdam, 1675, and Leipsic, 1695. George Pasor was nineteen years professor at Herborn, and eleven years at Franeker, where he was buried with a monumental inscription. It remains to be mentioned, that a Latin life of Mattdew Pasor was published, containing his journal, many trifling particulars in which, Bayle says, ought to have been left out. But what would have become of Bayle’s own works, particularly his Dictionary, had his editors left out what was trifling, obscene, and impious

His works show considerable knowledge of ancient history, especially that of France; and he raised no little reputation by his attacks on the Jesuits in his “Les Recherches,” which was answered by father Garasse. His animosity to that order laid him in some measure open to this antagonist, for he very readily adopted any story, ever so improbable, which he heard of them from their bitterest enemies. All his works, however, are written with elegance and humour, and he appears to have been formed by nature equally for a poet and a lawyer. His works were first printed together at Trevoux, and passed through many editions, the last in 1665. They were afterwards printed along with those of his son Nicholas, at Amsterdam, in 1723, 2 vols. fol. Of his “Letters,” the best edition is that at Paris, in 1619, in 5 vols. 8vo. His “Poe.ns” consist of one book “Of Portraits;” six books of “Epigrams;” and a book of “Epitaphs.” But in this collection is wanting his “Catechism of the Jesuits” instead of which are inserted the letters of his son Nicolas. Among his pieces in verse, “La Pure” had at one time a fashidnable reputation. It is entitled “La, Puce des grands touii de and contains several poems upon a flea which Paquier spied on the breast of the learned Catharine de Roches, in a visit to her on the extraordinary sessions at Poitiers in 1569. Such are the trifles by which a. nation is sometimes amused. He left three sons, of whom the eldest, Theodore, was advocate-general in the chamber of accounts; Nicolas, master of requests, whose” Letters" were printed in 1623, at Paris, containing several discourses upon the occurrences in France in the time of Henry IV. and Louis XIII. and Guy, who was auditor of the accounts.

Passe worked entirely with the graver, in a neat, clear style, which has much originality in it; and, excepting some little stiffness which frequently appears, and the want of harmony, with respect to the distribution of the light and shadow, a fault which prevailed at the time in which he lived, his best works possess a very considerable share of merit, especially his portraits, many of which he drew from the life; and the far greater part of his historical and emblematical subjects are engraved from his own compositions. He drew the human figure very correctly, and marked the extremities with a degree of exactness, not usually found in the works of those masters who employed themselves upon small subjects; when he attempted large ones he was not equally successful.

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

, a painter and a poet, of no great merit in either line, died at Rome in 1679, at the age of about seventy. The work which is most likely to preserve his name is his “Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, who nourished at Rome in his own time.” This book is full of curious and interesting anecdotes, and was published in Italian at Rome in 1772. Fuseli speaks of him as celebrated for his impartiality and acumen in this work. Though no great painter, he was a disciple of the famous Dominichino; and though his sonnets were bad, one of them is said very materially to have promoted his fortune.

, a learned Italian antiquary and philologer, was born at Gubio in the duchy of Urbino, in Nov. 1694. His father, who was a physician at Todi, designed him for the study of the law, which accordingly he followed, but pursued with it that of antiquities, for which he had a strong genius. After residing four years at Rome he returned to Todi, and began to collect the antiquities of that city and its environs. In 1726 he turned his attention chiefly to the Etruscan antiquities, and collected a vast number of lamps, which he arranged in classes. Having lost his wife in 1738, after twelve years of happy union, he became an ecclesiastic, and was apostolic prothonotary, and vicar-general of Pesaro. In February 1780, he was overturned in his carriage, and died in consequence of the fall. His works are, 1. “Lucernae fictiles Musei Passerii,” a splendid 4>ook in 3 vols. folio, He had drawn up a fourth, on the lamps of the Christians, but this has not been published. These came out in 1739, 1743, and 1751. 2. “Lettere Roncagliesi;” Letters from his villa at Roncaglia, on Etruscan antiquities, 1739. There were seventeen letters, and a continuation was afterwards published. 3. “In Thorns? Dempsteri Libros de Etruria regali Paralipomena, quibus tabula? eidem operi additsG illustrantur. Accedunt dissertatio de re numaria Etruscorum; de nominibus Etruscorum; et notoe in tabulas Eugabinas, auctore I. Baptista Passerio,” Lucafc, 1767, folio. 4. 4< Picturae Etruscorum in vasculis, nunc primum in unum collectae, explicationibus et dissertationibus illustrate," Romae, 1767, 3 vols. folio. 5. Many learned dissertations published in several collections; as, for example, five in the third volume of Gori’s Museum Etruscum; De Genip domestico, de Ara sepulchrali, de funeribus Etruscorum, de Velciorum familia, de Architectura Etrusca. These are all full of the most recondite learning.

, an artist of Bologna, was one of the pupils and assistants of Zuccari, and the first of Bolognese painters who introduced naked torsoes in sacred subjects. The most eminent of his altar-pieces are the Decollation of St. Paul alle Tre Fontane, at Rome, and at S. Giacomo, of Bologna, our Lady with various Saints, painted in competition with the Caracci, and honoured by their praise. His Tityus, when exhibited to the public at Bologna, was by the Dilettanti mistaken for a work of Michael Angelo. But he did not always husband his powers with equal diligence and refinement, hurried away by that frankness and facility of execution which debauched Cesari, whom he however excelled in correctness of design. In portrait, for character, dignity, and propriety of composition, he approached Titian himself, in the opinion of Guido. His power of drawing with the pen attracted Agostino Caracci to his school, who made it the guide of his line in engraving. He composed a book on symmetry and anatomy, which may be considered as a commentary on his works. He had three sons of considerable merit as artists. A sparrow, often introduced in the works of Bartholomew, is an allusion to his name. He died in 1595.

, an Italian cardinal, famous rather as a patron of letters, than as a writer, and employed by the see of Rome in many important negociations, was born at Fossombrone in the dutchy of Urbino, in 1682. He studied in the Clementine college at Rome, where he afterwards formed that vast library and curious collection of manuscripts, from which the learned world has derived so much advantage. In 1706 he attended the nuncio Gualterio, his relation, to Paris, where he formed an intimacy with the most learned men of the time, and examined every thing that deserved attention. He was particularly intimate with Mabillon, and Montfaucon. In 1708 ha went into Holland, at first for the sake of literary inquiries, but afterwards as a kind of secret agent for the pope at the Hague, where he resided four years, and attended the congress at Utrecht in 1712. On his return to Rome., he passed through Paris, where he was most graciously and honourably received by Louis XIV. who gave him his portrait set with diamonds. He then proceeded to Turin to accommodate some differences between the pope and the duke of Savoy; and upon his return to Rome was declared president of the apostolic chamber. In the two congresses at Bale in 1714, and at Soleure in 1715, he was again employed, and strongly evinced his zeal, talents, activity, prudence, and other qualities of a great negotiator. His account of this embassy was published in 1738, in folio, under the title of “Acta Legationis Helvetica,” which may be considered as a model of conduct for persons employed in such services. Upon the accession of Clement XII. he was sent as nuncio to the court of Vienna, where he pronounced the funeral oration of prince Eugene. In the pontificate of Innocent XIII. which lasted from 1721 to 1724, Passionei had been made archbishop of Ephesus; ie continued in favour with the successors of that pope, Benedict XIII. and Clement XII. the latter of whom, in 1738, raised him to the dignity of cardinal, having at the same time made him secretary of the briefs. Benedict XIV. in 1755 made him librarian of the Vatican, which he enriched by many important accessions; and in the same year he was admitted into the French academy, under the peculiar title of associ6 etranger. He died on the 15th of July, 1761, at the age of seventy-nine.

Cardinal Passionei did not write much besides the articles that have been already mentioned. He worked, indeed, with Fontanini, in revising the “Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum,” and produced a paraphrase on the nineteenth psalm, with a few more small pieces: but he was most illustrious for his enlightened knowledge of letters, and his judicious and liberal patronage of learned men and useful works; an example but too little followed in the present age. He had one of the most valuable libraries in Rome, composed of the best, the scarcest, and most remarkable books in all sciences, and in all languages, ancient and modern. He himself was the librarian, and did the honours of it in a manner the more satisfactory to the learned, as no one was more able to second and extend their views on the subjects of their researches. “In this,” says a Swedish traveller, “he was very different from the cardinals Davia, Gualterio, and Imperiali, all three also very rich in books. The first was always reading, and never wrote; the second was always writing, and never read; and the third neither read nor wrote.” Cardinal Passionei’s temper, however, was not equable, and Benedict XIV. delighted to put him in a rage, sometimes by taking away one of his books, and making him think it was lost, but more frequently, which was the greatest provocation our cardinal could receive, by introducing a work written by a Jesuit. On one occasion when the pope did this, the cardinal opened the window, and threw the book with all his force into the square of Monte Cavallo. At this instant the pope appeared, and vouchsafed him his grand benediction. It is said, that by way of answer to this benediction, a certain gesture of the cardinal’s put a stop to the pleasantry that the pope had promised himself from this scene. He most cordially hated the Jesuits; and had it depended on him, their society would have been soon dissolved. On this subject and every other on which he entered with the pope Benedict, he spoke with the firmest independence, and the pope generally found it necessary in all disputes to yield to him. Let us not forget, however, that it was this cardinal who opened the treasures of the Vatican to Dr. Kennicott, in a very handsome order signed by his name. This was at the time justly said to be an honour which no work relating to the Bible could boast of since the reformation.

, an ancient Roman historian, who flourished in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, was born in the year of Rome 735. His ancestors were illustrious for their merit and their offices. His grandfather espoused the party of Tiberius Nero, the emperor’s father; but being old and infirm, and not able to accompany Nero when he retired from Naples, he ran himself through with his sword. His father was a soldier of rank, and Paterculus was a military tribune, when Caius Caesar, a grandson of Augustus, had an interview with the king of the Parthians, in an island of the river Euphrates, in the year 753. He commanded the cavalry in Germany under Tiberius, and accompanied that prince for nine years successively in all his expeditions. He received honourable rewards from him but we do not find that he was preferred to any higher dignity than the proctorship. The praises he bestows upon Sejanus give some probability to the conjecture, that he was looked upon as a friend of this favourite; and, consequently, that he was involved in his ruin. His death is placed by Dodwell in the year 784, when he was in his fiftieth year.

, a gentleman who deserves honourable notice in the literary history of his country, was the son of a woollen-draper in the parish of St. Paul, Covent-garden, and born March 17, 1728. He lost his father when about the age of twelve years; and his guardian not only neglected him, but involved his property in his own bankruptcy, and sent him to France. Having there acquired a knowledge of foreign literature and publications beyond any persons of his age, he resolved to engage in the importation of foreign books; and, when little more than twenty years old, opened a shop in the Strand: the only person who then carried on such a trade being Paul Vaillant. Though, by the mis-conduct of some who were charged with his commissions in several parts of the continent, it proved unsuccessful to the new adventurer, he continued in business till 1753, when he published Dr. Pettingal’s “Dissertation on the original of the Equestrian Figure of the George and of the Garter.” At the same early period in which he engaged in business he hacl married Miss Hamilton, a lady of the most respectable connexions in North Britain, still younger than himself, both their ages together not making 38 years. He next commenced auctioneer in Essex-house. This period of his life tended to develope completely those extraordinary talents in bibliography (a science hitherto so little attended to) which soon brought him into the notice of the literary world. The valuable collection of Mss. belonging to the right hon. sir Julius Caesar, knt. judge of the Admiralty in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and, in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. chancellor and under-treasurer of the Exchequer, had fallen into the hands of some uninformed persons, and were on the point of being sold by weight to a cheesemonger, as waste paper, for the sum of ten pounds; some of them happened to be shewn to Mr. Paterson, who examined them, and instantly discovered their value. He then digested a masterly catalogue of the whole collection, and, distributing it in several thousands of the most singular and interesting heads, caused them to be sold by auction, which produced 356l.; and had among the purchasers the late lord Orford, and other persons of rank. These occurrences took place in 1757.

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

A man so thoroughly conversant in the history of literature could not fail to perceive that a vast number of books were held as valuable and scarce in England, which were rather common in other countries. He thought he could do his native country an essential service, and procure emolument for himself, if he should undertake a journey through some parts of the continent, and succeed in purchasing some articles of this description. With this view he set out for the continent in the year 1776, and actually bought a capital collection of books, which, on his return to England, he digested in the catalogue (the best, perhaps, of his performances) that bears the title of “Bibliotheca Universalis Selecta.” One of the most respectable booksellers of London had been his fellow-traveller in that journey; and, being informed of his design, and relying on his good sense and excellent intention, offered him his friendly assistance. He lent him a thousand pounds, to be employed in an additional purchase of books, in hopes that he might have the money returned to him when the speculation was carried into execution. Mr. Paterson, as usual, proved unsuccessful; and the generous friend, sympathising in his misfortunes, never claimed the return of his loan! Mr. Paterson’s fame had come to the ears of the late marquis of Lansdown, who requested the learned bibliographer to arrange his elegant and valuable library, to compile a detailed catalogue of his books and manuscripts, and to accept, for the purpose, the place of his librarian, with a liberal salary. Mr. Paterson accordingly entered into the office of librarian, remained in it for some years, and perhaps expected to close his life in the same station when, unfortunately, a misunderstanding took place between the noble lord and him, by which he was obliged to withdraw.

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

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

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

In one of them, dated Sept. y, 1665, he says, “I suppose you think I intend to stay here still: though I understand by your question, you would not have me. But, my friend, what am I better than another? Somebody must be here; and is it fit I should set such a value upon myself as my going away, and leaving another, will sigm'fy? For it will, in effect, be to say, that I am too good to be lost; but it is no matter if another be. Truly, I do not think myself so considerable to the world: and though my friends set a great price upon me, yet that temptation hath not yet made me of their mind: and I know their love makes me passe for more with them than I am worth. When I mention that word, love, I confess, it moves me much, and I have a great passion for them, and wish I might live to embrace them once again; but i must not take any undue courses to satisfy tins passion, which is but too strong in me. I must let reason prevaile, and stay with my charge, which I take hitherto to be my duty, whatever come. I cannot tell what good we do their souls: though I preach to those who are well, and write to those who are ill (I mean, print little papers for them, which yet are too big to send you by the post): but I am sure, while I stay here, I shall do good to their bodies; and, perhaps, save some from perishing; which I look upon as a considerable end of my continuing. My dear friend, do not take it ill, that I cannot comply with your desires in this thing: you see what sways me, and I know you will yeild to it, and say, it ought to be stronger than the love of you. If you can convince me, that I may, with a good conscience, go, you may think it will be acceptable; but I know not upon what grounds you will make it good. Try, if you have a mind.”

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

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

In the interim, in July 1672 he was made prebendary of Westminster, and dean of Peterborough in Aug. 1679. Here he completed the “History of the Church of Peterborough,” which had been compiled by Simon Gunton, who was a native and prebendary of Peterborough. Gunton died irr 1676; and Patrick published, in 1686, his manuscript in folio, with a large “Supplement,” from page 225 to 332, containing a fuller account of the abbots and bishops of Peterborough, than had been given by Gunton. In 1680, the lord-chancellor Finch offered him the living of St. Martin’s in the Fields; but he refused it, and recommended Dr. Thomas Tenison. In 1682, Dr. Lewis de Moulin, who had been history-prqfessor at Oxford, and had written much against the church of England, sent for Patrick upon his death-bed, and solemnly declared, before Dr. Burnet also, his regret upon that account; which declaration being signed, was published after his death.

