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

, a brave English commander, was second son to Geoffrey Vere, who was third son of John Vere, earl of Oxford. He was born in 1554, and applying himself early to the military art, became one of the most famous generals of his time. He served first among the forces sent by queen Elizabeth, under the command of the earl of Leicester, to the assistance of the States of Holland, where he gave proofs of a warlike genius, and undaunted courage. In 1588, he was part of the English garrison which gallantly defended Bergen -op- Zoom against the prince of Parma and “that true courage might not want its due reward or distinction,” says Camden, “the lord Willoughby, who was general of the English after Leicester’s departure, conferred the honour of knighthood on sir Francis Vere, whose great fame commenced from this siege.”

In 1589, the town of Bergh, upon the Rhine, being besieged by the marquis of Warrenbon, and distressed for want of provisions, sir Francis Vere was sent by the Statesgeneral to count Meurs, governor of Guelderland, with nine companies of English, to concert with him measures for the relief of that town. At his coming to Arnheim, the governor being greatly hurt by an explosion of gunpowder, and the states of the province representing to sir Francis the importance of the place, and the great extremity it was reduced to; at their earnest desire he hastened to its relief, with seven companies of Dutch foot, and twelve troops of horse. With these, and carriages laden with provisions, he marched towards Bergh, through a heathy and open country, with such diligence, that having surprised the enemy, who lay dispersed in their forts about the town, in full view of them", he put provisions into it, and returned without loss. After some days refreshment, the States, who had received advice how matters passed at Bergh, ordrred a fresh supply of provisions for it under the command of sir Francis. When he caine within two English miles of the town, the way they were to take being very narrow, and leading by the castle of Loo, th<- enemy from the castle galled his men and horses in their passage with such resolution, that sir Francis perceived they were not the ordinary garrison. Yet, by his military skill and valour, he beat them back to their castle, and was no farther interrupted by them in his passage through the narrow way: but before he could well form his men on an adjoining plain, he was again attacked by a fresh body of the enemy. At the first encounter, his horse was killed under him by a pike, and falling upon him, he could not presently rise, but lay between the two armies, receiving a hurt in his leg, and several thrusts with pikes through his clothes, till the enemy was forced to give way; and though his forces consisted only of the two English troops under his command, and did not exceed four hundred men, yet by his valour and conduct the enemy was defeated, and lost about eight hundred men. He afterwards threw in provisions into Bergh, and exchanged the garrison, though count Mansfeldt was near with thirteen or fourteen thousand foot, and twelve hundred horse.

In 1590, he bravely relieved the castle of Lickenhooven, in the fort of Recklinchusen, with the diocese of Cologn, in which the States had a garrison that was besieged; and he also recovered the town of Burick in Cleves, and a little fort on that side of the Rhine, which had been surprized by the enemy. In 1591, he took by stratagem a fort near Zutphen, in order to facilitate the siege of that town. The manner in which he made himself master of this place is thus related by himself in his “Commentaries:” “I chose,” he says, “a good number of lusty and hardy young soldiers, the most of which I apparelled like the country-women of those parts, the rest like the men: gave to some baskets, to others packs, and such burthens as the people usually carry to the market, with pistols, and short swords, and daggers under their garments, willing them, by two or three in a company, by break of day, to be at the ferry of Zutphen, which is just against the fort, as if they stayed for the passage boat of the town; and bade them there to sit and rest themselves in the mean time, as near the gate of the fort as they could for avoiding suspicion, and to seize upon the same as soon as it was opened, which took so good effect, that they possessed the entry of the fort, and held the same till an officer with two hundred soldiers (who was laid in a covert not far off) came to their succour, and so btcame fully master of the place. By which means the siege of the town afterwards proved the shorter.”

In the beginning of 1600, he had much dispute with the States about some accounts, and particularly their having lessened, in his absence, the companies he commanded for them, from an hundred and fifty to an hundred and thirteen men. He still however continued in his command, and abomt this time the forces of the States laid siege to Nieuport; but Albert, archduke of Austria, who commanded the Spanish forces, having recovered many forts which had been surprized by the troops in the Dutch service, and cut off eight hundred Scots who were posted as a rear-guard to intercept his passage, came to the relief of Nieuport, and a battle became unavoidable The army of the States was commanded by prince Maurice, and the chief officers under him were sir Francis Vere, who was lieutenant-general of the foot, and colonel Lodovick of Nassau, general of the horse. Vere, who commanded in the front, having occasion to repass a ford, before he could come to a convenient place of action, ordered his men not to strip themselves; for which he assigned this reason, “that they would in a few hours either have better clothes, or stand in need of none.” A council of war being then held, prince Maurice was entirely directed by Vere, who was of opinion, that the army of the States ought to wait for the enemy. The dispositions for the battle were then made by Vere with admirable judgment: and the English, who were not above one thousand five hundred, were posted upon the eminences of the downs, and supported by a body of Friesland musqueteers. The archduke was all this time advancing: but his horse, the foot being left behind, were beat back by Vere. The foot, however, coming up, a bloody conflict ensued, in which Vere was wounded, receiving one shot through his leg, and another through his thigh, whilst his horse was killed under him, and himself almost taken prisoner: but prince Maurice advancing with the main body, the battle became general; and the Spaniards, by the courage and good conduct of Vere, received a total defeat.