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

Such is the account given of this debate by Kennet in his “Complete History of England:” bishop Burnet’s account is somewhat different. He says, “That the king desired of the earl, he would suffer himself to be instructed in religion. He answered, he was fully satisfied about his religion; but, upon the king’s pressing it that he would hear his priests, he said he desired then to have some of the English clergy present, to which the king consented; only he excepted to Tillotson and Stillingfleet. Lord Rochester said he would take those who should happen to be in waiting; for the forms of the chapel were still kept up. And Drs. Patrick and Jane were the men.” “Patrick,” adds Burnet, “told me, that at the conference there was no occasion for them to say much. The priests began the attack. And when they had done, the earl said, if they had nothing stronger to urge, he would not trouble those learned gentlemen to say any thing; for he was sure he could answer all that he had heard. And so answered all with much heat and spirit, not without some scorn, saying, Were these grounds to persuade men to change their religion? This he urged over and over again with great vehemence. The king, seeing in what temper he was, broke off the conference, charging all that were present to say nothing of it.” The king had often taken pains to gain over Patrick, sent for him, treated him kindly, desired him to abate his zeal against his church, and quietly enjoy his own religion: but the dean replied, with proper courage, “That he could not give up a religion so well proved as that of the Protestants.” Conformably to this principle, he opposed the reading of his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience; and assisted Dr. Tenison in setting up a school at St. Martin’s, in opposition to the popish one, opened at the Savoy, in order to seduce the youth of the town into popery; and this was the origin of the ward and parish schools of London. He had also a great share in the comprehension projected by archbishop SanCroft, in order to bring over the dissenters, which, it is well known, was unsuccessful.

At the Revolution in 1688, great use was made of the dean, who was very active in settling the affairs of the church: he was called upon to preach before the prince and princess of Orange; and was soon after appointed one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy. He was thought to have excellent talents for devotional composition, and his part now was to revise the collects of the whole year, in which he introduced some amendments and improvements of style. In October 1689, he was made bishop of Chichester; and employed, with others of the new bishops, to compose the disorders of the church of Ireland. In July 1691, he was translated to the see of Ely, in the room of Turner, who was deprived for refusing the oaths to government. Here he continued to perform all the offices of a good bishop, as well as a good man, which he had ever proved himself on all occasions. He died at Ely, May 31, 1707, aged eighty; and was interred in the cathedral, where a monument is erected to his memory, with an inscription said to have been written by Dr. Leng, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

This prelate was one of the most learned men as well as best writers of his time. We have noticed his principal writings, but have still to add his “Paraphrases” and Commentaries upon the Old Testament, as far as the prophets, which are the result of extensive reading, and perhaps the most useful of any ever written in the English language. They were published at various times, but reprinted in 2 vols. folio; and, with Lowth on the Prophets, Arnald on the Apocrypha, and Whitby on the New Testament, have been published, in folio, and very recently in 4to, as a regular commentary upon all the sacred books. The style of this prelate is even and easy, his compositions rational, and full of good and sound sense. Burnet ranks him among those many worthy and eminent clergymen in this nation, who deserved a high character; and were indeed au honour to the church, and to the age in which they lived.

Our prelate had a brother John Patrick, preacher at the Charter-house, according to Wharton, and one of the translators of Plutarch. Dr. Samuel Patrick, the editor of an edition of Ainsworth’s Dictionary was also at the Charterhouse, but whether a relation does not appear. Wharton also says he had a son, who wasted an estate left him by his father, and it was sold, after his death, “for debts and portions.” Mrs. Catherine Patrick, a maiden lady of eightytwo years old, said to be our prelate’s grand-daughter, died at Bury in 1792. Whiston speaks of a life of bishop Patrick, written by himself, which he had read, and which was in Dr. Knight’s hands, but where now, is not known.

, a French minor poet, was born at Caen in 1585, and being the son of a lawyer, was designed by his father for the same profession. This destination, which seldom suits a poetical imagination, was accordingly rejected by Patrix, who addicted himself entirely to poetry. About the age of forty, he attached himself to the court of Gaston, duke of Orleans, 'to whom, and to his widow, Margaret ofLorraine, he faithfully devoted his services. A Norman accent, and a certain affectation of rustic simplicity, did not prevent him from being in high favour at that little court: his wit, liveliness, and social talent, making amends for such imperfections. Towards the latter end of life, he became strongly touched with sentiments of religion, and suppressed, as far as he could, the licentious poems which he had written in his youth. He lived to the great age of eighty-eight, and died at Paris in 1672. At eighty, he had a violent illness, and when he recovered from it, his friends advised him to leave his bed; “Alas!” said he, “at my time of life, it is hardly worth while to take the trouble of dressing myself again.” He proved however mistaken, as to the shortness of his subsequent life. Of his works there are extant, 1. A collection of verses entitled “La miv-ricorde de Dieu sur un pecheur pénitent,” Blois, 1660, 4to. These were written in his age, yet possess some fire. 2. “Plaints des Consonnes qui n‘ont pas Thonneur d’entrer dans le noiu de Neufgermain,” preserved in the works of Voiture 3. Miscellaneous poems, in the collection of Barbin. The greater part of them are feeble, with the exception of a few original passages. The poem most known was made a few days before his death. It is called the Dream; and, though it is of a serious cast, a translation of it, oddly enough, possesses a place in all our English jest bokks, beginning, “I dreamt that buried in my fellow-clay,” &c. It asserts a moral and religious axiom, which is undeniable, that death levels all conditions. The original is little known; it is this:

, a platonic philosopher and man of letters, was born, in 1529, at Clissa in Illyricum, and was educated at Padua. In 1553 he began to appear as an author by some miscellaneous Italian tracts. In 1557, with the view of obtaining the patronage of the duke of Ferrara, he published a panegyrical poem on the house of Este, entitled “L'Eridano,” in a novel kind of heroic verse of thirteen syllables. After this, for several years, he passed an unsettled kind of life, in which he twice visited the isle of Cyprus, where he took up his abode for seven years, and which he finally quitted on its reduction by the Turks in 1571. He also travelled into France and Spain, and spent three years in the latter country, collecting a treasure of ancient Greek Mss. which he lost on his return to Italy. In 1578 he was invited to Ferrara by duke Alphonso II. to teach philosophy in the university of that city. Afterwards, upon the accession of Clement VIII. to the popedom, he was appointed public professor of the Platonic philosophy at Rome, an office which he held with high reputation till his death, hi 1597. He professed to unite the doctrines of Aristotle and Plato, but in reality undermined the authority of the former. He wholly deserted the obscurity of the Jewish Cabbala, and in teaching philosophy closely followed the ancient Greek writers. During his lecturing at Rome, he more openly discovered his aversion to the Aristotelian philosophy, and advised the pope to prohibit the teaching pf it in the schools, and to introduce the doctrine of Plato, as more consonant to the Christian faith. His “Discussiones Peripatetics,” a learned, perspicuous, and elegant work, fully explains the reason on which his disapprobation of the Peripatetic philosophy was founded. He was one of the first of the moderns who attentively observed the phenomena of nature, and he made use of every opportunity, that his travels afforded him, for collecting remarks concerning various points of astronomy, meteorology, and natural history. In one of his “Dialogues on Rhetoric,” he advanced, under the fiction of an Ethiopic tradition, a theory of the earth which some have thought similar to that afterwards proposed by Dr. Thomas Burnet. His other principal works were, “Nova Geometria,” 1587; “Parallels Militari,” 1594, both of which are full of whimsical theories and an elaborate edition of “Oracula Zoroastris, Hermetis Trismegisti, et aliorum ex scriptis Platonicorum collecta, Graece et Latine, prefixa Dissertation^ Historica,” 1591.

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

, an unfortunate poet, was born at Peasmarsh, in the county of Sussex, in 1706, and was the son of a farmer at that place, who rented a considerable estate of the earl of Thanet. He discovered excellent parts, with a strong propensity to learning and his father, not being in circumstances to give him a proper education, applied to his noble landlord, who took him under his protection, and placed him at Appleby school in Westmoreland. Here he became acquainted with Mr. Noble, a clergyman of great learning and fine taste, who promoted his studies and directed his taste. Upon his leaving Appleby, he went to Sidney college in Cambridge, where he pursued the plan Mr. Noble had given him, and went through the classics, as well as all our English poets, with great advantage. Of these last, Spenser’s “Fairy Queen” and Brown’s “( Britannia’s Pastorals” are said to have given him the greatest delight. He had, however, unfortunately contracted a habit of desultory reading, and had no relish for academical studies. His temper could not brook restraint; and his tutor, he thought, treated him with great rigour. A quarrel ensued; and, to avoid the scandal of expulsion, with which he was threatened, he took his name out of the college book, and went to London. Even now his friends would have forgiven him, and procured his readmission; but the pleasures of the town, the desire of being known, and his romantic expectations of meeting with 0u,e generous patron to reward his merit, rendered him deaf to all advice. He led a pleasurable life, frequented Button’s, and became acquainted with some of the most eminent wits of the time. As he had no fortune, nor any means of subsistence, but what arose from the subscriptions for the poems he proposed to publish; and, as he wanted even common prudence to manage this precarious income, he was soon involved in the deepest distress and most deplorable wretchedness. In a poem, entitled “Effigies Authons,” addressed to lord Burlington, he describes himself as destitute of friends, of money; a prey to hunger; and passing his nights on a bench in St. James’s park. In a private letter to a gentleman, he thus expressed himself: “Spare my blushes; I have not enjoyed the common necessaries of life these two days, and can hardly hold to subscribe myself,” &c. Curll, the bookseller, finding some of his compositions well received, And going through several impression>, took him into his house; and, as Pope affirms in one of his letters, starved him to death. But this does not appear to be strictly true; and his death is more justly attributed to the small-pox, which carried him off in 1727, in his 21st year. His biographer says, that he had a surprising genius, and had raised hopes in all that knew him, that he would become one of the most eminent poets of the age; but surh of his poems as we find in the collection published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1728, would not in our days be thought calculated to Support such high expectations.

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

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

, a worthy ecclesiastic of the Romish church, was born April 24, 1576, and studied at Toulouse, where he was ordained a priest in 1600. On his return to Narbonne from Marseilles, his ship was taken by the Turks, and he remained for a considerable time in slavery, under three masters, the last of whom he converted. Returning at length to France, Louis XIII. made him abbot of St. Leonard de Chaulme, and he had afterwards the care of the parish church of Clichy, which he completely repaired and furnished at his own expence. Towards the end of 1609, he went to reside in the house of Emmanuel de Goudy, as tutor to his children, but does not appear to have remained here long. He then obtained the curacy of Chatillon-les-Dombes, which he kept only five months. Compelled by the solicitations of numberless persons of the highest distinction, to return, to the Goudy family, he resigned himself wholly to his natural desire of relieving the poor and afflicted. Louis XIII. being made acquainted with his zeal, appointed him almonergeneral of the gall ies, 1619; and the following year, St. Francis de Sales, because, as he says, he “knew not a worthier priest in the church,”made him superintendant of the nuns of the visitation. On niadame de Goudy’s decease, M. Vincent retired to the college des Bon Knfans, cf which he, wasprincipal, and which he never quitted, but to perform the oftie of a missionary. Some years after, he accepted the house de St. Lazare, though with great reluctance. His life was a continued series of good works, and it is scarcely to be conceived how one man could plan so many, still less, how he could execute them. Among these were missions in all parts of France, as well as in Italy, Scotland, Barbary, Madagascar, &c. ecclesiastical conferences, at which the most eminent bishops of the kingdom were present spiritual retirements, as they were called, which were also gratuitous; an Hospital for Foundlings, for which his humane applications procured an income of 40,000 livres; the foundation of the Charitable Virgins, for the relief of sick poor; to which we may add, the hospitals de Bicetre, de la Salpetriere, de la Piti; those of Marseilles for galley-slaves; of St. Reine for pilgrims, and of le Saint Nom de Jesus, for old men, which are principally indebted to him for their establishment. In times of the greatest distress, he sent above two millions of livres into Lorraine in money and effects; nor did Picardy and Champagne experience much less of his bounty, when the scourges of heaven had reduced those provinces to the most deplorable indigence. During ten years that M. Vincent presided in the council of conscience, under Anne of Austria, he suffered none but the most worthy to be presented to benefices. Being a zealous patron of nunneries, he supported the establishment of the nuns de la Providence, de Sainte Genevieve, and de la Croix. He laboured with success for the reform of Grammorit, Premontre, and the abbey of St. Genevieve, as welt as for the establishment of the great Seminaries. Even those, who have doubted whether his talents were very extensive, have openly acknowledged that he was one of the most pious priests in the kingdom, and more useful to the poor and to the church, than most of those who are considered as great geniuses. This excellent man died loaded with years, labour, and mortifications, Sept.27,1660, aged near 85. He was canonized by Clement XII. on July 16, 1737. Those who wish to know more of St. Vincent de Paul, may consult his Life by M. Collet, 2 vols. 4to, and “PAvocat.du Diable,” 3 vols. 12mo.

, an ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century, was descended from an illustrious family of Roman senators, and born at Bourdeaux about the year 253. He was directed in his studies by the famous Ausonius; and applied himself so earnestly to the best Latin authors, that he acquired a style not unlike theirs. He was advanced afterwards to the most considerable offices of the empire. Ausonius says, that Paulinus was consul with him; but his name not being found in the Fasti Consulares, it is probable he obtained that dignity only in the room of some other person, who died in the office, and perhaps in the year 378, after the death of Valens. He married Therasia, an opulent Spar nish lady, who proved instrumental in converting him to Christianity; and he was baptized in the year 389. He dwelt four years in Spain, where he embraced voluntary poverty; selling his goods by degrees, and giving them to the poor. The inhabitants of Barcelona, where he resided, conceived such an esteem for him, that they would have him ordained a priest to which, after a long resistance, he consented, upon condition that he should not be obliged to remain in Barcelona, because his design was to withdraw to Nola. This ordination was performed in the year 393, and the next year he left Spain to go into Italy. In his way he saw St. Ambrose at Florence, who shewed him marks of respect; and was kindly received at Rome both by the quality and the people: but the clergy there growing jealous of him, he left that city quickly, and went to Nola, where he dwelt in a country-house about half a league from the town. He lived there sixteen years with his wife Therasia, in the study and exercises of a monastic life; and then, in the year 409, was chosen and ordained bishop of Nola. The beginning of his episcopate was disturbed by the incursions of the Goths, who took that city; but the assault being over, he enjoyed it peaceably to his death, which happened in the year 431.

His works consist of “Poems,” and “Letters,” and are written with much art and elegance; his manner of expression being close and clear, his words pure and well chosen, and his sentences strong and lively. All his writings are short, but pretty numerous, and composed with great care. Ausonius highly commends his poems; jet they cannot pass for perfect, especially those which he made after his conversion. He uas esteemed, beloved, and caressed by all the great men of that age, of w'hat party soever they were; and corresponded with them all, without falling out with any. He was, in truth, like Titus, the delight of his times. Milner says that he appears, through the mist of superstition, which clouds his narrative, to have been one of the best Christians of the age. He was a mirror of piety, liberality, and humility, worthy of a more intelligent age, and of more intelligent writers, than of those who have recorded his life. The first edition of his works was at Paris, in 1516, by Badius; the second at Cologne, by Grsevius: Rosweditis caused them to be printed at Antwerp, in 1622; and the last edition of them was at Paris, in 2 vols. quarto, the former of which contains his genuine works. Du Pin wishes, that “the booksellers had taken as much care to have it upon good paper, and in a fair character, as the editor did to make it correct and useful.”

, a Danish professor and physician, was born at Rostock, in the circle of Lower Saxony, April 6, 1603, and died at Copenhagen, April 25, 1680. He published some medical treatises, and in 1639 a Latin quarto, on medicinal plants, entitled Quadripartitum Botanicum; and in 1648 a thicker volume, in Danish, with wooden cuts, called “Flora Danica,” which, however, embraces the garden plants as well as the native ones, known in Denmark at the time of its publication. He wrote also against tobacco and tea, and his work was translated into English by the late Dr. James, in 1746. The most remarkable circumstance attending it is his contending, with the positiveness, usual to those who are in the wrong, that the Chinese Tea is no other than our European Myrica gale; an error which Bartholin very cautiously and repectfully corrects, in his Acta Medica, v. 4. 1, where the true tea is, not very accurately, figured. The Paullinia, in botany, is so named in honour of him, by Linnæus.