The last and most signal military exploit performed by sir Francis Vere, was his gallant defence of Ostend, which, was besieged by the archduke Albert and a very numerous army. Vere had been appointed general of all the army of the States in and about Ostend; and accordingly he entered that city on the llth of July, 1601, in or-ier to undertake the defence of it, with eight companies of English, and found in the place thirty companies of Netherlanders, making about sixteen or seventeen hundred men. With this handful, for no less than four thousand were necessary for a proper defence, he resolutely defended the place for a long time against the Spanish army, which was computed at twelre thousand men. During the course of the siege he received a reinforcement of twelve companies of English, and. cut out a new harbour at Ostend, which proved of gi'eat service to him. On Aug. 14, he was wounded in the head by the bursting of a cannon, which obliged him to remov" into Zealand till Sept. 19, when he returned to Ostenti, and found that in his absence some English troops had arrived there to reinforce the garrison. On Dec. 4, in the night, the Spaniards fiercely assaulted the English trendies, so that sir Francis Vere was callt d up without having time to put on his clothes; but by his conduct and valour the enemy were repulsed, and lost about 500 men. In the mean time the place began to be much distressed; and sir Francis, having advice that the besiegers intended a general assault, in order to put them off, and gain time, he artfully contrived to enter into treaty with them for the surrender of the place; but receiving part of the supplies which he had long expected from the States, with an assurance of more at hand, he broke off the treaty. The archduke, equally surprized and enraged at this conduct, which indeed is scarcely to be vindicated, took a resolution to revenge himself of those within the town, saying he would put them all to the sword; and his officers and soldiers likewise took an oath, that, if they entered, they would spare neither man, woman, nor child. They made a general assault on Jan. 7, 1602; but sir Francis, with only twelve hundred men, kept off the enemy’s army of 10,000, which threw that day above 2,200 shot on the town; and had before discharged on it no less than 163,200 cannon shot, leaving scarcely a whole house standing. Our heroic general having acquired immortal honour in the defence of Osrend for eight months together, resigned his government March 7, 1602, to Frederic Dorp, who had been appointed by the States to succeed him; and he and his brother, sir Horatio Vere, returned into Holland.

Soon after his discharge from the government of Ostend, sir Francis, at the request of the States, came into England to desire fresh succours, which went over in May, and were to be under his command. He accordingly returned again to Holland; and upon receiving the news of queen Elizabeth’s death, he proclaimed king James I. at the Brill, in April 1603. A few months after he came to England, and his government of the Brill expiring, or he being superseded at Elizabeth’s death, it was renewed to him by king James. But under this pacific sovereign, a peace was concluded with Spain in 1601. Sir Francis survived this about four years, and died at home, Aug. 28, 1608, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. He was interred in St. John’s chapel, Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his lady. Besides his other preferments, he was governor of Portsmouth. He had three sons and two daughters, who all died before him. He married Elizabeth, second daughter of John Dent, a citizen of London, and she re-married with Patrick Murray, a son of John earl of Tullibardine, in Scotland.

Upon the accession of king Charles I. sir Horace Vere, as a reward for his services, was advanced to the peerage, by the title of lord Vere, baron of Tilbury; being the first peer created by that monarch. He died the 2d of May, 1635, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He married a lady who was then the widow of Mr. John Hoby: she was the youngest daughter of sir John Tracy of Doddington, or Tuddington, in Gloucestershire. She died in 1671, at a great age. The parliament placed the younger children of Charles I. under the care of this lady, who was a person of great piety and worth, and in her punning epitaph, written by Dr. Simon Ford, is thus addressed,

, seventeenth earl of Oxford, was the only son of John the sixteenth earl, who died in 1563, by his second wife, Margaret, daughter of John Golding, esq. He is supposed to have been born about 1540 or 1541, and in his youth travelled in Italy, whence it is said he was the first who imported embroidered gloves and perfumes into England, and presenting queen Elizabeth with a pair of the former, she was so pleased with them, as to be drawn with them in one of her portraits. This gives us but an indifferent opinion of his judgment, yet he had accomplishments suited to the times, and made a figure in the courtly tournaments so much encouraged in queen Elizabeth’s reign. He once had a rencounter with sir Philip Sidney (see Sidney, vol. XXVII. p. 507), which did not redound much to his honour. In 1585, Walpole says he was at the head of the nobility that embarked with the earl of Leicester for the relief of the States of Holland; but Camden, who gives a list of the principal personages concerned in that expedition, makes no mention of him. In 1586 he sat as lord great chamberlain of England on the trial of Mary queen of Scots. In 1588 he hired and fitted out ships at his own charge against the Spanish Armada. In 1589 he sat on the trial of Philip Howard, earl of Arwndel; and in 1601, on the trials of the earls of Essex and Southampton. One of the most remarkable events of his life was his cruel usage of his first wife, Anne, daughter of the celebrated William Cecil, lord Burleigh, in revenge for the part acted by that statesman against Thomas duke of Norfolk, for whom he had a warm friendship. Camden says, that having vainly interceded with his father-in-law for the duke’s life, he grew so incensed that he vowed revenge against the daughter, and “not only forsook her bed, but sold and consumed that great inheritance descended to him from his ancestors;” but in answer to this, Collins says, that the estate descended to his son. It was probably, however, much impaired, as Arthur Wilson agrees with Camden, and something of the same kind may be inferred from a letter in Winwood’s Memorials, III. 422. The earl was buried at Hackney, July 6, 1604.

His character appears to have been marked with haughtiness, vanity, and affectation. He aped Italian dresses, and was called “the mirror of Tuscanismo.” His rank, however, and his illustrious family commanded the respect of a large portion of the literary world, and among his eulogists were the contemporary writers, Watson, Lily, Golding, Munday, Greene, Lock, and Spenser. Scattered pieces of his poetry are found in the collections of the times, and particularly in the “Paradise of dayntie devises,” lately reprinted in the Bibliographer. In these there appear the same traits as are said to have been exhibited in his character. They are generally affected, full of conceit and antithesis, and obscure. He is said also to have written comedies, and to have been reckoned the best writer of comedy in his time, but the very names of these plays are lost. His lady, Anne, has lately been introduced to public observation, as a poetess, by Mr. George Steeveris, the editor of Shakspeare. Her poetical attempts are to be found in a collection of odes and sonnets, entitled “Diana,” published by one John Southern or Soothern. Some account of these, which seem to be below mediocrity, is given by Mr. Park as a supplementary article to Walpole’s “Royal and Noble Authors.”