, more commonly known to the learned by his Latinized name Palmerius, was born in the territory of Auge, in 1587, th son of Julien ie Paulmier, who was a physician of eminence. He was bred a protestant, embraced a military life, and served with credit in Holland and in France. After a time, he retired to Caen, where he gave himself up entirely to the study of letters and antiquity; and was the first promoter of an academy in that city, which has since been considered as a valuable institution. He died at Caen, Oct. 1, 1670, being then eighty-three. His works are, 1. “Observationes in optimos auctores Graccos,” Lugd. Bat. 1668, 4to. 2. “Graeciaj antiquae Descriptio,” Lugd. Bat. 1678, 4to. This work contains a very learned and useful digest of what the ancients have written concerning Greece. Prefixed to jt is a life of the author, written at some length, but in a very affected style, by the editor Stephen Morinus. 3. Some poems in the Greek, Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish languages. These, however, are the worst part of his works. He versified in too many languages to be very excellent in any.

, a celebrated traveller, was the son of Nicholas Paulo, a Venetian, who went with his brother Matthew, about 1225, to Constantinople, in the reign of Baudoin. While they were on this expedition Marco was born. On their return through the deserts they arrived at the city where Kublai, grand khan of the Tartars, resided. This prince was highly entertained with the account which they gave him of the European manners and customs, and appointed them his ambassadors to the pope, in order to demand of his holiness a hundred missionaries. They accordingly came to Italy, obtained from the Roman pontiff two Dominicans, the one an Italian, and the other an Asiatic, and carried with them young Marco, for whom the Tartar prince expressed a singular affection. This youth was at an early period taught the different dialects of Tartary, and was afterwards employed in embassies which gave him the opportunity of traversing Tartary, China, and other eastern countries. After a residence of seventeen years at the court of the great khan, the three Venetians came back to their own country in 1295, with immense wealth. A short time after his return, Marco served his country at sea against the Genoese, his galley in a naval engagement was sunk, and himself taken prisoner and carried to Genoa. He remained there many years in confinement; and, as well to amuse his melancholy, as to gratify those who desired it of him, sent for his notes from Venice, and composed the history of his own and his father’s voyages in Italian, under this title, “Delle maraviglie del mondo da lui vidute,” &c. of which the first edition appeared at Venice in 1496, 8vo. This work has been translated into several foreign languages, and has been inserted in various collections. The best editions are one in Latin, published by Andrew Miiller at Cologne in 1671, and one in French, to be found in the collection of voyages published by Bergeron, at the Hague in 1735, in two vols. In the narrative there are many things not easily believed, but the greater part of his accounts has been verified by succeeding travellers. He not only gave better accounts of China than had been before received; but likewise furnished a description of Japan, of several islands of the East Indies, of Madagascar, and the coasts of Africa, so that from his work it might be easily collected that a direct passage by sea to the East Indies was not only possible, but practicable.

, a native of the island Ægina, now Engia, whence he has his name, flourished, according to Le Clerc, in the fourth century; but with more truth he is placed by Abulfaragius, who is allowed to give the best account of those times, in the seventh. It is said that he travelled over Greece and other countries to gain information respecting the medical art; and that he studied at Alexandria before it was taken and plundered by Amrour, and there copied a part of the works of Alexander Trallian, who was his favourite author. On his return from his travels he made an abridgment of the works of Galen, and wrote several treatises, which are deservedly famous. It appears that his knowledge in surgery was very great; for Fabricius ab Aquapendente, one of the best chirurgical writers, has thought fit to transcribe him in a great number of places.

Ægineta’s principal works are, 1. “Salubria de sanitate tuenda priecepta,” Argent. 1511, 8vo. 2. “De re medica libri septem,” Greek, Venice, 1528, fol. and often reprinted both in Greek, Latin, and other languages, with commentaries. 3. “De crisi et diebus criticis, eorumqufc ignis,” Basil. 1529, 8vo. He appears to have been particularly skilful in the disorders of the female sex, and is the first in antiquity who deserves the title of accoucheur.

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

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

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

, a writer of considerable note inhis day, appears to have been the son of Mr. Henry Peacham of Leverton, in Holland, in the county of Lincoln, and was born in the latter part of the seventeenth century, unless he was the Henry Peacham who published “The Garden of Eloquence,” a treatise on rhetoric, in 1577, 4to, and then he must be referred to the early part of the reign of queen Elizabeth. But we are more inclined to think, with Mr. Malone, that the “Garden of Eloquence” was a production of his father’s. Very little i& known with certainty of his history, and that little has been gleaned from his works, in which he frequently introduces himself. In his “Compleat Gentleman,” he says he was born at North Mims, near St. Alban’s, where he received his education under an ignorant schoolmaster. He was afterwards of Trinity college, Cambridge, and in the title to his “Minerva,” styles himself master of arts. He speaks of his being well skilled in music, and it appears that he resided a considerable time in Italy, where he learnt music of Orazio Vecchi. He was also intimate with all the great masters of the time at home, and has characterized their several styles, as well as those of many on the continent. His opinions, says Dr. Burney, concerning their works are very accurate, and manifest great knowledge of all that was understood at the time respecting practical music.

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

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

In 1449, he was translated to the see of Chichester, and now began to give opinions which were ill suited to the times in which he lived. Although he had taken great pains both in his preaching and writings to defend the established church against the disciples of Wickliffe, now called Lollards, he gave it as his opinion, that the most probable means of reclaiming them was by allowing them the use of their reason, and not insisting on the infallibility of the church. The clergy, we may suppose, were not satisfied with such doctrine; and many of the learned men of the universities were so highly offended with it, and with his writing in the English language on subjects which ought to be concealed from the laity, that they at last prevailed with the archbishop of Canterbury to cite him. The archbishop accordingly issued his mandate, in Oct. 1457, ordering all persons to appear who had any thing to allege against the bishop of Chichester; and his books being found to contain various heretical opinions, he read a recantation, first in the archbishop’s court at Lambeth, and afterwards at St. Paul’s cross, where his books were burnt, as they also were at Oxford. He was likewise deprived of his bishopric, and confined in Thorney abbey, in Cambridgeshire, where it is supposed he died about 1460. His biographer has given an ample account of his writings, all of which remain in ms. except his “Treatise of Faith,” published by Wharton in 1688, 4to. He appears to have been a man of learning, and an acute reasoner. The opinions for which he suffered were not perhaps so decided as to procure him admittance to the list of reformers; but it is evident that he was one of the first who contended against the infallibility of the Romish church, and in favour of the holy scriptures being the principal guide. In 1744 the rev. John Lewis, of Margate, published “The Li/e” of this prelate, which, as he justly styles it, forms a “sequel to the Life” of Wickliff, and is an useful introduction to the history of the English reformation.

, a learned English prelate, was born at London, Sept. 8, 1690. He was the son of Thomas Pearce, a distiller, in High Holborn, who having acquired a competent fortune by his business, purchased an estate at Little Ealing, in Middlesex, to which he retired at the age of forty, and where he died in 1752, aged eighty-eight. His son, after some preparatory education at a school at Ealing, was removed in 1704 to Westminster school, where he was soon distinguished for his merit, and in 1707 was elected one of the king’s scholars. He remained at this school till the year 1710, when he was twenty years old. This long continuance of his studies has been attributed to the high opinion Dr. Busby entertained of him, who was accustomed to detain those boys longer under his discipline, of whose future eminence he had most expectation. That Dr. Busby had such a custom is certain, and that it was continued by his successor is probable, but Mr. Pearce could not have been under the tuition of Busby, who died in 1695. To this delay, however, without doubt, Mr. Pearce was greatly indebted for the philological reputation by which he was very early distinguished.

He was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1710, and during his first year’s residence, amused himself occasionally with the lighter species of composition. Among these were a letter in the Guardian, No. 121, signed Aw Mum; and two Spectators, No. 572, and 633; specimens of that easy humour which characterizes these periodical works. In 1716 the first fruits of his philological studies appeared at the university press, in an excellent edition of Cicero “De Oratore,” with very judicious notes and emendations. This volume, at the desire of a friend, he dedicated to lord chief justice Parker, afterwards earl of Macclesfield, to whom he was then a stranger, but who became his patron. The first favour he bestowed on Mr. Pearce, was to apply to Dr. Bentley for his interest in the election of a fellowship, for which he was a candidate, and which he accordingly obtained. Soon after this he paid a visit to the chief justice, who received him in the kindest manner, invited him to dinner at Kensington, and gave him a purse of fifty guineas. From that time an intimacy commenced, which was dissolved only by his lordship'i death.

In 1717 Mr. Pearce was ordained a deacon by Dr. Fleetwood, bishop of Ely, and in the following year, priest, by the same prelate. It had always been his intention to devote himself to the church but, as he himself informs us, “he delayed to take orders till he was twenty-seven years of age; and, as he thought, had taken time to prepare himself, and to attain so much knowledge of that sacred office, as should be sufficient to answer all the good purposes for which it is designed.” In 1718 he went to reside as domestic chaplain with lord Parker, then lord Chancellor, who in 1719 gave him the rectory of Stapleford Abbots, in Essex, and in the following year that more valuable one of St. Bartholomew Exchange. When he attempted to return his thanks to the chancellor for this last preferment, his lordship said, “You are not to thank me so much as Dr. Bentley, for this benefice.” “How is that, my lord?” “Why,” added his lordship, “when I asked Dr. Bentley to make you a fellow of Trinity college, he consented so to do but on this condition, that I would promise to unmake you again as soon as it lay in my power; and now he, by having performed his promise, has bound me to give you this living.”

In 1739, in consequence of the late queen Caroline’s having recommended him to sir Robert Walpole, Dr. Pearce was appointed dean of Winchester. He informs us in his memoirs of what led to this promotion. When vicar of St. Martin’s, lord Sundon was one of his parishioners, and one of the members of parliament for Westminster. These two circumstances brought them acquainted together, and Dr. Pearce was sometimes invited to dinner, where he became acquainted with lady Sundon, queen Caroline’s farourite, and by her means was introduced to her majesty, who frequently honoured him with her conversation at the drawing-room, The subjects which her majesty started were not what are often introduced in that circle. One day she asked him if he had read the pamphlets published by Dr. Stebbing, and Mr. Foster, upon the sort of heretics meant by St. Paul, whom in Titus iii. 10, 11, he represents as self-condemned. “Yes, madam,” replied the doctor, “I have read all the pamphlets written by them on both sides of the question.” “Well,” said the queen, “which of the two do you think to be in the right” The doctor answered, “I cannot say, madam, which of the two is in the right, but I think that both of them are in the wrong.” She smiled, and said, “Then what is your opinion of the text?” “Madam,” said the doctor, “it would take up more time than your majesty can spare at this drawing-room, for me to give my opinion and the reasons of it; but if your majesty should be pleased to lay your commands upon me, you shall know my sentiments of the matter in the next sermon which I shall have the honour to preach before his majesty.” “Pray do then,” said the queen, and he accordingly prepared a sermon on that text, but the queen died a month before his term of preaching came about, and before he was promoted to the deanry of Winchester. In 1744 the dean was elected prolocutor of the lower house of convocation for the province of Canterbury, the archbishop having signified to some of the members, that the choice of him would be agreeable to his grace.

In 1748 dean Pearce was promoted to the see of Bangor, but the history of this and of his subsequent translation to Rochester, will be best related in his own words: “In the year 1746,” says he, " archbishop Potter being alone with dean Pearce one day at Lambeth, said to him, ‘ Why do you not try to engage your friend lord Bath * to get you made a bishop?’ * My lord,‘ said the dean, ’ I am extremely obliged to your grace for your good opinion of me, and for your kind intentions in my favour; but I have never spoken to him on that subject, nor ever thought of doing so, though I believe he would do what lies in his power; but I will tell your grace very frankly, that I have no thoughts of any bishopric. All that I have in view in this: I am now dean of Winchester; and that deanry is worth upwards of 600l. a year; my vicarage of S,t. Martin’s is about 500l. a year, and this last I should be glad of an opportunity of resigning, on account of the great trouble and little leisure which so large a parish gives me; but if I should out-live my father, who is upwards of eighty years

with him respecting the re-building of death of this statesman, who sat then

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

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

With respect to Dr. Pearce’s earnest desire of resigning his preferments, his biographer observes, that it gave occasion to much disquisition and conjecture. “As it could not be founded in avarice, it was sought in vanity; and Dr. Pearce was suspected as aspiring to the antiquated praise of contempt of wealth, and desire of retirement.” But his biographer, who had the best opportunities of judging, is of opinion, that his motives were what he publicly alleged, a desire of dismission from public cares, and of opportunity for more continued study. To a private friend the bishop declared that “as he never made a sinecure of his preferments, he was now tired of business, and being in his 74th year, he wished to resign while his faculties were entire, lest he might chance to outlive them, and the church suffer by his infirmities.”

In 1773, by too much diligence in his office, bishop Pearce had exhausted his strength beyond recovery. Having confirmed at Greenwich, seven hundred persons, he found himself, the next day, unable to speak, and never regained his former readiness of utterance. This happened on the first of October, and from that time, he remained in a languishing state; his paralytic complaint increased, and at length his power of swallowing was almost lost. Being asked by one of his family, who constantly attended him, how he could live with so little nutriment, “I live,” said he, “upon the recollection of an innocent and well-spent life, which is my only sustenance.” After some months of lingering decay, he died at Little Ealing, June 29, 1774, aged eighty-four, and was buried by his wife in the church of Bromley in Kent, where a monument is erected to his memory with an epitaph written by himself, merely rehearsing the dates of his birth and death, and of his various preferments. A cenotaph was afterwards erected in Westminster-abbey, with a Latin inscription.

Bishop Pearce married, in Feb. 22, the daughter of Mr. Adams, an eminent distiller in Holborn, with a considerable fortune, and lived with her upwards of fifty-one years in the highest degree of connubial happiness. Their children all dying young, he made his brother William Pearce, esq. his heir and executor. He bequeathed his library to the dean and chapter of Westminster, except such books as they already had. His manuscripts, with the books not left to Westminster, and the copy-right of all his works, except the Longinus sold to Mr. Tonson, he gave to his chaplain, the rev. John Derby. Besides some legacies to individuals, and some to various public charities, he left a noble bequest of five thousand pounds Old South Sea Annuities, towards the better support of the twenty widows of clergymen, who are maintained in the college of Bromley, the funds of which had become too seamy for that kind of genteel provision intended by the founder, bishop Warner. Bishop Pearce’s benefaction raised the widow’s pensions to 30l. per ann. and the chaplain’s salary to 60l. His heir, William Pearce, esq. who died in 1782, left a reversionary legacy of 12,Ooo/. for the purpose of building ten houses for clergymen’s widows, in addition to bishop Warner’s college, and endowing them. This legacy falling in a few years ago, the houses were completed in 1802.

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

Dr. Pearce published in his life-time nine occasional sermons, a discourse against self-murder, which is now in the list of tracts distributed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge; and soon after the publication of his “Commentary,” his editor gave the public a collee-r tion of the bishop’s “Sermons on various subjects,” 4 vols, 8vo. Besides what 'have been already specified, our author published in 1720, a pamphlet entitled “An Account of Trinity college, Cambridge;” and in 1722, “A Letter to the Clergy of the Church of England,” on occasion of the bishop of Rochester’s commitment to the Tower. He had also a short controversy with Dr. Middleton, against whom he published “Two Letters,” and fully convicted that writer of disingenuousness in quotation. His editor, Mr. Derby, who had married his neice, did not long suryive his benefactor, dying Oct. 8, 1778, only five days after the date of his dedication of the bishop’s “Sermons.”

, a pious dissenting divine, was born at Kidderminster in Warwickshire, Aug. 29, 1698, and received his education at a dissenting academy at Tt wkesbury, in Gloucestershire, under Mr. Jones, who was likewise the master of this school when Messrs. Butler and Seeker, afterwards the well-known prelates, were educated at it. Mr. Pearsall having been admitted into the ministry among the dissenters, was settled for ten years at Bromyard, in Herefordshire, and afterwards for sixteen years at Warminster, in Wiltshire. His last charge, for about fifteen years, was at Taunton, in Somersetshire, where he died Nov. 10, 1762. He is known in the religious world by two works of considerable reputation, his “Contemplations on the Ocean,” &c. in 2 vols. 12mo, which are mentioned with respect by Hervey in the third volume of his “Theron and Aspasio;” and his “Reliquiæ Sacræ,” which were published by Dr. Gibbons, 1765, 2 vols. 12mo. They consist of meditations on select passages of scripture, and sacred dialogues between a father and his children. He is much an imitator of Hervey, particularly in his “Contemplations,” but has less imagination, although enough to catch the attention of young readers.

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

, a French wit, the son of a surgeon of Toulouse, where he was born in 1638, wrote several Latin poems, which were reckoned good, but applied himself chiefly to the poetry of his native country. Having been three times honoured with the laurel at the academy of the Floral games, he wrote a tragedy called Gela, which was acted, in 1687, with applause, in consequence of which he published it, with a dedication to the first prince of the blood. He wrote also “Le sacrifice d' Abraham;” and ^ Joseph vendu par ses Freres,“two singular subjects for tragedies; but received with favour. He produced besides a tragedy called” La Mort de Neron,“concerning which an anecdote is related, which nearly coincides with one which is current here, as having happened to our dramatic poet Fletcher. He wrote usually at public-houses, and one day left behind him a paper, containing his plan for that tragedy; in which, after various marks and abbreviations, he had written at large,” Ici le roi sera tu6“Here the king is to be killed. The tavern-keeper, conceiving that he had found the seeds of a plot, gave information to the magistrate. The poet was accordingly taken up; but on seeing his paper, which he had missed, in the hands of the person who had seized him, exclaimed eagerly,” Ah! there it is; the very scene which I had planned for the death of Nero." With this clue, his innocence was easily made out, and he was discharged. Pechantre died at Paris in 1709, being then seventy-one; he had exercised the profession of physic for some time, till he quitted it for the more arduous task of cultivating the drama.

, a man of letters in France, who was for some time professor of eloquence in the royal college of la Fleche, was born in 1741, at Villa Franca in Rouergue. He was a disinterested scholar, a plain, modest, and vjrtuous man. His eulogium on the great Colbert received the public approbation of the French academy in 1773. His principal fame has arisen from a poem (as he calls it) in prose, named “Telephus,” in twelve books. It was published in octavo in 1784, and is said to have been translated into English. The piece is well written, and contains, among other things, a beautiful picture of true friendship, of which he himself afforded a noble example. Pechmeja, and M. du Breuil, an eminent physician of the time, were the Pylades and Orestes of their age. The former had a severe illness in 1776, when his friend flew to his assistance, and from that time they were inseparable, and had every thing in common. A person once inquired of Pechmeja what income he possessed, “I have,” said he, “200 livres a-year.” Some wonder being expressed how he could subsist on so little, “Oh,” said he, “the doctor has plenty more.” The doctor died first of a contagious disorder, through which his friend attended him, and died only twenty days after, a victim to the strength of his friendship. He died about the end of April 1785, at the age of only forty-four.

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

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

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

, a learned antiquary, was born of a noble family at Mantua, in 1646. He entered himself among the Jesuits, and became distinguished for his deep knowledge of history and antiquities. His private character too was such as made him beloved by every person who knew him. He was chosen by Hannuncio, duke of Parma, to arrange his rich and curious cabinet of medals, of which, in 1694, he began to publish an account under the title of “I Cassari in oro raccolti nel Farnese Musaeo o publicati colle loro congrue interpretazioni;” and be continued his labours till his death, Jan. 20, 1721. This work, in its complete form, consists of ten vols. folio, and bears the title of “Museo Farnese” but is not held in so much estimation on the continent as to bear a high price.

, an English poet, who flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was a native of Devonshire. was first educated at Broadgate’s Hall, but was some. time afterwards made a student of Christ Church college, Oxford, about 1573, where, after going through all the several forms of logic and philosophy, and taking all the necessary steps, he was admitted to his master of arts degree in 1579. After this it appears that he removed to London, became the city poet, and had the ordering of the pageants. He lived on the Bank-side, over against Black-friars, and maintained the estimation in his poetical capacity which he had acquired at the university, which seems to have been of no inconsiderable rank. He was a good pastoral poet; and Wood informs us that his plays were not only often acted with great applause in his life-time, but did also endure reading, with due commendation, many years after his death. He speaks of him, however, as a more voluminous writer in that way than he appears to have been, mentioning his dramatic pieces by the distinction of tragedies and comedies, and has given us a list of those which he says he had seen; but in this he must have made some mistake, as he has divided the several incidents in one of them, namely, his “Edward I.” in such manner as to make the “Life of Llewellin,” and the “Sinking of Queen Eleanor,” two detached and separate pieces of themselves; theerror of which will be seen in the perusal of the whole title of this play. He moreover tells us, that the lastmentioned piece, together with a ballad on the same subject, was, in his time, usually sold by the common balladmongers. The real titles of the plays written by this author, of which five only are known, are, 1. “The Arraignment of Paris,” 1584, 4to. 2, “Edward the First, 1593,” 4to. 3. “King David and Fair Bethsabe,” 1599, 4to. 4. “The Turkish Mahomet and Hyren the Fair Greek.” 5. “The Old Wives Tale,” a comedy, 1595, 4to.,

, an eminent and laborious antiquary, descended from an ancient family in Derbyshire, was the $on of Christopher Pegge, a woollen-draper, and was born at Chesterfield, Nov. 5, 1704. He was admitted a pensioner of St. John’s college, Cambridge, May 20, 1722, and in November was elected a scholar upon Lupton’s foundation. In Jan. 1725 he took his degree of B. A. and in March 1726 was elected to a fellowship, which he did not hold long, owing to a singular circumstance. His fellow competitor was Mr. Michael Burton, who had the superior right as being a-kin to the founder of the fellowship, but this claim was set aside, owing to his being deficient in literature. He now artfully applied to the college for a testimonial, that he might receive orders, and undertake some cure in the vicinity of Cambridge; and this being unadvisedly granted, he immediately appealed to the visitor (Dr. Thomas Greene, bishop of Ely), representing that, as the college had, by the testimonial, thought him qualified for ordination, it could not, injustice, deem him unworthy of becoming a fellow of the society. The consequence was, that the visitor found himself reluctantly obliged to eject Mr. Pegge, and Burton took possession of the fellowship. The visitor, however, recommended Mr. Pegge in such a manner to the master and seniors of the college, that he was from that time considered as an honorary member of the body of fellows (tanquam socins), and kept his seat at their table and in the chapel, being placed in the situation of a fellow-commoner. Feeling yet more the indignity of the trick played upon them by Burton, they chose Mr. Pegge to a Platt-fellowship in 1729.

Classical criticism being one of his earliest studies, it is thought that he had before this time meditated an edition of Xenophon’s “Cyropaedia” and “Anabasis,” from a collation of them with the Duport ms. in the library of Eton, to convince the world that he had not been unjustly preferred to Burton; but this undertaking was probably prevented by the appearance of Hutchinson’s edition. Having taken the degree of M. A. in July 1729, he was ordained deacon in December, and priest in February following, on both occasions by Dr. Baker, bishop of Norwich. His first clerical employment was as curate to the Rev. Dr. John Lynch, at Sandwich, in Kent. This he held from Lady Day 1730, to Midsummer 1731, when he removed to Bishopsbourne, another living belonging to Dr. Lynch, who at the end of the same year procured for him the living of Godmersham.

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

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

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

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

, an eminent dissenting minister, distinguished for his zealous defence of the principles of nonConformity, and a no less zealous latitudinarian in opinion, was born in 1673, at Wapping in London, of reputable parents. By hrs mother, who died last, when he was about seven years old, he, with a brother and sister, both older than himself, was committed to Mr. Matthew Mead, the famous dissenting minister at Stepney, as his guardian, at whose house he lived for some time after his mother’s death, and was taught by the same tutors Mr. Mead kept for his own sons. He was afterwards, by Mr. Mead’s direction, put to other grammar-schools, and at last sent to Utrecht in Holland, where he had his academical institution, and studied under Witsius, Leydecker, Graevius, Leusden, De Vries, and Luyts, and was well known to the celebrated Mr. Hadrian Reland, who was then his fellow student, and afterwards when he was professor corresponded with Mr. Peirce. The latter part of his time abroad Mr. Peirce spent at Leyden, where he attended Perizonius and Noodt especially, hearing Gronovius, Mark and Spanheim, occasionally; and with some of these professors in both universities he afterwards held a correspondence. After he had spent above five years in these two places, he lived privately in England, for some time at London, among his relations, and for some time at Oxford, where he lodged in a private house, and frequented the Bodleian library. After this, at the desire of his friends, he preached an evening lecture on Sundays at the meeting-house in Miles-lane, London, and occasionally in other places, until he settled at Cambridge, where he was treated with great respect and civility by many gentlemen of the university. In 1713 he was removed to a congregation at Exeter, where he continued till 1718, when a controversy arising among the dissenters about the doctrine of the Trinity, from which some of them were at this time departing, three articles were proposed to him, and Mr. Joseph HalJet, senior, another dissenting minister in Exeter, in order to he subscribed; which both of them refused, and were ejected from their congregation. After this a new meeting was opened March 15, 1618-9, in that city, of which Mr. Peirce continued minister till his death, which happened March 30, 1726, in the 53d year of his age. His funeral sermon was preached April the 3d following by Mr. Joseph Hallet, jun. and printed at London, 1726, in 8vo; in which he was restrained by Mr. Peirce himself from bestowing any encomiums on him; but Mr. Hallet observes in a letter, that “he was a man of the strictest virtue, exemplary piety, and great learning; and was exceedingly communicative of his knowledge. He would condescend to converse on subjects of learning with young men, in whom he found any thirst after useful knowledge; and in his discoursing with them would be extremely free, and treat them as if they had been his equals in learning and years.” His works have been divided into four classes. Under the philosophical class, we find only his “Exercitatio Philosophica de Homoeomeria Anaxagorea,” Utrecht, 1692. But he was more voluminous in the controversy between the church of England and the dissenters. Of the latter he has been esteemed a great champion. In their defence he published, 1. “Eight Letters to Dr. Wells,” London, 1706 and 1707. 2. “Consideration on the sixth Chapter of the Abridgment of the London Cases, relating to Baptism and the sign of the Cross,” London, 1708. 3. “Vindiciae Fratrum Dissentientium in Anglia,” London, 1710, 8vo. 4. “An Enquiry into the present duty of a Low Churchman,” London, 1711, 8vo. 5. “Vindication of the Dissenters,” London, 1717, 8vo. 6. “A Letter to Dr. Bennet, occasioned by his late treatise concerning the Nonjurors’ Separation,” &c. London, 1717, 8vo. 7. “Preface to the Presbyterians not chargeable with King Charles’s death,” Exeter, 1717, in 8vo. 8. “Defence of the' Dissenting Ministry and Ordination,” in two parts, London, 1718, 8vo. 9. “The Dissenters’ Reasons for not writing in behalf of Persecution. Designed for the satisfaction of Dr. Snape, in a letter to him,” London, 1718, 8vo. 10. “Interest of the Whigs with relation to the Test- Act,” London, 1718, 8vo. 11. “Reflections on Dean Sherlock’s Vindication of the Corporation and Test Acts,” London, 1718, 8vo. 12. “Charge of misrepresentations maintained against Dean Sherlock,” London, 1719, 8vo. 13. “Loyalty, integrity, and ingenuity of High Church and the Dissenters compared,” London, 1719, 8vo. Relative to his controversy at Exeter, which produced his ejectment, were published by him, 1. “The Case of the Ministers ejected at Exon,” London, 1719, 8vo. 2. “Defence of the Case,” London, 1719, 8vo. 3. “Animadversions on the true Account of the Proceedings at Salter’s Hall: with a Letter to Mr. Eveleigh,” London, 1719, 8vo. 4. “A Second Letter to Mr. Eveleigh, in answer to his Sober Reply,” Exeter, 1719, 8vo. 5. “A Letter to a subscribing Minister in Defence of the Animadversions,” &c. London, 1719, 8vo. 6. “Remarks upon the Account of what was transacted in the assembly at Exon,” London,

, a very learned Frenchman, was descended from an ancient and noble family, seated originally at Pisa in Italy, and born in 1580. His father, lienaud Fabri, lord of Beaugensier, sent him at ten years of age to Avignon, where he spent five years on his classical studies in the Jesuits’ college, and was removed to Aix in 1595, for the study of philosophy. In the mean time, he attended the proper masters for dancing, riding, and handling arms,all which he learned to perform with expertness, but rather as a task, than a pleasure, for even at that early period, he esteemed all time lost, that was not employed on literature. It was during this period, that his father being presented with a medal of the emperor Arcadius, which was found at Beaugensier, Peiresc begged to have it: and, charmed with deciphering the characters in the exergue, and reading the emperor’s name, in that transport of joy he carried the medal to his uncle; who for his encouragement gave him two more, together with some books upon that subject. This incident seems to have led him first to the study of antiquities, for which he became afterwards so famous. In 1596, he was sent to finish his course of philosophy under the Jesuits at Tournon, where he also studied mathematics and cosmography, as being necessary in the study of history, yet all this without relaxing from his application to antiquity, in which he was much assisted by one of the professors, a skilful medallist; nor from the study of belles lettres in general. So much labour and attention, often protracted till midnight, considerably impaired his constitution, which was not originally very strong. In 1597, his uncle, from whom he had great expectations, sent him to Aix, where he entered upon the law; and the following year he pursued the same study at Avignon, under a private master, whose name was Peter David who, being well skilled likewise in antiquities, was not sorry to find his pupil of the same taste, and encouraged him in this study as well as that of the law. Ghibertus of Naples, also, who was auditor to cardinal Aquaviva, much gratified his favourite propensity, by a display of various rarities, and by lending him Goltzius’s “Treatise upon Coins.” He also recommended a visit to Home, as affording more complete gratification to an antiquary than auy part of Europe. Accordingly, his uncle having procured a proper governor, he and a younger brother set out upon that tour, in Sept. 1599; and passing through Florence, Bologna, Ferrara, and Venice, he fixed his residence at Padua, in order to complete his course of law. He could not, however, resist the temptation of going frequently to Venice, where he formed an acquaintance with the most distinguished literati there, as Sarpi, Molinus, &c. in order to obtain a sight of every thing curious in that famous city. Among others, he was particularly caressed by F. Contarini, procurator of St. Mark, who possessed a curious cabinet of medals*, and other antiquities, and found Peiresc extremely useful and expert in explaining the Greek inscriptions. After a year’s stay at Padua, he set out for Rome, and arriving there in Oct. 1600, passed six months in viewing whatever was remarkable. After Easter he gratified the same curiosity at Naples, and then returned to Padua about June. He novr resumed his study of the law; and at the same time acquired such a knowledge of Hebrew, Samaritan, Syriac, and Arabic, as might enable him to interpret the inscriptions on the Jewish coins, &c. In these languages he availed himself of the assistance of the rabbi Solomon, who was then at Padua. His taste for the mathematics was also revived in consequence of his acquaintance with Galileo, whom he first saw at the house of Pinelli at Rome; and he began to add to his other acquisitions a knowledge of astronomy and natural philosophy. From this time it was said that “he had taken the helm of learning into his hand, and begun to guide the commonwealth of letters.”

Having now spent almost three years in Italy, he returned to France in the end of 1602, and arrived at Montpellier in July, where he heard the law lectures of Julius P.K in", until he returned to Aix, about the end of J 603, at the earnest request of his uncle, who having resigned to him his senatorial dignity, had, ever since the beginning of the year, laboured to get the king’s patent. The degree of doctor of law being a necessary qualification for that dignity, Peiresc kept the usual exercise, and took that degree Jan, 18, 1604; on which occasion he made a most learned speech, upon the origin and antiquity of the doctoral ornaments.

In 1605, he accompanied Du Vair, first president of the senate at Aix, who was very fond of him, to Paris; whence, having visited every thing curious, he crossed the water, in company with the French king’s ambassador, in 1606, to England. Here he was very graciously received by king James; and having seen Oxford, and visited Camden, sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Saville, and other learned men, he passed over to Holland; and after visiting the several towns and universities, with the literati in each, he went through Antwerp to Brussels, and thence back to Paris, returning home in Sept. 1606, on account of some family affairs.