, abbot of St. Cyran, famous in the seventeenth century as a controversial writer, was born in 1581, at Bayonne, of a good family. He pursued his studies at Lou vain, and formed a strict friendship with the celebrated Jansenius, his fellow student. In 1610 he was made abbot of St. Cyran, on the resignation ( of Henry Lewis Chateignier de la Roche-Posai, bishop of Poitiers. The new abbot read the fathers and the councils with Jansenius, and took great pains to impress him with his sentiments and opinions, as well as a number of divines with whom he corresponded; nor did he leave any means untried to inspire M. le Maitre, M. Arnauld, M. d'Andilly, and several more disciples whom he had gained, with the same opinions. This conduct making much noise, cardinal Richelieu, who was besides piqued that the abbot of St. Cyran refused to declare himself for the nullity of the marriage between Gaston, duke of Orleans, the brother of Louis the thirteenth, and Margaret of Lorraine, confined him at Vincennes, May 11, 1638. After this minister’s death, the abbot regained his liberty, but did not enjoy it long, for he died at Paris, October 18, 1643, aged sixtytwo, and was buried at St. Jacques du Haut-Pas, where his epitaph may be seen on one side of the high altar. His works are, 1. “Lettres Spirituelles,” 2 vols. 4to, or 8vo, reprinted at Lyons, 1679, 3 vols. 12mo, to which a fourth has been added, containing several small tracts written by M. de St. Cyran, and printed separately. 2. “Question Royale,” in which he examines in what extremity a subject might be obliged to save the life of his prince at the expence of his own, 1609, 12mo. This last was much talked of, and his enemies drew inferences and consequences from it, which neither he nor his disciples by any means approved 3. “L‘Aumône Chrétienne, ou Tradition de l’Eglise touchant la charité envers les Pauvres,” 2 vols. 12mo. The second part of this work is entitled “L'Aumône ecclesiastique.” M. Anthony le Maitre had a greater share in the last-mentioned book than the abbot of St. Cyran. He published some other works of a similar cast, but his last appears to deserve most notice. It is entitled “Petrus Aurelius,” -and is a defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy against the Jesuits. He was assisted in this book by his nephew, the abbé de Baicos, and it seems to have done him the most honour of all his works, though it must be acknowledged, says the abbé L'Avocat, that if all the abuse of the Jesuits, and the invectives against their order, were taken from this great volume, very little would remain. L'Avocat is also of opinion that M. Hallier’s small tract on the same subject, occasioned by the censure of the clergy in 1635, is more solid, much deeper, and contains better arguments, than any that are to be found in the great volume of “Petrus Aurelius.” The first edition of this book is the collection of different parts, printed between 1632 and 1635, for which the printer Morel was paid by the clergy, though it was done without their order. The assembly held in 1641 caused an edition to be published in 1642, which the Jesuits seized; but it was nevertheless dispersed on the remonstrances of the clergy. This edition contains two pieces, “Confutatio collections locorum quos Jesuits compilarunt, &c.” that are not in the third edition, which was also published at the clergy’s expence in 1646. But to this third edition is prefixed the eulogy, written by M. Godeau on the author, by order of the clergy, and the verbal process which orders it; whence it appears that their sentiments respecting him, differed widely from those of the Jesuits and their adherents. The abbot de St. Cyran was a man of much simplicity in his manners and practice: he told his beads; he exorcised heretical books before he read them: this simplicity, however, concealed a great fund of learning, and great talents for persuasion, without which he could never have gained so many illustrious and distinguished disciples, as Mess. Arnauld, le Maltre de Sacy, Arnauld d'Andilly, and the other literati of Port Royal, who all had the highest veneration for him, and placed the most unbounded confidence in him. But whatever talents he might have for speaking, persuading, and directing, he certainly had none for writing; nor are his books answerable to his high reputation.

From this time to 1541, Vergerius appeajrs to have remained in Italy. In this last mentioned year, he was commissioned to go to the diet at Worms, where he made a speech on the unity and peace of the church, which he printed and circulated, and in which he principally insisted on the arguments against a national council. On his return to Rome, the pope intended to have rewarded his services with a cardinal’s hat, but changed his purpose on hearing it insinuated that a leaning towards Lutheranism was perceptible in him, from his long residence in Germany. The pope, however, was not more offended than Vergerius was surprized at this charge, which he knew to be absolutely groundless; yet this circumstance, probably arising from personal malice or envy, proved ultimately the means of Vergerius’s conversion. With a view to repel the charge of heresy, he now sat down to write a book, the title of which was to be, “Adversus apostatas Germanise,” against the apostates of Germany; but as this led him to a strict investigation of the protestant doctrines, as found in the works of their ablest writers, he found his attachment to popery completely undermined, and rose up from the perusal of the protestant writers with a strong conviction that they were in the right. He then immediately went to confer with his brother, John Baptist Vergerius, bishop of Pola, in Istria, who was exceedingly perplexed at his change of sentiment, but on his repeated entreaties, joined him in examining the disputed points, particularly the article of justification, and the result was, that both prelates soon preached to the people of Istria the doctrines of the reformation, and even dispersed the New Testament among them in the vulgar tongue. The Inquisition, as well as the monks, soon became alarmed at this, and Vergerius was obliged to seek refuge in Mantua, under the protection of cardinal Hercules Gonzaga, who had been his intimate friend; but Gonzaga was after a short time obliged by remonstrances from Rome to withdraw his protection, and he finally went to Padua, and thence to the Grisons, where he preached the gospel for several years, until invited by the duke of Wirtemberg to Tubingen, and there he passed the remainder of his days. In the mean time his brother, the bishop of Pola, died, and, as suspected, by poison, administered by some of those implacable enemies who were also thirsting for Vergerius’s blood. But he was now out of their reach, and died quietly at Tubingen, Oct. 4, 1566. Verged us, after his conversion, wrote a great many treatises, most of them small, against popery and popish writers, the titles of which are to be found in our authorities, but they are all of rare occurrence, owing to their having been suppressed or strictly prohibited by his enemies. Some are in Italian, and some in Latin. A collection of them was begun to be printed at Tubingen in 1563, but one volume only was published, under the title of “Primus tomus operum Vergerii adversus Papatum,” 4to. A valuable defence of Vergerius was published by Schelhorn, in 1760, “Apologia pro P. P. Vergerio adversus loh. Casam. Accedunt Monumenta inedita, et quatuor epistoltE memorabiles,” 4to.