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

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

As the morals of Pelagius had long been irreproachable, he found it easy to gain a crowd of followers; and the heresy spread so much, that it became necessary for him to quit Rome, in the year 409, going to Sicily, and accompanied by Crlestius, his chief disciple and fellow-labourer, and, as is said, his countryman. They continued in Sicily, till the re-port of a conference, held at Carthage between the orthodox and the donatists, induced them to go to Africa: but Pelagius did not stay long there; and, after fris departure, Celestius being accused of denying orio-inal sin by Paulinus, was condemned by a council held at Carthage in the year 412, under Aurelius, primate of Africa. Upon this, he repaired to his friend Pelagius, who had retired to Palestine.

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

These letters were answered by Innocent in the year 417, who coincided in sentiment with his correspondents, and anathematized all who said that the grace of God is. not necessary to good works; and judged them unworthy qf the communion of the church. In answer to the five African bishops, who had written to him on his being suspected of favouring Pelagianisui, he says, “He can neither affirm nor deny, that there are Pelagians in Rome; because, if there are any, they take care to conceal themselves, and are not discovered in so great a multitude of people.” He adds, speaking of Pelagius, “We cannot believe he has been justified, notwithstanding that some laymen have brought to us acts by which he pretends to have been absolved. But we doubt the authenticity of these acts, because they have not been sent us by the council, and we have not received any letters from those who assisted at it. For if Pelagius could have relied on his justification, he could not have failed to have obliged his judges to acquaint us with it; and even in these acts he has not justified himself clearly, but has only sought to evade and perplex matters. We can neither approve, nor blame this decision. If Pelagius pretends he has nothing to fear, it is not our business to send for him, but rather his to make haste to come and get himself absolved. For if he still continues to entertain the same sentiments, whatever letters he may receive, he will never venture to expose himself to our sentence. If he is to be summoned, that ought rather to be done by those who are nearest to him. We have perused the book said to be written by him, which you sent us. We have found in it many propositions against the grace of God, many blasphemies, nothing that pleased us, and hardly any thing but what displeased us, and ought to be rejected by all the world.”

Celestius, upon his condemnation at Cartilage in the year 412, had indeed appealed to this pope but, instead of pursuing his appeal, he retired into Palestine. Pek gius, however, who had more art, did not despair of bringing Rome over to his interest, by flattering the bishop of that city, and accordingly drew up a confession of faith, and sent it to pope Innocent with a letter, which is now lost. Innocent was dead; and Zosimus had succeeded him, when this apology of Pelagius was brought to Rome. On the first notice of ttiis change, Celestius, who had been driven from Constantinople, hastened to the west, in hopes of securing the new pope’s favour, by making him his judge, and Zosimus, pleased to be appealed to in a cause that had been adjudged elsewhere, readily admitted Celestius to justify himself at Rome. He assembled his clergy in St. Clement’s church, where Celestius presented him a confession of faith; in which, having gone through all the articles of the Creed, from the Trinity to the resurfection of the dead, he said, “If any dispute has arisen on questions that do not concern the faith, I have not pretended to decide them, as the author of a new doctrine; but I offer to your examination, what I have from the source of the prophets and apostles; to the end that, if I have mistaken through ignorance, your judgment may correct and set me right.” On the subject of original sin, he continued, “We acknowledge that children ougtr to be baptized for the remission of sins, agreeably to the rule of the universal church, and the authority of the gospel; because the Lord hath declared, that the kingdom of heaven can be given to those only who have been baptized. But we do not pretend thence to establish the transmission of sin from parents to their children: that opinion is widely different from the catholic doctrines. For sin is not born with man; it is man who commits it after he is born: it does not proceed from nature, but from will. We therefore acknowledge the first, in order not to admit of several baptisms; and take this precaution, that we may not derogate from the Creator.” Celestius having confirmed by word of mouth, and several repeated declarations, what was contained in this writing, the pope asked him, whether he condemned all the errors that had been published under his name? Celestius answered, that he did condemn them in conformity with the sentence of pope Innocent, and promised to condemn whatever should be condemned by the holy see. On this Zosimus did not hesitate to condemn Heros and Lazarus, who had taken upon them, to be the chief prosecutors of the Pelagian doctrine. He deposed them from the episcopal office, and excommunicated them; after which he wrote to Aurelius, and the other bishops of Africa, acquainting them with what he had done, and at the same time sending them the acts of his synod.

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

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

Mr. Pell’s eminence, however, in mathematical knowledge, was now so great, that he was thought worthy of a professor’s chair in that science; and, i.pon the vacancy of one at Amsterdam in 1639, sir William Bos -ell, the English resident with the States-general, used his interest, that he might succeed in that professorship; which was not filled up till above four years after, 1643, when Pell was chosen to it. The year following he published, in two pages 4to, “A Refutation of Longomontamis’s Discourse, De vera circuli mensura,” printed at Amsterdam in 1644. In June 1646, he was invited by the prince of Orange to be professor of philosophy and mathematics at Breda, in the college newly founded there by his highness, with the offer of a salary of 1000 guilders a year. This he accepted, but upon his removal to Breda, he found that he was rt quired to teach mathematics only. His “Idea Matheseos,” which he had addressed to Mr. Hartlib, who in 1639 had sent it to Des Cartes and Mersenne, was printed 1650 at London, 12mo, in English, with the title of “An Idea of Mathematics,” at the end of Mr. John Dury’s “Reformed Library-keeper.” On the death of the prince of Orange, in 1650, and the subsequent war between the English and Dutch, he left Breda, and returned to Eng land, in 1652; and, in 1654, was sent by Cromwell as his agent to the protestant cantons in Switzerland, his instructions being dated March 30th of that year. His first speech in Latin to the deputies of Zurich was on the 13th of June; and he continued in that city during most of his employment in Switzerland, in which he had afterwards the title of resident. Being recalled by Cromwell, he took his leave of the cantons in a Latin speech at Zuricu, the 23d of June, 1658; but returned to England so short a time before the usurper’s death, that he had no opportunity of an audience from him. Why Cromwell employed him does not appear, but it is thought that during his residence abroad, he contributed to the interests of Charles Ji. and the church of England; and it is certain that, after the restoration, he entered into holy orders, although at an unusually advanced period of life. He was ordained deacon March 31, 1661, and priest in June following, by Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln; and, on the 16th of that month, instituted to the rectory of Fobbing in Essex, given him by the king. On Dec. the 5th following, he brought into the upper house of convocation the calendar reformed by him, assisted by Sancroft, afterwards abp. of Canterbury. In 1663, he was presented by Sheldon, bishop of London, to the rectory of Laingdon in Essex; and, upon the promotion of that bishop to the see of Canterbury in the next month, became one of his grace’s domestic chaplains. He was then doctor of divinity, and expected, as Wood tells us, “to be made a dean; but being not a person of activity, as others who mind not learning are, could never rise higher than a rector.” The truth is, adds Wood, “he was a helpless man as to worldly affairs; and his tenants and relations dealt so unkindly by him, that they defrauded him of the profits of his rectory, and kept him so indigent, that he was in want of necessaries, even ink and paper, to his dying day.” He was for some time confined to the King’s-bench prison for debt; but, in March 1682, was invited by Dr. Whistler to live in the college of physicians. Here he continued till June following, when he was obliged, by his ill state of health, to remove to the house of a grandchild of his in St. Margaret’s church-yard, Westminster. From this too he was again removed, for we find that he died at the house (in Dyot street) of Mr. Cothorne, reader of the church of St. Giles’s in the Fields, Dec. the 12th, 1685, and was intecred by the charity of Busby, master of Westminster school, and Sharp, rector of, St. Giles’s, in the rector’s vault under that church. Besides what have been mentioned, Dr. Pell was the author of, 1. “An Exercitation concerning Easter,” 1644, in 4to. 2. “A Table of 10,000 square numbers,” &c. 1672, folio. 3. An Inaugural Oration at his entering upon the Professorship at Breda. 4. He made great alterations and additions to “Rhonius’s Algebra,” printed at London 1668, 4to, under the title of “An Introduction to Algebra; translated out of the High Dutch into English by Thomas Branker, much altered and augmented by D. P. (Dr. Pell).” Also a Table of odd numbers, less than 100,000, shewing those that are incomposite, &c. supputated by the same Thomas Branker. 5. His Controversy with Longomontanus concerning the Quadrature of the Circle, Amsterdam, 1646, 4to. He likewise wrote a Demonstration of the 2d and 10th books of Euclid; which piece was in ms. in the library of lord Brereton in Cheshire: as also'Arrhimedes’s Arenarins, and the greatest part of Diophantus’s six books of Arithmetic; of which author he was preparing, Aug. 1644, a new edition, with 2 corrected translation, and new illustrations. He designed likewise to publish an edition of Apollonius, but laid it aside, in May, 1645, at the desire of Golius, who was engaged in an edition of that author from an Arabic manuscript given him at Aleppo 18 years before. This appears from the letters of Dr. Pell to sir Charles Cavendish, in the Royal Society.

Some of his manuscripts he left at Brereton in Cheshire", where he resided some years, being the seat of William lord Brereton, who had been his pupil at Breda. A great many others came into the hands of Dr. Busby; which Mr. Hook was desired to use his endeavours to obtain for the society. But they continued buried under dust, and mixed with the papers and pamphlets of Dr. Busby, in four large boxes, till 1755; when Dr. Birch, secretary to the Royal Society, procured them for that body, from the trustees of Dfr. Busby. The collection contains not only Pell’s mathematical papers, letters to him, and copies of those from him, &c. but also several manuscripts of Walter Warner, the mathematician and philosopher, who lived in the reignS of James the First and Charles the First.

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

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

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

Melchior Adam is rather prolix in his account of Pellican’s journeys with the provincial, little of which is interesting. It appears to have been in 1519 that he was appointed guardian at Basil, and where he met with the writings of the illustrious Luther, which, some say, converted him to the protestant faith; but it would be more correct to say that they served to confirm him in certain sentiments which he had for some time entertained, and was now so little afraid of avowing, that in 1522 he was accused of Lutheranism in a chapter of his order. By what means he defended himself we are not told, but it was with such success, that he obtained permission for some of the ablest of the students and preachers to read the works of Luther. The following year the provincial Sazger paying a visit at Basil, the professors of the university and some of the canons tendered complaints against Pellican and others, as being Lutherans, and contributing to the circulation of Luther’s works. Sazger was for deposing them, but the senate would not admit of it, and said that, if he obliged Pellican and his friends to leave the city for this cause, they, the senate, would take care to send every one of the order after them. Sazger took the hint, and left Basil, where Oecolampadius and Pellican being put into the situation of those professors who had been their accusers, Pellican entered on a course of lectures on the Bible, which formed the foundation of the commentaries he afterwards published in several volumes folio, from 1533 to 1537.

Pellican continued professor at Basil until 1526, when Zuinglius invited him to Zurich in the name of the senate of that city, to teach Hebrew. Although he had been for three years explaining the Hebrew Bible, yet he was modest enough to doubt his abilities for this office, and would have declined it had not his friends represented to him how much more effectually he might promote the reformation at Zurich than at Basil, where he was already in some danger from the enemies of the new principles. Accordingly he consented, and at Zurich thivw off the clerical dress he had usually worn for thirty-three years; and, as was generally done by the reformers, entered into the married state with a lady, who died ten years after (in 1536, when he married a second time). He continued to execute the office of professor of Hebrew at Zurich until his death, April 1, 1556, in the seventy-eighth year of his age.

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

Fouquet, the celebrated superintendant of the finances, who well knew his merit and talents, made him his first clerk and confidant in 1657; and Pellisson, though much to his injury, always preserved the sincerest attachment to him. Two years after, he was made master of the accounts at Montpelier, and had scarcely returned from that place to Paris, when the disgrace of his patron Fouqnet involved him in much trouble, and in 1661 he was sent to the Bastile, and confined there above four years. Though a very strict watch was set over him, he found means to correspond with his friends, and even with Fouquet himself, from whom he also received letters. He used his utmost endeavours, and employed a thousand arts to serve this linister; and he composed in his behalf three famous pleadings, which, Voltaire says, “resemble those of the Roman orator the most of any thing in the French language. They are like many of Cicero’s orations a mixture of judicial and state affairs, treated with an art void of ostentation, and with all the ornaments of an affecting eloquence.” In the mean time, the public was so convinced of his innocence, and he was so esteemed in the midst of his misfortunes, that Tanaquil Faber dedicated his edition of Lucretius to him; and the very day that leave was given to see him, the duke de Montausier, and other persons of the first distinction, went to visit him in the Bastile. He was set at liberty in 1666; and, two years after, had the honour to attend Louis XIV. in his first expedition against the United Provinces, of which he wrote a history. In 1670 he abjured the protestant religion, for which, it is said, he was prepared, during his imprisonment, by reading books of controversy. Voltaire says, “he had the good fortune to be convinced of his errors, and to change his religion at a time when that change opened his way to fortune and preferment.” He took the ecclesiastical habit, obtained several benefices, and the place of master of the requests. The king settled on him a pension of 6000 livres; and, towards 1677, entrusted him with the revenues of some abbeys, to be employed in converting the protestants. He shewed great zeal in this work; but was averse to harsh measures. He published “Reflexions surles differens de la Religion” a new edition of which came out in 1687, augmented with an “Answer to the objections from England and Holland,' 7 in the same language. He employed also his intervals of leisure, for many years, in writing a large controversial volume upon the sacrament; but did not live to finish it, and the world has probably lost little by it. What he wrote on religious subjects does little credit to his pen. Even when he died, which was on Feb. 7, 1693, his religion was a matter of dispute; both papists and protestants claiming him for their own, while a third party thought he had no other religion than what he found necessary at court. He wrote some other works than those mentioned, both in prose and verse, but they have not been in request for many years. A selection, indeed, was published lately (in 1805), at Paris, somewhat in the manner of the compilations which appeared in this country about thirty years ago, under the name of” Beauties."

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

, a celebrated mathematician, who descended from an illustrious family of Aix, was born at Moustiers, in the diocese of Riez, in Provence, in 1530. He studied the belles lettres under Ramus, but is said to have afterwards instructed his master in mathematics, which science he taught with great credit in the royal college at Paris. He died Aug. 23, 1560, aged thirty. M. Pena left a Latin translation of Euclid’s “Catoptrica,” with a curious preface, and also employed his pen upon that geometrician’s other works, and upon an edition of the “Spherica” of Theodosius, Greek and Latin, Paris, 1558, 4to, c.

, a learned judge, was born in Moorfields, May 16, 1675, and, as the anonymous author of his life says, was baptised by the name of Thomas son of Thomas Pengelly; but others have supposed that he was a natural son of Richard Cromwell the protector, For this supposition we find no other foundation than that Cromwell, who lived very privately in the neighbourhood, had known Mr. Pengelly from his youth, afterwards kept up a friendship with him, and died at his seat at Cheshunt, in August 1712. Mr. Pengelly was brought up to the bar, and becoming eminent in his profession, was made a serjeant May 6, 1710; knighted May 1, 1719, and in June following appointed his majesty’s prime Serjeant at law, on the decease of sir Thomas Powis. He sat as member for Cockermouth, in Cumberland, in the parliaments called in 1714 and 1722. He was made chief baron of the exchequer Oct. 16, 1726, on the death of sir Jeffery Gilbert; and his conduct on the bench corresponded with the high reputation he had acquired at the bar. He died of an infectious fever, caught at Taunton assizes, April 14, 1730. He excelled in profound learning, spirit, justice, and generosity, and dared to offend the most powerful, if he thought their conduct reprehensible. He was a florid, yet convincing orator, an excellent judge, a pious Christian, and an accomplished, sprightly companion. By a humane codicil in his will, dated in 1729, he left a considerable part of his fortune to procure the discharge of persons confined for debt, which was accordingly done by his executor Mr. Webb. There is a copy of this will published in his life, but the name of his residuary legatee is for some reason omitted. The anonymous history of Oliver Cromwell, first printed in 1724, has been supposed to have been written by him, but this is doubtful. It has been also attributed to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London.

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

He married about 1648 Mary Springett, a widow, whose daughter, by her former husband, became the wife of William Penn. He resided on his own estate, called the Grange, at Chalfont, in Buckinghamshire. It does not appear that he travelled much as a minister; for of six imprisonments which he suffered, during the reign of Charles II. five were in his own county. The first was in 1661, when the nation was alarmed on account of the fifth monarchy men, which occasioned much disturbance to the meetings of Dissenters. He was taken from a meeting in his own family, and committed to Aylesbury gaol, where, although a weakly man, he was kept for seventeen weeks (great part of which was in winter) in a cold room without a fire-place, by which means he became unable to turn himself in bed. In 1664, he was again taken out of a meeting, and remained a second time prisoner in the same gaol for nearly the same time. In 1665, he was taken up at Amersham as he was attending the corpse of a friend to the burial-ground of the Quakers. The concourse of that people who walked after it in the street, seems to have been construed into a conventicle, for he was committed to Aylesbury gaol for one month only, on the Conventicle Act, in order to banishment. It is remarkable that the justice, because it was not then convenient to end him from Amersham to Aylesbury, dismissed him on his word to come iigain the next day but one, when he accordingly casne, and was committed: as did on the samft occasion several other Quakers. The same year he was arrested in his house by a soldier without a warrant, and carried before a deputy-lieutenant, by whom he was again sent to his old quarters at Aylesbury; and, though the pestilence was suspected to be in the gaol, and no crime was laid to his charge, he was kept there till a person died of it. After about nine months’ confinement he was discharged; but when he had been at home about three weeks, a party of soldiers came and seized him in bed, carrying him again to prison at Aylesbury. The cold, damp, and unhealthiness of the room, again gave him a fit of illness, which lasted some months. At length he was brought by Habeas Corpus to the bar of the King’s-bench, and (with the wonder of the court that a man should be so long imprisoned for nothing) he was discharged in 1668. During one of these imprisonments his estate was seized, and his wife and family turned out of his house.

, afterwards sir William Penn, knt. admiral of England, and one of the commanders at the taking of Jamaica, was born at Bristol in 1621, of an ancient family. He was addicted from his youth to maritime affairs; and before he had reached his thirty-second year, went through the various promotions of captain; rear-admiral of Ireland; vice-admiral of Ireland; admiral to the Straits; vice-admiral of England; and general in the first Dutch war, and commander in chief under the duke of York, in the signal victory over the Dutch in 1665, on which occasion he was knighted. On his return he was elected into parliament for the town of Weymouth; in 1660, commissioner of the admiralty and navy, governor of the fort and town of Kinsale, vice-admiral of Murtster, and a member of that provincial council. He then took leave of the sea, but still continued his other employments till 1669; when, through bodily infirmities, he withdrew to Wanstead in Essex, and there died in 1670. Though he was thus engaged, both under the parliament and king, he took no part in the civil war, but adhered to the duifes of his profession. Besides the reputation of a great and patriot officer, he acquired credit for having improved the naval service in several important departments. He was the author of several little tracts on this subject, some of which are preserved in the British Museum. The monument erected to his memory by his wife in RadclifFe church, Bristol, contains a short account of his life and promotions. But in Thurloe’s State Papers there are minutes of his proceedings in America, not mentioned on his monument, which he delivered to Oliver Cromwell’s council in Sept. 1655. He arrived at Portsmouth in August, and thence wrote to Cromwell, who returned him no answer: and, upon his first appearing before the council, he was committed to the Tower, for leaving his command without leave, to the hazard of the army; but soon after discharged.

In 1660, he was entered a gentleman-commoner at Christchurch, Oxford where, although he is said to have taken great delight, at the times of recreation, in manly sports, he, with some other students, withdrew from the national forms of worship, and held private meetings, where they both preached and prayed among themselves. This gave great offence to the heads of the college, and Penn, at the age of sixteen, was fined for nonconformity; but, having then a degree of that inflexibility, where he thought himself right, which he shewed on subsequent occasions, he not only persisted in his religious exercises, but in his zeal joined a party who tore in pieces the surplices of every student whom they met with one on: an outrage so flagrant, that he was expelled from the college.

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

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

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

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

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

ing; but his friends who have laboured turned the plain meek quaker into a

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

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

In 1765, he made a short tour to the continent, where he enjoyed the company of the celebrated Buffon, who pubicly acknowledged his favourable sentiments of Mr. Tenant’s studies in the fifteenth volume of his “Natural Hislry.” They had afterwards a dispute on branches of thei respective studies, but, adds our author, “our blows werdight, and I hope that neither of us felt any material inju” At Ferney he visited Voltaire, who happened to be in good humour, and was very entertaining; but in his attempt to speak English, satisfied the visitors that he was master of the oaths and curses which disgrace that language. During this tour, Mr. Pennant visited also baron Haller, the two Gesners, the poets, and Dr. Trew, a venerable patron of natural history, who resided at Nuremberg. At the Hague, he met with Dr. Pallas, and this meeting gave rise to his “Synopsis of Quadrupeds,” and the second edition, under the name of the “History of Quadrupeds,” a, work received by the naturalists of different parts of Europe in a manner uncommonly favourable. Mr. Pennant had proposed this plan to Pallas, but owing to the latter being promoted at the court of Petersburgh, it ultimately devolved on himself. In 1767, after his return, he was elected fellow of the Royal Society. In 1768, his British Zoology was published in two volumes, 8vo, and the bookseller gave Mr. Pennant lOOl. for permission to do so, which he immediately vested in the Welsh charity-school.

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

His useful life at last terminated, Dec. 16, 1798, when he left a private character in all respects irreproachable, as a son, husband, and father. He had great public spirit, and rendered himself eminently useful in his county. In his political principles he was a whig of the old school. His fortune, as well as time, was liberally devoted to learned pursuits. He married first, in 1759, the sister of the late Thomas Falconer, esq, of Chester, and of Dr. Falconer of Bath, by whom he had a son, David, and a daughter; and secondly, in 1777, to miss Mostyn, sister to the late sic Roger Mostyn, who survives him.

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

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

, an English poet, was the son of the rev. Mr. Pen rose, rector of Newbury in Berkshire, a man of high character and abilities, descended from an ancient Cornish family, who died in 1769. He was born in 1743, and being intended for the church, pursued his studies at Christ-church, Oxford, until the summer of 1762, when his eager turn for the naval and military profession overpowering his attachment to his real interest, he left his college, and embarked in the unfortunate expedition against Nova Colonia, in South America, under the command of captain Macnainara. The issue was fatal; the Clive, the largest vessel, was burnt, and although the Ambuscade escaped (on board of which Mr. Penrose, acting as lieutenant of marines, was wounded), yet the hardships which he afterwards sustained in a prize sloop, in which he was stationed, utterly ruined his constitution.

Returning to England, with ample testimonials of his gallantry and good behaviour, he finished at Hertford-college, Oxford, his course of studies; and having taken orders, accepted the curacy of Newbury, the income of which, by the voluntary subscriptions of the inhabitants, was considerable augmented. After he had continued in that station about nine years, it seemed as if the clouds of disappointment, which had hitherto overshadowed his prospects, and tinctured his poetical essays with gloom, were clearing away; for he was then presented by a friend, who knew his worth, and honoured his abilities, to the rectory of Beckington and Standerwick, in Somersetshire, worth near 5001. per annum. This came, however, too late; for the state of Mr. Penrose’s healtfi was now such as left little hope, except in the assistance of the waters of Bristol. Thither he went, and there he died in 1779, aged thirtysix. In 1768 he married miss Mary Slocock of Newbury, by whom he had one child, Thomas, who inherits his father’s genius, taste, and personal worth. He was educated at Winchester and New-college, Oxford, of which he is now B. C. Jl. Mr. Penrose was respected for his extensive erudition, admired for his eloquence, and equally beloved and esteemed for his social qualities. By the poor, towards whom he was liberal to his utmost ability, he was venerated in the highest degree. In oratory and composition his talents were great. His pencil was as ready as his pen, and on subjects of humour had uncommon merit. In 1781 a collection of his “Poems” was published by his friend and relation James Peter Andrews, esq. who prefixed the above account of Mr. Penrose. They are distinguished by 'exquisite feeling and taste. His thoughts are pathetic and natural, and he seems possessed of a great portion of the fire and feeling of Collins. Such poems as “The Carousal of Odin,” “Madness,” and “The Field of Battle,” are among the rare productions of modern genius. That these poems are so little known is unaccountable. Mr. Penrose published two occasional sermons of considerable merit.

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

, one of the greatest theoretic musicians of modern times, was born at Berlin about 1667, and became so early a proficient on the harpsichord, that at the age of fourteen he was sent for to court, and appointed to teach the prince, father of the great Frederic king of Prussia, About 1700, he came over to England, and was retained as a performer at Drurylane, and it is supposed that he assisted in composing the operas which were performed there. In 1707 he had acquired English sufficient to adapt ]\iouea,ux’s translation of the Italian opera of “Thomyris” to airs of Scarlatti and Boiioncini, and to new-set the recitatives. In 1709 and 1710, several of his works were advertised in the first edition of the Tatlers, particularly a set of sonatas for a flute and bass, and his first book of cantatas. In 1713 he obtained, at the same time as Crofts, the degree of doctor of music at the university of Oxford. And soon after this, upon, the establishment of a choral chapel at Cannons, he was employed by the duke of Chandos as maestro di capella; in which capacity he composed anthems and morning and evening services, which are still preserved in the Academy of ancient music. In 1715 he composed the masque of “Venus and Adonis,” written by Cibber; and in 1716 “The Death of Dido,” by Booth, both for Drury-lane. These pieces, though not very successful, were more frequently performed that any of his original dramatic compositions. In 1723 he published an ode for St. Cecilia’s day, which he had set for the concert in York-buildings. In 1724 he accepted an offer from Dr. Berkeley to accompany him to the Bermudas, and to settle as professor of music in his intended college there; but, the ship in which they sailed being wrecked, he returned to London, and married Francesca Margarita de l'Epine. This person was a native of Tuscany, and a celebrated singer, who performed in some of the first of the Italian operas that were represented in England. She came hither with one reber, a German, and from this connection became distinguished by the invidious appellation of Greber’s Peg. She continued to sing on the stage till about 1718; when having, at a modest computation, acquired above ten thousand guineas, she retired from the theatre, and afterwards married Dr. Pepusch. She was remarkably tall, and remarkably swarthy; and, in general, so destitute of personal charms, that Pepusch seldom called her by any other name than Hecate, to which she is said to have answered very readily.

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

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

, secretary to the admiralty in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. and an eminent benefactor to the literature of his country, was a descendant of the ancient family -of the Pepys’s of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, and probably the son of liichard Pepys, who was lord chief justice in Ireland in 1654. He was born, according to Collier, in London; but Knight, in this particular a better authority, says he was born at Brampton in Huntingdonshire, and educated at St. Paul’s school. Thence he was removed to Magdalen-college, Cambridge. How long he remained here, we are not told, but it appears by the college-books, that on June 26, 1660, he was created M. A. by proxy, he being then on board of ship as secretary to the navy. He appears to have been related to general Montague, afterwards earl of Sandwich, who first introduced him into public business, and employed him first in various secret services for Charles II. and then as secretary in the expedition for bringing his majesty from Holland. His majesty being thus restored, Mr. Pepys was immediately appointed one of the principal officers of the navy, by the title of clerk of the acts. In this employment he continued until 1673; and during those great events, the plague, the fire of London, and the Dutch war, the care of the navy in a great measure rested on him alone.

In this last-mentioned year, when the king thought proper to take the direction of the admiralty into his own hands, he appointed Mr. Pepys secretary to that office, who introduced an order and method that has, it is said, formed a model to his successors. Important, however, as his services were, they could not screen him from the malevolence of party-spirit; and happening, in 16S4-, to be concerned in a contested election, this opportunity was taken by his opponent to accuse him of being a Papist, which the house of commons inquired into, but without finding any proof. This we learn from the journals of the house. But Collier informs us that he was confined in the Tower for some time, and then discharged, no accuser appearing against him. After his release, the king made an alteration in the affairs of the admiralty, by putting the whole power and execution of that office into commission; and the public was thus, for some years, deprived of Mr. Pepys’s services as secretary. He was not, however, unemployed for he was commanded by his majesty to ac<­company lord Dartmouth in his expedition against Tangier: and at the same time he had an opportunity of making excursions into Spain, as, at other times, he had already done into France, Flanders, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark. He also sailed frequently with the duke of York into Scotland, and along the coast of England.

On the accession of William and Mary, he resigned his office; and, in 1690, published his “Memoirs” relating to the state of the royal navy of England for the ten years preceding the revolution; a well-written and valuable work. He appears to have led a retired life after this, suffering very much from a constitution impaired by the stone, for which he had been cut in his twenty-eighth year. About two years before his death he went to the seat of an old naval friend, William Hewer, esq. at Clapham, in Surrey, where he died May 26, 1703, and was interred in the same vault with his lady, who died in 1669, in the church of St. Olave, Hart-street, this being the parish in which he lived during the whole of his employment in the Admiralty.

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

, second son to the preceding, by his second lady, was born in Audley Square, Nov. 1, 1762. His infancy was spent at Charlton, the seat of his family, in Kent, where he went through the first rudidiments of learning, and also contracted an early attachment for the youngest daughter of the late Sir Thorn; Spencer Wilson, hart, who afterwards became his wife From Charlton he removed to Harrow, where he successfully prepared himself for the university. At the pro] age he entered of Trinity College, Cambridge, where th< present bishop of Bristol, Dr. William-Lort Mansell, his tutor. There unwearied application and splendid abilities led him to the highest academical honours. In 1782 he obtained the degree of master of arts, and on the 16th of December of the following year was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn; where, after performing the necessary studies, he was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1786. He commenced his professional career in the Court of King’s Bench, and accompanied the Judges through the Midland circuit. His chief opponents were then Mr. (now Sir S.) Romilly, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. serjeant Vaughan; and, notwithstanding a degree of modesty, which at that period almost amounted to timidity, he displayed encouraging promises of forensic excellence, on some of the first trials on which he was retained, particularly that of George Thomas, of Brackiey, Northamptonshire, for forgery. In this case he was retained for the prosecution; and had the honour of contending with Mr. Law, since Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough. This trial excited much public attention; and the ability evinced by Mr. Perceval increased the number of his clients. His advancement was now both regular and rapid. In Hilary term 1796, he obtained a silk gown, and became the leading counsel on the Midland circuit, not only in point of rank, but also, in quantity of business. He was soon after appointed counsel to the Admiralty; and the university of Cambridge acknowledged its sense of his merits by nominating him one of its two counsel. About this time, he had attracted the notice of an attentive observer and acute judge of men and talents, the late Mr. Pitt, by a pamphlet which he had written, to prove “that an impeachment of the House of Commons did not abate by a dissolution of parliament.” This work became the foundation of his intimacy with the premier, and his subsequent connexion with the government, and caused a sudden alteration in his prospects. His object now was to obtain a seat in parliament, where he might support those measures for which the situation of the country seemed to call, and a most favourable opportunity presented itself. His first cousin, lord Compton, succeeded to the earldom of Northampton in April 1796, on the demise of his maternal uncle, and consequently vacated his seat for the borough of that name. Mr. Perceval immediately offered himself to represent the vacant borough, and was too well known, and too universally esteemed, to meet with any opposition. He had been previously appointed deputy recorder; and so highly did his constituents approve of his political conduct and private worth, that they returned him to serve in three parliaments.

Mr. Perceval now endeavoured to become thoroughly master of every branch of policy; and particularly dedicated much of his attention to the subject of finance; and some of his plans, in that important department, are deserving of high commendation. In Hilary vacation, in 1801, at the formation of the Addington administration, Mr. Perceval, then in his 39th year, was appointed solicitor-general, on the resignation of sir William Grant, who succeeded sir Pepper Arden, afterwards lord Alvanley, as master of the rolls. In Hilary vacation, 1802, he was promoted to the situation of attorney-general, become vacant by the elevation of sir Edward Law (now lord Ellenborough) to the seat of chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench.