, a writer who did not want either genius or learning, was born at Urbino, in Italy, in the fifteenth century; but the year is not named, nor have we any account of his early history. He was first known in the literary world by “A Collection of Proverbs,” 1498, and this being the first work of the kind, it occasioned some jealousy between him and Erasmus. When Erasmus afterwards published his “Adagia,” and did not take notice of his work, Vergil reproached him in terms not civil, in the preface to his book “De llerum Inventoribus.” Their friendship, however, does not seem to have been interrupted by it; and Vergil, at the instigation of Erasmus, left the passage out in the later editions. These “Adagia” of Polydore Vergil were printed three or four times in a very short space; and this success encouraged him to undertake a more difficult work, his book “De Rerum Inventoribus,” printed in 1499. At the end of the 4th edition at Basil, 1536, 12mo, is subjoined a short commentary of his upon the Lord’s prayer. After this, he was sent into England by pope Alexander VI. to collect the papal tribute, called Peter-pence, and was the last collector of that oppressive tax. He recommended himself in this country so effectually to the powers in being, and was so well pleased with' it, that, having obtained the rectory of Church Langton in Leicestershire, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life in England. In 1507 he was presented to the archdeaconry of Wells, and prebend of Nonnington, in the church of Hereford; and was the same year collated to the prebehd of Scamelsby in the church of Lincoln, which he resigned in 1513 for the prebend of Oxgate in that of St. Paul’s. In 1517 he published at London a new edition of his work “De Rerum Inventoribus,” then consisting of six books, with a prefatory address to his brother John Matthew Vergil. About 1521 he undertook a considerable work at the command of Henry VIII.; upon which he spent above twelve years. It was a “History of England,” which he published and dedicated in 1533 to his royal patron. The purity of his language is generally allowed, and he excelled most of the writers of this age for elegance and clearness of style, but his work is chargeable with great partiality, and even falsehood, and this charge has been advanced by sir Henry Savile and Humphrey Lloyd, who reproaches him in very severe terms. Caius, in his book “De Antiquitatibus Cantabrigiae,” mentions it as a thing “not only reported, but even certainly known, that Polydore Vergil, to prevent the discovery of the faults in his history, most wickedly committed as many of our ancient and manuscript histories to the flames as a waggon could hold.” For this, however, we have no direct authority. His greatest fault is, that he gives a very unfair account of the reformation, and of the conduct of the protestants. Yet his work has been printed several times, and very much read; and is necessary to supply a chasm of almost seventy years in our history, including particularly the lives of Edward IV. and Edward V. which period is hardly to be found in Latin in any other author.

After a long and active life, in a manner that did honour to himself and his country, Vernet began to fear that his well-earned pension would be stopped by the troubles arising in France; and as 81 years of age is rather too late a period for a man to take a very active part in national disputes, he meditated a retreat to England, which was put a stop to by his death in 1789. His works will, however, live as long as those of any artist of his day. In a light and airy management of his landscape, in a deep and tender diminution of his perspective, in the clear transparent hue of the sky, liquid appearance of the water, and the buoyant air of the vessels which he depicted on it, he had few superiors. In small figures employed in dragging off a boat, rigging a ship, or carrying goods from the quay to a warehouse, or any other employ which required action, he displayed most uncommon knowledge, and gave them with such spirit (though sometimes a little in the French fluttered style), as has never been equalled by any man except our most excellent Mortimer; and to be the inferior of Mortimer in that line is no dishonour. It has been the lot of every painter who ever lived, and will probably be the lot of all who ever will live. He carried that branch of the art to its highest degree of perfection. As a proof in what estimation Vernet was held, it may be mentioned that two of his pictures, now in the Luxembourg, were purchased by madame du Barry for 50,000 livres. It was said of him, that his genius neither knew infancy nor old age.

He wrote, for the use of his students, 1. “Catalogus ID­terpretum S. Scripturae, juxta numerorurn ordinem, qui extant in Bibl. Bodl.” Oxon. 1635, 4to, the second edition. This was first begun by Dr. Thomas James. To it is added an “Elenchus auctorum, tarn reoentium quam antiquorum, qui in quatuor libros sententiarmn et Thomas Aquinatis summas, &c. scripserunt.” 2. “Nomenclator of such tracts and sermons as hare been printed, or translated into English upon any place or book of Scripture, now to be had in Bodley’s library,” Oxon. 1637, and enlarged in 1642, 16mo. He also translated from French into English, principal Cameron’s “Tract of the sovereign judge of controversies,” Oxon. 1628, 4to, and from English into Latin, Daniel Dyke “On the deceitfulness of man’s heart.” This was printed at Geneva, 1634, 8vo.

It was the misfortune of this brave man, that too much of temper and political ambition made his life turbulent and unhappy. “Of all men,” says the candid Charnock, “who have been fortunate enough to obtain celebrity as naval commanders, few appear to have taken greater pains to sully their public fame by giving full scope to all their private feelings; yet probably, for this very uncommon reason, he rose the greater favourite of fortune, in the minds of the people, to that pinnacle of popularity, the height of which was indeed great enough to dazzle and distract the firmest minds; so that to the infirmity of human nature may, in some measure, be ascribed that extravagance of conduct which might otherwise be more condemned. To say he was a brave, a gallant man, would be a needless repetition of what no person has ever presumed to deny him. His judgment, his abilities as a seaman, are unquestioned; and his character, as a man of strict integrity and honour, perfectly unsullied, &c.” Admiral Vernon wrote some pamphlets in his own defence, or in defence of his peculiar opinions.

, a learned lawyer, of whom our accounts are very imperfect, was the son and heir of Richard Vernon, esq. of Henbury-hall, Worcestershire, and made a considerable figure in the reigns of queen Anne and George I. representing the borough of Whitechurch, Hampshire, in the parliaments called in 1710, 1713, 1714, and 1722. He had been secretary to the unfortunate duke of Monmouth. He died at Twickenham-park, August 22, 1726. His “Law Reports” were printed by order of the court of chancery, in 2 vols. fol. 1726, 1728, under the title of the “Reports” of Thomas Vernon, esq. “of Cases argued and adjusted in the high court of chancery, from 33 Car. II. to 5 Geo. I.” Among other eminent authorities, the late lord Kenyon took occasion to observe, that it had been an hundred and an hundred times lamented that Vernon’s Reports were published in a very inaccurate manner; there were some private reasons, said his lordship, assigned for that, which he would not mention. Mr. Vernon’s notes were taken for his own use, and never intended for publication. He was, added lord Kenyon, the ablest man in his profession. There being a dispute after Mr. Vernon’s death, whether his Mss. should go to his heir-at-law, or pass under the residuary clause in his will to his legal personal representatives, the court of chancery made an order for the publication of them, under the direction of Mr. Melmoth and Mr. Peere Williams, but as many of the cases have been found inaccurate, and to consist of loose notes only, John Raithby, esq. has lately edited and republished them with great labour, and as he has taken pains to examine all the cases with the register’s book, they cannot fail to be an acceptable offering to the profession. Mr. Raithby 's elaborate edition appeared in 1806 and 1807, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Dutch painter,- was the son of a captain, and born at Gorcum in 1727. Having discovered an early turn for designing, his father placed him at eight years of age with a portrait-painter at Gorcum, but at the age of thirteen he left this master to learn the greater principles of his art at Utrecht. After he had continued about six years with Both, a painter of good reputation there, he went to Rome, where he frequented the academies, and employed himself in designing after the best models. His genius leading him to paint animals, hunting, and battles, he studied every thing that might be useful to him in those ways. He also designed landscapes, and the famous buildings, not only in the neighbourhood of Rome, but all over Italy; which employment gave him a relish for architecture. After residing ten years in Italy, he resolved to return to his own country. He passed through Switzerland into France; and, while he was at Paris, met with a young gentleman who was going to make the tour of Italy, and was prevailed on to accompany him, after spending three years more in Italy, he came back to Holland, arriving at Gorcum in 1C62. His taste for battlepieces induced him to make a campaign in 1672, in the course of which he designed all the circumstances and accompaniments of war. His genius was fruitful; there was a great deal of fire in his imagination and in his works; and, as he had studied much after nature, he formed a particular taste which never degenerated into what is called manner, but comprehended a great variety of objects, and had more of the Roman than the Flemish in it. Such was the pleasure he took in his profession, that he had always a crayon in his hand; and, wherever he came, designed some object or other after nature. His best perfomances are at the Hague, Amsterdam, and Utrecht.

, principally known as an antiquary, was the grandson of Richard Roland Verstegan, of an ancient family in the duchy of Guelderland, who being driven out of his own country by the confusions of war, came to England in the time of Henry VII. Here he married, and dying soon after, left an infant son, who was afterwards put apprentice to a cooper, and was father to the subject of this article. Richard was born in St. Catherine’s parish, near the Tower of London, and after receiving the rudiments of education, was sent to Oxford, where he was generally called Roland. It does not appear what college he belonged to, cr whether he is to be considered as a regular member of any, but he seems to have distinguished himself in Saxon literature, then very little studied. He was, however, a zealous Roman catholic, and finding no encouragement in his studies without taking oaths adverse to his principles, he quitted the university, and settled at Antwerp, and practised drawing and painting. About 1592 he published a work, now very rare, entitled “Theatrum crudelitatum Hsereticorum nostri temporis,” a thin quarto, with curious cuts representing the deaths of the Jesuits, and other missionaries who were hanged or otherwise put to death for their machinations against the church and state. This effort of zeal does not appear to have been in all respects agreeable to some of his own party; and either his fears on this account, or some other causes, induced him to leave Antwerp for Paris. There being complained of by the English ambassador as a calumniator of his royal mistress, he was thrown into prison by the French king’s orders. How long he was confined is not known, but when released he returned to Antwerp, and resumed his studies, which produced his “Restitution of decayed Antiquities,” 1605, 4to, several times reprinted, a work of very considerable merit and judicious research; but, the principal subjects on English antiquities having been since more accurately investigated and treated, Verstegan’s work is rather a curious than a necessary addition to the historical library. When he published it he seems to have been in better humour with England, and dedicated it very respectfully to James I. He corresponded much with sir Robert Cotton, and other antiquaries of the time. It is uncertain when he died, but some place that event soon after 1634. Verstegan wrote also “The successive regal Governments of England,” Antwerp, 1620, in one sheet, with cuts; “A Dialogue on Dying well,” a translation from the Italian; and a collection of very indifferent poetry, entitled “Odes; in imitation of the seven penitential Psalmes. With sundry other poems and ditties, tending to devotion and pietie,” imprinted 1601, 8vo, probably at Antwerp.