The new administration was no sooner formed, in March 1807, than it became necessary to consolidate it by an appeal to the sense of the people. Parliament was in consequence dissolved; and in the new one, Mr. Perceval found an increase of strength, which enabled him to carry on that system of public measures begun by Mr. Pitt. To recapitulate these, and notice every occasion in which he stood prominent in debate, belongs to future history. It may suffice here to mention, that he had the voice of the country with him and that when a regency became agaiu necessary, and when the general expectation was that the regent would call to his councils those men who had formerly been honoured with his confidence, his royal highness preferred retaining Mr. Perceval and his colleagues in his service.

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

, an eminent physician, was born at Warrington, September 29, 1740. Having lost both his parents in one day, he was placed at the age of four years under the protection of his uncle, Dr. Thomas Percival, a learned physician, resident at the same place; but of his parental guidance he was also deprived at the age of ten, after which his education was directed with the most kind and judicious attention by his eldest sister. His literary pursuits commenced at a private school in the neighbourhood of Warrington, whence he was removed, at the age of eleven, to the free grammar-school of that town, where he exhibited great promise of talent, and much industry. In 1757 he became one of the first pupils of a dissenting academy then established at Warrington, where he pursued with unabating diligence the classical studies in which he had already made considerable progress, and in particular had attained, great facility and elegance in Latin composition, The study of ethics, however, appears to have principally engaged his attention here, as it did afterwards throughout the whole of -his life, and formed the basis of all his works, except those on professional subjects. It appears that before Mr. Perceval went to Warrington academy, his family was induced to quit communion with the church of England, and to espouse the tenets of protestant dissent. This was in one respect peculiarly unfortunate for him who had thoughts of entering the university of Oxford; but now, after studying the thirty-nine articles, he determined against subscription, and consequently relinquished the advantages of academical study at either English university. He therefore went in 1761 to Edinburgh, and commenced his studies in medical science, which he also carried on for a year in London. In 1765 he removed to the university of Leyden, with a view to complete his medical course, and to be admitted to the degree of doctor of physic. Having accordingly defended in the public schools his inaugural dissertation “De Frigore,” he was presented with the diploma of M. D. July 6, 1765. On his return, which was through France and Holland, at the close of the same year, he joined his family at Warrington, and soon after married Elizabeth, the daughter and only surviving child of Nathaniel Bassnett, esq. merchant, of London. In 1767 ho removed with his family to Manchester, and commenced his professional career with an uncommon degree of success,

, a celebrated archbishop of Paris, and master of the Sorbonne, was son of a steward of the household to cardinal Richelieu, who took care of his education. He distinguished himself as a student, was admitted doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, preached with great applause, and was appointed preceptor to Louis XIV. and afterwards bishop of Rhodes, but resigned this bishopric because he could not reside in his diocese. In 1664, M, de Perefixe was made archbishop of Paris; and, soon after, by the advice of father Annat, a Jesuit, published a mandate for the pure and simple signature of the formularyof Alexander VII. His distinction between divine faith and human faith, made much noise, and was attacked by the celebrated Nicole. His attempt also to make the nuns of Port-Royal sign the formulary, met with great resistance,which occasioned many publications against him but his natural disposition was extremely mild, and it was with the utmost reluctance that he forced himself to proceed against these celebrated nuns. He died December 31, 1670, at Paris. He had been admitted a member of the French academy in 1654. His works are, an excellent “Hist, of K. Henry IV.” Amst. 1661, 12mo. This and the edition of 1664 are scarce and in much request, but that of 1749 is more common. Some writers pretend that Mezerai was the real author of this history, and that M. de Perefixe only adopted it; but they bring no proofs of their assertion. He published also a book, entitled “Institutio Principis,” 1647, 16to, containing a collection of maxims relative to the duties of a king in his minority.

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

, a learned German, was of a family originally of Teutorp, a small town in Westphalia: their name was Voorbrock; but being changed for Perizonius (a Greek word of similar import, implying something of the nature of a girdle) by one who published an “Epithalamium,” with this name subscribed, it was ever after retained by the learned part of the family. Anthony Perizonius, the father of the subject of this article, was rector of the school of Dam, professor of divinity and the Oriental languages, first at Ham, and afterwards at Deventer; at which last place he died in 1672, in his fortysixth year, he published, in 1669, a learned treatise, “De Ratione studii Theologici.”

While here, he was not only esteemed the first preacher of his time, but one of the most laborious students, as indeed his works demonstrate. During the disputes between the church and the puritans, he sided with the latter in principle, but was averse to the extremes to which the conduct of many of his brethren led. Yet he appears to have been summoned more than once to give an account of his conduct, although in general dealt with as his piety, learning, and peaceable disposition merited. Granger says that he was deprived by archbishop Whitgift, Jbut we find no authority for this. He had been a great part of his life much afflicted with the stone, which at last shortened his days. He was only forty-four years of age when he died in 1602. His remains were interred in St. Andrew’s church with great solemnity, at the sole expence of Christ’s college, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Montague (who was also one of his executors) afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, and of Winchester, who spoke highly of his learning, piety, labours, and usefulness. His works were collected and published in 1606, in 3 vols. fol. and are written in a better style than was usual in his time. They have been, however, far more admired abroad than at home. We know not of any of them reprinted in this country since their first appearance, but several of them have been translated into French, Dutch, and Spa-, nish. Bishop Hall said “he excelled in a distinct judgment, a rare dexterity in clearing the obscure subtleties of the schools, and in an easy explication of the most perplexed subjects.”

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

, an eminent French architect, was the son of an advocate of parliament, and born at Paris, in 1613. He was bred a physician, but practised only among his relations, his friends, and the poor. He discovered early a correct taste for the sciences and fine arts; of which he acquired a consummate knowledge, without the assistance of a master, and was particularly skilled in architecture, painting, sculpture, and mechanics. He still continues to be reckoned one of the greatest architects France ever produced. Louis XIV. who had a good taste for architecture, sent for Bernini from Rome, and other architects; but Perrault was preferred to them all; and what he did at the Louvre justified this preference. The facade of that palace, which was designed by him, “is,” says Voltaire, “one of the most august monuments of architecture in the world. We sometimes,” adds he, “go a great way in search of what we have at home. There is not one of the palaces at Rome, whose entrance is comparable to this of the Louvre; for which we are obliged to Perrault, whom Boileau has attempted to turn into ridicule.” Boileau indeed went so far as to deny that Perrault was the real author of those great designs in architecture that passed for his. Perrault was involved in the quarrel his brother Charles had with Boileau, who, however, when they became reconciled, acknowledged Claude’s merit.

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

When the academy of sciences was established, he was chosen one of its first members, and was chiefly depended upon in what related to mechanics and natural philosophy. He gave proofs of his great knowledge in these, by the publication of several works; among which were, “Memoires pour servir a Phistoire naturelle des animaux,” 1671 76, 2 vols. fol. with fine plates; “Essais de Physique,” in 4 vols. 12mo, the three first of which came out in 1680, and the fourth in 1688 c< Recueil de plusieurs machines de nouvelle invention," 1700, 4to, &c. He died Oct. 9, 1688, aged seventy-five. Although he had never publicly practised physic, yet the faculty of Paris, of which he was a member, had such an opinion of his skill, and so much esteem for the man, that after his death they desired his picture of his heirs, and placed it in their public schools with that of Fernelius, Riolanus, and others, who had done honour to their profession.

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

The enmity of the two academicians was of older date than their quarrel concerning the ancients and moderns. Charles Perrault and his brothers, friends of those writers whom Boileau had treated with most severity, did not content themselves with a silent disapprobation of his attacks upon them; they freely expressed their sentiments of the satirist, who, on his part, did not spare them. We ought not, on this occasion, to suppress an anecdote of Perrault, which does him much honour. The French academy, in 1671, had proposed as the subject of their first poetical prize, the “abolition of duels.” Some days before the prizes were distributed, Perrault had spoken highly in commendation of the successful piece, the writer of which, M. de la Monnoye, was unknown. A person who heard him, said to Perrault, “You would be much surprized were the piece to prove Boileau’s.” “Were it the devil’s,” answered Perrault, “it deserves the prize, and shall have it.” Boileau on his part, as if through emulation, rendered some justice to Perrault, and even on account of his verses. He praised the six lines which conclude the preface to Perrault’s “Parallels,” though the ancients are not treated in them with much respect.

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

We have hitherto followed D'Alembert, in our account of M. Perrault. It may be necessary now to add a few particulars from other authorities. With respect to his “Age of Lewis the Great,” it was a kind of prelude to a war with all the learned. In this poem he set the modern authors above the ancient, an attempt which would of course appear shocking to the majority, who considered the ancients as superior in every species of composition. Boileau was present at the academy when this poem was read there, in 1687, and was greatly disgusted; yet took no farther notice of it, than answering it by an epigram, as did also Menagn in another, to which Perrault replied in a letter, which he reprinted the same year, and added to it his “Parallel between the Ancients and Moderns,” in regard to arts and sciences. A second volume of this appeared in 1690, where the subject of their eloquence is considered; a third, in 1692, to determine their poetical merit; and a fourth, in 1696, which treats of their astronomy, geography, navigation, manner of warring, philosophy, music, medicine, &c. 12mo. In the third volume, which relates to poetry, Perrault had not only equalled the modern poets with the ancient, and partu ularly Boileau, but had also set up Chapelain, Quinault, and other French poets, whom Boileau in his Satires had treated with contempt. This brought on the animosity of which we have already given an account. Voltaire says, with regard to this famous controversy, which was carried on at the same time in England, by sir William Temple and others, that “Perrault has been reproached with having found too many faults with the ancients, but that his great fault was the having criticised them injudiciously.”

Perrault died in 1703, aged seventy-seven. Madame Dacier, in the preface to her translation of “Homer’s Odyssey,” has given the following character of this author. < He was,“says she,” a man of talents, of agreeable conversation, and the author of some little works, which have been deservedly esteemed. He had also all the qualities of an honest and good man; was pious, sincere, virtuous, polite, modest, ready to serve, and punctual in the discharge of every duty. He had a considerable place under one of the greatest ministers France ever had, who reposed the utmost confidence in him, which he never employed for himself, but always for his friends." Such a character from madame Dacier must suggest to us the highest opinion of Perrault as a man, when it is considered, that, as an author, she thought him guilty of the greatest of all crimes, an attempt to degrade the ancient writers, whom she not only reverenced, but adored.

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

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

, a French artist of merit, born at Magon in 1590, was a goldsmith’s son; but contracting dissipated habits, ran away from his parents, and is said to have literally begged his way to Rome, in partnership with a blind man. At Rome, after suffering much for want of resources, he had recourse to his pencil, and was soon enabled to maintain himself. Having become acquainted with Lanfranco, he endeavoured to follow his manner, and was not unsuccessful. This giving him a confidence in his powers, he resolved to return to France; and stopping at Lyons, he painted the Carthusians cloister there. From Lyons he proceeded to Paris; and having worked some time for Vouet, who engrossed all the great works, he took a second journey to Italy, where he stayed ten years, and returned to Paris in 1645. About this time he painted the gallery of the Hotel de la Villiere, and drew several easelpieces for private persons. He died professor of the academy, in 1655. He etched several things with a great deal of spirit, and, among others, the finest basso-relievos that are in Rome, a hundred of the most celebrated antiquities, and some of Raphael’s works. He also engraved, in the chiaro oscuro, some antiquities, after a manner, of which, it was said, he was the first inventor; but Parmegiano used it a long time before him. It consists, of two copper-plates, whose impression is made on paper faintly stained the one plate is engraved after the usual way, and that prints the black and the other, which is the secret, prints the white .

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

In the reign of Henry III. he was carried to the French court, which was then at Blois, where the states were assembled in 1576; and introduced to the king as a prodigy of parts and learning. His controversial talents were already so conspicuous, that few cared to dispute with him. His ingenuity does not, however, appear to have greatly advanced his interest, for we are told that when, after this, he came to Paris, he had no other resource than to teach Latin for bread, and that at a time when he held public conferences upon the sciences, m the grand hall of the Augustiues. He set himself afterwards to read the “Summa” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and cultivated a strict friendship with Philip Desportes, abbot of Tiron, who procured him his own place of reader to Henry III. and was the first to advise him to renounce his religion. Previously to his taking this step, he is said to have offended Henry III. by an avowal of religious indifference, which is thus related: one day, while the king was at dinner, he made an admirable discourse against atheists; on which the king commended him much for having proved trie being of a God by arguments so solid. Perron instantly replied, that “if his majesty was disposed to hear him, he would prove the contrary by arguments as solid;” which so offended the king, that he forbad him to come into his presence. This story has been denied by some French writers, as derogatory to Duperrou’s religious principles; but others say that, granting it to be true, it means no more than that Du Perron vaunted his ability to take either side of a question, a practice universal at that time in the schools; yet they allow that his reply to the king was rather ill-timed, and ill-expressed.

After this, he was sent with M. d'Ossat to Rome, to negotiate Henry’s reconciliation to the holy see; which at length*he effected more to the satisfaction of the king, than of his subjects; that part of them at least, who were zealous for Gallican liberties, and thought the dignity of their king prostituted upon this occasion. After a year’s residence at Rome, he returned to France; where, by such services as have already been mentioned, he obtained promotion to the highest dignities. He wrote, and preached, and disputed against the reformed; particularly against Du Plessis Mornay, with whom he had a public conference, in the presence of the king, at Fontainbleau. The king resolved to make him grand almoner of France, to give him the archbishopric of Sens, and wrote to Clement VIII. to obtain for him the dignity of a cardinal; which that pope conferred on him, in 1604, with singular marks of esteem. The indisposition of Clement soon after made the king resolve to send the French cardinals to Rome; where Du Perron was no sooner arrived, than he was employed by the pope in the congregations. He had a great share in the elections of Leo X. and Paul V. He assisted afterwards in the congregations upon the subject of Grace, and in the disputes which were agitated between the Jesuits and the Dominicans: and it was principally owing to his advice, that the pope resolved to leave these questions undecided. He was sent a third time to Rome, to accommodate the differences between Paul V. and the republic of Venice. This pope had such an opinion of the power of his eloquence and address, that he said to those about him, “Let us beseech God to inspire cardinal Du Perron, for he will persuade us to do whatever he pleases.”

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

The works of Du Perron, the greatest part of which had been printed separately in his life-time, were collected after his death, and published at Paris, 1620 and 1622, in 3 vols. folio. The first contains his great “Treatise upon the Eucharist,” against that of Du Plessis Mornay. The second, his “Reply to the Answer of the King of Great Britain.” The following was the occasion of that work: James I. of England sent to Henry IV. of France a book, which he had written himself, concerning differences in religion. Henry put it into the hands of Du Perron’s brother, who informed his majesty, from what the cardinal had observed to him, that there were many passages in that book, in which the king of England seemed to come near the catholics; and that it might be proper to send some able person, in hopes of converting him entirely. Henry accordingly, after taking the advice of his prelates in this affair, desired to know of the king of England, whether he would approve of a visit from the cardinal Du Perron? King James answered that he should be well pleased to confer with him, but for reasons of state could not do it. After this, Isaac Casaubon, who had been engaged in several conferences with Du Perron about religion, and seemed much inclined to that egregious absurdity, a reunion between the popish and reformed church, was prevailed on to take a voyage into England; where he spoke advantageously of Du Perron to the king, and presented some pieces of poetry to him, which the cardinal had put into his hands. The king received them kindly, and expressed much esteem for the author; which Casaubon noticing to Du Perron, he returned a letter of civility and thanks to his Britannic majesty; in which he told him, that, “except the sole title of Catholic, he could find nothing wanting in his majesty, that was necessary to make a most perfect and accomplished prince.” The king replied, that, “believing all things which the ancients had unanimously thought necessary to salvation, the title of Catholic could not be denied him.” Casaubon having sent this answer to Du Perron, he replied to it in a letter, dated the 15th of July, 1611, in which he assigns the reasons that obliged him to refuse the name of Catholic to his Britannic majesty. Casaubon sent him a writing by way of answer, in the name of the king, to all the articles of his letter; to which the cardinal made a large reply, which constitutes the bulk of the second volume of his works. The third contains his miscellaneous pieces; among which are, “Acts of the Conference held at Fontainbleau against Du Plessis Mornay;” moral and religious pieces in prose and verse, orations, dissertations, translations, and letters.