, a very pleasing French historian, whose principal works have been translated into English, was born at the castle of Bennetot, in Normandy, Nov. 25, 1655, of a good family. Such was his application to study, that in his seventeenth year he maintained his last philosophical theses. Much against his father’s will he entered among the Capuchins, and took the name of brother Zachary, but the austerities of this order proving hurtful to his health, he was induced to exchange it for one of milder rules. Accordingly, in 1677, he entered among the Premonstratenses, where he became successively secretary to the general of the order, curate, and at length prior of the monastery. But with this he does not appear to have been satisfied, and after some other changes of situation, became a secular ecclesiastic. In 1701 he came to Paris in that character, and was in 1705 made an associate of the academy of belles lettres. His talents soon procured him great patronage. He was appointed secretary of commands to the duchess of Orleans Bade-Baden, and secretary of languages to the duke of Orleans. In 1715 the grand-master of Malta appointed him historiographer to that order, with all its privileges, and the honour of wearing the cross. He was afterwards appointed to the commandery of Santery, and would, but for some particular reasons, not specified, have been intrusted with the education of Louis XV. His last years were passed in much bodily infirmity, from which he was released June 15, 1735. His literary career has in it somewhat remarkable. He was bordering on his forty- fifth year when he wrote his first history, and had passed his seventieth when he bad finished the last, that of Malta. He lived nine years afterwards, but under extreme languor of body and mind. During this, when, from the force of habit, he talked of new projects, of the revolutions of Carthage, and the history of Poland, and his friends would represent to him that he was now incapable both of reading or writing, his answer was, that he had read enough to compose by memory, and written enough to dictate with fluency. The French regard him as their Quintus Curtius. His st)le is pleading, lively, and elegant, and hjs reflections always just, and often profound. But he yielded too much to imagination, wrote much from memory, which was not always sufficiently retentive, and is often wrong in facts, from declining the labour of research, and despising the fastidiousness of accuracy. His works, which it is unnecessary to characterise separately, as they have been so long before both the French and English public, are, 1. “Histoire des Revolutions de Portugal,” Paris, i6?9, 12mo. 2. “Histoire des Revolutions de Suede,” 1696, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Histoire des Revolutions Romanies,” 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “histoire de Malte,” 1727, 4 vols 4to, and 7 vols. 12mo. 5. “Traité de la mouvance de Bretagne.” 6. “Hisjtoire critique de l'etablissment des Bretons dans les Gaules,” 2 vols 12mo, a posthumous work, 1713. H wrote also some dissertations in the Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres, and corresponded much with the literati of his time on subjects of history, particularly with earl Stanhope, on the senate of ancient Rome. His and lord Stanhope’s Inquiry on this subject were published by Hooke, the Roman historian, in 1757, or 1758.

In 1711 an academy of painting was instituted by sir Godfrey Kneller, where Vertue continued to draw for some years with great assiduity. Soon after the accession of the present royal family, he published a large portrait of king George I. from a picture by Kneller. As it was the first portrait of that monarch, many thousands were sold, though by no means a laborious or valuable performance. However it was shewn at court, and was followed by his undertaking to engrave portraits of the prince and princess.

In 1730 appeared his twelve heads of distinguished poets, one of his capital works, which he meant to have followed with the portraits of other eminent men, arranged in classes, but this scheme was taken out of his hands by the Messrs. Knapton; and there is reason to think that Vertue’s rigid regard for veracity, which made him justly scrupulous of authenticating the likenesses of deceased characters without the clearest proofs, and not the superior taste or discernment of the Knaptons, made them engage the superior talents of Houbraken and Gravelot, to finish a work which our artist had begun, and had himself projected.

He now renewed his topographical journeys, accompanied sometimes by the earl of Leicester, sometimes by lord Oxford, and sometimes by Roger Gale the antiquary; and between 1734—38, visited St Albans, Northampton, Oxford, Penshurst, Warwick, Coventry, Stratford, and travelled through the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire, where he made various sketches, drawings, and notes, always presenting a duplicate of his observations to his patron lord Oxford. In 1739 he travelled eastward with lord Coleraine, through the counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk, stopping as usual to make drawings and observations at every memorable church, seat, or other spot congenial to his pursuits. In 1741 he lost his noble friend and patron the earl of Oxford, who died on the loth of June. But his merit and modesty still raised him benefactors. The countess dowager of Oxford, even, alleviated his loss, and the duchess of Portland (their daughter), the duke of Richmond, and lord Burlington, did not forget him among the artists whom they patronized.

Valuable as Vertue’s engravings are, he would have had more admirers, if his style had been more spirited; yet the antiquary and the historian who prefer truth to elegance of design, and correctness to bold execution, have properly appreciated his works, and have placed him, in point of professional industry at least, next to his predecessor Hollar. But the public owe another obligation to Vertue. After his death the late lord Orford purchased the manuscript notes and observations which he had put down, as materials for a history of artists, and from them published that very useful and entertaining work, which he entitled “Anecdotes of Fainting in England; with some account of the principal Artists, and incidental notes on other Arts, collected by Mr. George Vertue,” 1762, 5 vols. 4to; since republished in 1782, 5 vols. 8vo. “Vertue,” says Mr. Walpole, “had for several years been collecting materials for a work ‘ upon Painting and Painters:’ he conversed and corresponded with most of the virtuosi in England he was personally acquainted with the oldest performers in the science: he minuted down every thin^ he heard from them. He visited every collection of them, attended sales, copied every paper he could find relative to the art, searched offices, registers of parishes, and registers of wills for births and deaths, turned over all our own authors, and translated those of other countries which related to his subject. He wrote down every thing he heard, saw, or read. His collections amounted to near forty volumes, large and small. In one of his pocket-books I found a note of his first intention of compiling such a work: it was in 1713, and he continued it assiduously to his death in 1757. These Mss. I bought of his widow after his decease.” Venue’s private character, it must not be omitted, was of the most amiable kind; friendly, communicative, upright in all his dealings, a most dutiful son, and an affectionate husband. He laboured almost to the last, solicitous to leave a decent competence to a wife, with whom he lived many years in tender harmony, and who died in 1776, in the seventy-sixth year of her age. He had a brother James, who followed the same profession at Bath, and died about 1765.

, or Amerigo Vespucci, a navigator from whose name the largest quarter of the world has very unjustly been named, was born at Florence, March 9, 1451, of a distinguished family, and educated by an uncle, a man of learning- who had the care of the education of the Florentine nobility. Vespucci made great progress in natural philosophy, astronomy, and cosmography, the principal branches in which the Florentine nobility were instructed, because being for the most part destined for commerce, it was necessary they should become acquainted with the sciences connected with navigation. Commerce had been the foundation of the grandeur and prosperity of the republic, and as each family educated some member who was to serve his country in that pursuit, that of Vespucci chose Amerigo, or Americus, to follow the example of their ancestors in this respect. Accordingly he left Florence in 1490, and went to Spain, to be initiated in mercantile life. He is said to have been at Seville in 1492, when Columbus was preparing for a new voyage, and the rage for new discoveries was at its height. The success of that celebrated navigator raised this passion in Americus, who determined to give up the pursuit of trade, in order to go and reconnoitre the new world, of whose existence Europe had just heard.

In 1745, Bandini published in 4to, “Vitta e I.ettere di Amerigo Vespucci, &c.” a continued panegyric on the Florentine adventurer, to whom he does not hesitate to attribute the discovery of America. According, indeed, to the dates which he gives of the first two voyages of Americus, and which we have followed in the preceding account, it would appear that he had the priority in the discovery; but the Spanish writers have proved that the dates of those voyages are fictitious, and that the first, if it ever took place at all, must have been in 1499 instead of 1497. It seems also generally agreed that Americus never had the command in any expedition, that he acted only as geographer or pilot, and that he never undertook any of his voyages until after the return of Columbus. By some unaccountable caprice, however, America was at first, and is still, called by his name, and succeeding ages, although they may regret, cannot correct the error.

, an extraordinary enthusiast in the seventeenth century, was born in London in 1582, descended from the family of Vicars in Cumberland. He was educated in Christ’s hospital, London, and afterwards was a member of Queen’s college, Oxford, but whether he took his degrees, Wood has rppt discovered. After leaving college he went to London, and became usher of Christ’s hospital, which place he held till towards the close of his life. It does not appear that he was a preacher, although most of his writings concern the religious controversies of the times Upon the commencement of the rebellion, “he showed his great forwardness,” says Wood, “for presbyterianism, hated all people that loved obedience, and affrighted many of the weaker sort, and others, from having any agreement with the king’s party, by continually inculcating into their heads strange stories of God’s wrath against the cavaliers. Afterwards, when the independents became predominant, he manifested great enmity against them, especially after the king’s death.” Foulis, in his “History of Plots,” says that “he could out-scold the boldest face in Billingsgate, especially if kings, bishops, organs, or maypoles, were to be the objects of his zealous indignation.” This indeed is a pretty just character of John Vicars’s writings, which form a store-house of the abusive epithets and gross personal reflections which passed between the lower order of sectaries in that period of confusion. The title of his work against John Goodwin, will afford a good specimen of John’s language. This was published in 1648, “Coleman-street Conclave visited; and that grand impostor, the schismatics’ cheater-in-chief (who hath long slily lurked therein) truly and duly discovered; containing a most palpable and plain display of Mr. John Goodwin’s self-conviction (under his own hand- writing), and of the notorious heresies, errors, malice, pride, and hypocrisy, of this most huge Garagantua in falsely pretended piety, to the lamentable misleading of his too credulous soul-murdered proselytes of Coleman-street, and elsewhere; collected principally out of his own big-braggadochio wave-like swelling and swaggering writings, full fraught with six-footed terms, and fleshlie rhetorical phrases, far more than solid and sacred truths, and may fitly serve (if it be the Lord’s will) like Belshazzar’s hand-writing on the wall of his conscience, to strike terror and shame into his own soul and shameless face, and to undeceive his most miserably cheated, and iuchanted or be-witched followers.” This is accompanied by a portrait of Goodwin (the only one mentioned by Granger, and of course in great request) with a windmill over his head, and a weather-cock upon it; the devil is represented blowing the sails; and there are other emblems, significant of Goodwin’s fickleness. Vicars died Aug. 12, 1652, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Wood has given a list of sixteen of his writings, the most curious of which is his “Parliamentary Chronicle.” This is still esteemed useful, and being scarce, is generally sold at a very high price. It was printed at different times under the following titles: 1. “God in the Molint; or England’s Remembrancer, being the first and second part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1644, 4to. 2. “God’s Arke overtopping the World’s waves; or, a third part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. 3. “The Burning-bush not consumed; or the fourth and last part of a Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. These were then published together, under the title of “Magnalia Dei Anglicana, or, England’s Parliamentary Chronicle,” 1646. Vicars was also a poet, and in the “Censura Literaria,” we have an account and specimen of a work of this kind entitled “Mischief’s Mysterie; or, Treason’s Master-piece; the powder-plot, invented by hellish malice; prevented by heavenly mercy truly related, and from the Latin of the learned and reverend Dr. Herring, translated, and very much dilated by John Vicars,” 1617. At the end of this are some smaller poems.

, of whose personal history we have no account, deserves some notice, as the first anatomical writer in the English language. He was a citizen of Londdn, serjeant-surgeon to Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary I. and Elizabeth and chief surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, His book is entitled “A Treasure for Englishmen; containing the Anatomic of Man’s Bodie, 1548;” or, as given by Ames, “A profitable Treatise of the Anatomy of Man’s Body; compiled by T. Vicary, and published by the Surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital,” 1577, 12mo, and in 1633 in 4to; together with several other medical and chirurgical tracts’. It is a short piece, designed for the use of his more unlearned brethren, and taken almost entirely from Galen and the Arabians. Before the latter editions is prefixed a rude figure of a skeleton.