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

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

After his return he published < c Ttfe State of Russia under the present Czar; in relation to the several great and remarkable things he has done, as to his naval preparations, the regulating his army, the reforming his people, and improvement of his country; particularly those works on which the author was employed; with the reasons of his quitting the Czar’s service, after having been fourteen years in that country. Also, an Account of those Tartars, and other people, who border on the Eastern and extreme Northern parts of the Czar’s dominions; their religion and manner of life. With many other observations. To which is annexed a more accurate Map of the Czar’s dominions than has hitherto been extant," 1716, 8vo.

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

His touch was light, and his pictures highly finished; but his manner was stiff and dry, and his outline was frequently incorrect. His most capital painting is in the church of St. Peter at Perugia It is an altar-piece, the subject of which is the Ascension of Christ. The disciples are there represented in various attitudes, but all directing their eyes to heaven, and looking after the Lord, who is supposed to have ascended.

celled. His great prerogative, how- page 178." and was himself employed by Leo X. in forming designs and models for that building He was unfortunately in Rome when it was sacked by the army of Charles V. in 1527, and was made a prisoner, but obtained his liberty by painting a portrait of the eonsiable de Bourbon. Peruzzi died in 1556, very poor, though he had been always in great employment. They who were indebted to him were not always very ready to pay, and he was too modest to demand his right, hy v\hich means he lost a great part of what he had fairly earned.

, member of the academies of Nancy, of Amiens, of Kouen, and Angers, was born at Paris on the 9th of July, 1712, of a reputable family. In his early youth his progress in his studies was rapid. His assiduous application, 'his lively genius, and mild demeanour, conciliated the esteem of his master, and gained the friendship of his juvenile companions. His taste for poetry was apparent at a very earl) period; but the designs of his parents for the advancement of his fortune would not permit him to resign himself entirely to his favourite pursuits, and he sacrificed in some degree his propensity to their wishes. He was placed tinder M. Holland, an advocate, and constantly attended to the regular discharge of business. His leisure hours were devoted to the Muse; and J.e gave up that time to poetry, which by many, at his age, is sacrificed to pleasure. In 1738 his “Ecole du Temps,” a comedy in verse, was represented with applause on the Italian theatre. Encouraged by this success, and with the approbation of M. Rolland, he produced, in the following year, at the French theatre, his “Esope au Parnasse,” a comedy in verse. The reputation of the young poet, and his character for probity, recommended him to M. Lailemand of Bety, a farmer-general, who was at that time forming a system of finance, and who felicitated himself in procuring such an assistant, and in attaching him to his interest. The occupations incident to this new department were probably the causes which prevented Pesselier from producing any other pieces for the stage. Poetry was, however, still the amusement of the time that could be spared from business. In 1748, he published his fables, and among his dramatic works appears a comedy, “La Mascarade du Parnasse,” in verse, and in one act, which was never performed.

His attachment to poetry could not prevent him from dedicating some of the moments that could be spared from the labours of finance to the elucidation of that science. Accordingly, he published the prospectus of a work upon that subject. This publication, exhibiting in one view a perfect knowledge and extensive prospects for the improvement of that necessary resource, attracted the attention of the ministry, who established an office for promoting the plan, and placed the author at the head of it, with appointments proportioned to his talents and the importance of his labours. The views of Pesselier now extended further than the operations of finance. He undertook a treatise on the customary laws of the kingdom, of which, however, only the preliminary discourse appeared. Soon afterwards he published his “Letters on Education,” in two volumes 12mo.

, perhaps better known by his classical appellation of Dionysius Petavius, was born at Orleans Aug. 21, 1583. His father, Jerome Petau, although a merchant, was a man of considerable literature, and rather more attentive to matters of taste than of commerce: the consequence of which was, that he left very little property to his children, six sons and two daughters. He gave them all, however, a learned education; the daughters as well as the sons being taught Latin and Greek, and able to write verses in both languages. But we find, that with all his learning, Jerome was a superstitious bigot to his religion; which his biographer, father Oudin, as warm a zealot as himself, says was at one time in danger of being shaken by some of his Protestant friends, who were very numerous in Orleans. Nay, he was, according to Oudin, about to renounce Popery altogether, and retire with his family, when an extraordinary accident prevented his design. A part of his house tell down, and so frightened him, that, while he lay buried under the ruins, he made a vow, that if ever he escaped, he would break off all acquaintance with the Protestants; and being dug out alive and unhurt, he kt-pt his vow, and endeavoured to give his children the *ame dislike to the Protestant faith as he had formerly determined to give them to the Roman Catholic.

As he perceived in his second son, Denis, a more than ordinary capacity, as well as eagerness for knowledge, he paid particular attention to the formation of his taste and the direction of his studies; and often told him, that he should lay up such a fund of knowledge, as to be able to cope with “the giant of the Allopbyloe,” as he called Sealiger, whose learning and works were of such importance to the Protestants. This advice was not thrown away on Denis, who studied, with the greatest diligence, both at Orleans and Paris; and when he came to take his degree of master of arts, supported a thesis in Greek; a language which he knew as intimately as Latin, and both more so than he knew French. For two years he heard the lectures of the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne, in his time; and was so assiduous, that he never left his study, unless for the king’s library, where he was permitted to consult the valuable Greek and Latin manuscripts. About this time he became acquainted with the learned Isaac Casaubon, whom Henry IV. had invited to Paris in 1600, and their friendship continued until Casaubon’s departure for England, and, what hurt Petau most, his departure from Popery, after which he treated him with as much asperity, as any other of his opponents. In the mean time, it was in consequence of Casaubon’s advice, that, young as he was, he undertook to prepare for the press an edition of the whole works of Synesius; that is, to collate manuscript copies, to translate what was in Greek, and to add explanatory notes. He had no sooner undertaken this work, than he was promoted to the professorship of philosophy in the university of Bourges, when only in his nineteentn year. The course which this office enjoined him to teach lasted two years, during which he also read the ancient philosophers and mathematicians.

In the second year of his being at Bourges, Frederick Morel, Grerk professor at Paris, brought out a complete edition of the works of Dio Chrysostom, and inserted a discourse of Synesius, translated by Petau, who was not sorry to have this opportunity of sounding the taste of the public on the merits of his translation. In the title are the words Interprete Dionysio P<eto, the name he assumed some time before this. Hitherto his intention had been to enter the church; and he was already subdeacon, and had been preferred to a canonry in the cathedral of Orleans. He had never yet seen the Jesuits; but having become acquainted with the nature of their order, when at Bourges, partly from inclination, and partly from the persuasions of the learned Fronto Ducaeus, he entered as a noviciate among them at Nancy, in June 1605. After two years of probation, he studied for two years longer at the college of Pont-a-Mousson, then very flourishing. Thence he was sent to Rheims, where, for three years, he taught rhetoric. In 1610, he did the honours of the college at the consecration of Louis XIII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the czar’s absence, the princess Sophia, being uneasy under her confinement, and meditating to regain that liberty which she had forfeited by former insurrections, found means to correspond with the strelitzes, who were now quartered at a distance from Moscow, and to instigate them to a third rebellion in her favour. The news of this obliged him to hasten home: and, arriving at Moscow about the end of 1699, he executed terrible vengeance upon the ringleaders yet took no other satisfaction of his sister the princess, than by continuing her confinement in the nunnery, and hanging up the priest, who had carried her letters, on a gallows before her window. In 1700, he got together a body of standing forces, consisting of thirty thousand foot; and now the vast project which he had formed began to display itself in all parts. He first sent the chief nobility of his empire into foreign countries, to improve themselves in knowledge and learning: he opened his dominions, which till then had been shut up, and invited all strangers who were capable of instructing his subjects; and he gave the kindest reception to all land and sea officers, sailors, mathematicians, architects, miners, workers in metals, physicians, surgeons, and indeed operators and artificers of every kind, who would settle in his dominions. In the mean time, he had to do with a dull, fceavy, untoward people; so that it is no wonder, that proceedings so new and strange should raise many discontents and tumults, apd it was sometimes almost impossible with all his power to suppress them.

One very singular reason, on which these discontents were grounded, was, that the Russians considered grandeur and superiority, the czar’s great object, in no other light than as a power of doing evil. In 1700, being strengthened by an alliance with Augustus king of Poland, he made war upon Charles XII. of Sweden; from continuing which, he was not deterred by the ill success of his first campaigns: for he used to say, “I know that my armies must be overcome for a great while; but even this will at last teach them to conquer.” Afterwards, however, he gained considerable advantages in Livonia and Ingria, provinces subject to the Swedes. His acquisitions here were so important, that they induced him to build a fortress, whose port, situated on the Baltic, might be large enough to receive a fleet; and accordingly, in 1703, he laid the foundation of Petersburgh, now one of the strongest cities in Europe, which was to him what Alexandria was to Alexander. He waged war with the Swedes for several years, and, without ever, gaining any considerable advantage, was frequently most miserably beat by them. But firmness of mind and perseverance were qualities peculiarly eminent in him; and therefore at length, in 1709, he obtained a complete victory over them in his own dominions, at Pultowa. A great part of the Swedish army were made prisoners. The Swedish generals who were takeu were constantly entertained at his own table and one day, when he had drunk a health to his masters who had instructed him in the art of war, count Rinschild, a chief officer among the prisoners, asked him, “Who they were whom he honoured with so glorious a title?” “Yourselves, gentlemen,” said he. “Your majesty is very ungrateful then,” replied the count, “to have so beaten your masters.” Upon which the czar, to make them some reparation for this ingratitude, immediately gave orders that their swords should be returned; them and treated them with the greatest generosity and goodness. Near 3000 Swedish officers, however, were dispersed up and down his dominions, and particularly in Siberia, a country of vast extent, and running as far as China; and, having little prospect of returning to Sweden, they soon formed a kind of colony, and began to apply themselves to the various professions with which they were acquainted. Thus they forwarded the czar’s great purpose, in polishing and civilizing the ancient inhabitants of the country; and many arts, which, although established at Moscow and Petersburgh, might not have reached Siberia a long time, were thus suddenly established there.

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

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

The czarina, his widow, whom he nominated his successor, was, upon his death, immediately acknowledged empress of Russia by the several estates of the empire. The history of this lady is’rather extraordinary. She was born in Livonia, in 1684; and losing her parents, who were of low condition, she became destitute. The parishclerk, who kept a school, took her into his house, and supported her, till Dr. Gluck, minister of Marienburg, happening to come to that village, eased the clerk of the girl, whom he liked exceedingly, and carried her home with him. Dr. Gluck treated her almost in the same manner as if she had been his own daughter; and not only had her taught spinning and sewing, but instructed her also himself in literature above her sex, and especially in the German language. At length a Livonian serjeant in the Swedish army, fell passionately in love with her, and she agreed to marry him: but the next day the Russians made themselves masters of Marienburg; and the general, casting his eyes accidentally on Catherine, and observing something very striking in her air and manner, took her then under his protection, and afterwards into his service. Some time after, she was advanced to be a housekeeper to prince Menzikoff, who was the general’s patron; and there the czar seeing her, she made such an impression on him that he married her. She was taken at Marienburg in 1702, and married to the czar in 1710: what became of her former husband, the serjeant, is not known. She was a woman of wonderful abilities and address, and a very fit consort for such a man as Peter the Great. It has been already observed in what manner she rescued him from rujn by her management, when he was surrounded by the Turks: and he seems to have made her the partner of his councils and undertakings, as well as of his bed. He shewed the high opinion he had of her by nominating her to succeed him;. but she died in little more than two years after him. She had several daughters by the czar; the youngest of which, Elizabeth, after the heirs of the elder branches were extinct, ascended the throne in 1741.

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

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

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

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

He wrote much, both in verse and prose, but in Latin only. His first production seems to have been, 1. “An Elegy upon the Death of Gabriel Naude, in 1653.” In 1660, he published in 8vo, 2. “De motu animalium spontaneo liber unus.” Petit was a great partisan for the Peripatetic philosophy; and, in this as well as some other works of the same kind, he has strenuously supported the principles of Aristotle, and combated those of Des Cartes. 3. “Epistolse Apologeticse A. Menjoti de variis sectis amplectendis examen: ad medicos Parisienses, autore Adriano Scauro, D. M. 1666,” 4to. Menjot had maintained that a man should attach himself to no particular sect, but take from each whatever he found good. This sentiment did not please Petit, and he opposed it in this work under the fictitious name of Scaurus. He published the same year, in 8vo, under the feigned name of Marinus Statileus, 4. tf Apologia pro genuitate fragment! Satyrici Petroniani“which Hadrian Valesius then, and the best critics since, have agreed to reject as spurious. Euthyphron was another assumed name, under which he published, 5.” De nova curandorum morborum ratione per transfusionem sanguinis,“in 1667, 4to. He there rejects this method of cure, which was approved by many physicians of his time, and supports his own opinion with much elegance and learning. In 1683, were published at Utrecht, in 8vo, 6.” Miscellanearum Observationum, libri iv.“These are verbal criticisms upon various authors, and shew great accuracy as well as profound erudition. The same year at Paris came out in 8vo, 7.” Selectorum Poematum, libri ii. Accessit Dissertatio de Furore Poetico.“The dissertation is curious, and the poems have merit enough to rank him with Rapin, Menage, and the best writers of modern Latin poetry. 8.” De Amazonibus Dissertatio,“Paris, 1685, 12mo. The edition of Amsterdam, 1687, 12mo, is preferable, there being additions by the author, and critical observations by M. de la Monnoye. 9.” De natura et moribus Anthropophagorum Dissertatio,“at Utrecht, 1688, 8vo. A curious and learned work. 10.” In tres priores Aretaei libros Commentarii: Una cum dissertatiuncula de Petiti vita, et copioso in eosdem Commentarios indice, 1726," 4to. It was Maittaire, who published this posthumous work, and placed the life of Petit at the head of it. There are several works of this author, but we have mentioned the most important. Care must be taken, in the mean time, not to confound him with the preceding Peter Petit, who was his contemporary.

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

Petitot copied at Paris several portraits of Mignard and Le Brun; yet his talent was not only copying a portrait with an exact resemblance, but also designing a head most perfectly after nature. To this he also joined a softness and liveliness of colouring, which will never change, and will ever render his works valuable. He painted Louis XIV. Mary Anne of Austria his mother, and Mary Theresa his wife, several times. As he was a zealous protestant, and full of apprehensions at the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he demanded the king’s permission to retire to Geneva; who rinding him urgent, and fearing he should escape, cruelly caused him to be arrested, and sent to Fort l'Evque, where the bishop of Meaux was appointed to instruct him. Yet neither the eloquence of Bossuet, nor the terrors of a dungeon, could prevail. He was not convinced, but the vexation and confinement threw him into a fever; of which the king being informed, ordered him to released. He no sooner found himself at liberty, than he escaped with his wife to Geneva, after a residence at Paris of thirty -six years. His children remaining in that city, and fearing the king’s resentment, threw. themselves on his mercy, and implored his protection. The king received them favourably, and told them he could forgive an old man the whim of desiring to be buried with his fathers .

When Petitot returned to his own country, he cultivated his art with great ardour, and had the satisfaction of preserving to the end of his life the esteem of all connoisseurs. The king and queen of Poland, desirous to have their pictures copied by Petitot, though then above eighty, sent the originals to Paris, believing him to be there. The gentleman who was charged with the commission went on to Geneva. The queen was represented on a trophy holding the king’s picture. As there were two heads in the same piece, they gave him a hundred louis d'ors; and he executed it as if he had been in the flower of his age. The concourse of his friends, and the resort of the curious who came to see him, was so great, that he was obliged to quit Geneva, and retire to Vevay, a little town in the canton of Berne, where he worked in quiet. He was about the picture of his wife, when a distemper carried him off in one day, in 169J, aged eighty-four. His life was always exemplary, and his end was the same. He preserved his usual candour and ease of temper to his last hour. He had seventeen children by his marriage; but only one of his sons applied himself to painting, who settled in London. His father sent Jinn several of his works to serve him for models. This son died a good many years ago, and his family settled in Dublin, but whether any are now remaining we know not.

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