The following publications of his are also in great request: “Monumenta aliquot antiquorum ex gemmis et cameis incisa,” Rom. fol. “Omnium Cacsarum verissimaj imagines ex antiquis numismatibus desumptae,” 15*4, 4to '; and “Augustarum imagines formis expressa?, vitae quoque earumdem breviter enarratae,” &c. Venice, 1558, 4to, the two last edited by P. Manutius. The time of his birth or death is not known.

2. “DC virjx illustrious urhis Romoe.” This was often reprinted in the sixteenth century, un.ler the names of the younger Pliny, or Suetonius or Emilius Probus. It has also been attributed to Cornelius Nepos. The series of illustrious men begins with Phocas, and ends with Pompey.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Florence, in the month of July, 1499. In very early life he began his studies in philosophy, mathematics, jurisprudence, and particularly Greek and Latin. In 1522, he went to Spain with Paul Vettori, a relation, who was general of the gallies, and appointed to accompany the new pope, Adrian VI. into Italy. Our author stopt at Catalonia, and travelled over that and the neighbouring parts in quest of the remains of Roman antiquities, of which he took copies. He also afterwards continued this research at Rome, when he went there to congratulate Clement VII. on his accession to the popedom. This pope had been a npbleman of Florence, and of his own standing. When the revolt took place at Florence Vettori sided with the republican party, and, during the prevalence of the Medici family, retired to the country, and devoted himself to study, with the firm resolution to meddle no more with public affairs. When the duke Alexander was killed, and the senators and patricians were assembled to consider of a new form of government, they invited Vettori to take part in their deliberations; but instead of complying, he went to Rome, and left his discordant and tumultuous countrymen to determine among themselves whether they would be freemen or slaves. “My country,” he used to say, “is in the same situation as Rome formerly; it will neither tolerate liberty nor slavery. Riches have produced pride, and pride, ambition. The laws have no longer any force; every day they are repealing old laws and making new ones, and no more respect is paid to the new than to the old. In the present state of my country, I clearly see that it must have a sovereign, but I will not aid in giving it a sovereign, for fear of giving it a tyrant.”

With such arguments he always answered those who by letter or in person pressed him to return to Florence, and affected even to consider his refusal as criminal. He bad the wisdom to abandon politics, and dedicate his whole time and attention to the acquisition of knowledge. And in such esteem was he held on account of his learning, that Cosmo I. who could not love him on account of his hostility to the Medici family, yet sent him an invitation to become Greek and Latin professor in the university of Florence. This was a noble sacrifice of prejudice on the part of the duke, and Vettori executed the duties of his office for more than forty years with the highest reputation, and formed many distinguished scholars both Italians and foreigners. Whether we consider the utility of his lectures or his public works, it will appear that literature was as highly indebted to him as to almost any scholar of his time. Had he done nothing but collate and correct the editions of the Greek and Latin authors which had appeared from the invention of printing to his own time, his labours would have been of infinite service in that comparatively dark period; but we are indebted to his industry also for the collation of avast number of manuscripts, and selecting the best for the press, in which he shewed great judgment, and assigned his reasons with critical precision. But his services did not end even here, for he furnished the learned world with notes and commentaries, which gave superiority to many editions of the classics, as various parts of Aristotle’s works, Terence, Varro, Sallust, Euripides, Porphyry, Plato, Xenophon, &c. but of all his editions, that of Cicero, printed in 1534 37, four vols. folio, has justly received the encomiums of the literary world ever since his time. He has been called “Verus Ciceronis sospitator,” and Grasvius is of opinion that Cicero is more indebted to him than to all the other critics and commentators. Besides these and his “Variae lectiones,” of which there have been several editions, and which discover great critical knowledge, he was the author of some Latin poetry and orations, of letters both in Latin and Italian, and an Italian treatise on the culture of olives. Men of learning of all countries were happy in his acquaintance and correspondence, and princes and other great personages not only attended his lectures, but expressed their veneration of his talents and worth, by diplomas, titles, and presents. He died in the eighty-sixth year of his age, in 1585, and was interred with great solemnity at the public expence in the church of the Holy Spirit, where is a marble monument and inscription to his memory. It is said that his private virtues, as well as his talents, made his death the subject of universal regret.

Mr. Roscoe, whom we have hitherto principally followed, observes, that of all the writers of Latin poetry at the period in which he lived, Vida has been the most generally known beyond the limits of Italy. This is to be attributed, Mr. Roscoe adds, not only to the fortunate choice of his subjects, but to his admirable talent of uniting a considerable portion of elegance, and often of dignity, with the utmost facility and clearness of style; insomuch that the most complex descriptions or abstruse illustrations are rendered by him perfectly easy and familiar to the reader. Dr. Warton is of opinion that the merits of Vida seem not to have been particularly attended to in England, till Pope introduced him in these lines:

The first specimen of the talents of Vida in Latin poetry appeared in a collectoin of pieces on the death of the poet Aquila, which happened in 1500, towards which he contributed two piees, which were published in that collection at Bologna, in 1504. His whole works were first printed at Romae in 1527 and 1535, in 2 vols. 4to, but he published a more complete edition at Cremona, 1550, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains, “Hymni de rebus divinis,” and “Christiados libri sex” the second “De Arte Poetica libri tres;” “De Bombyce libri duo;” Scacchiae Ludus“”Bucolica;“” Eclogæ, et Carmina diversi generis.“Besides the poems comprehended in these two volumes, others are ascribed to him, as” Italorum Pugilum cum totidem Gallis certamen;“” Carmen Pastorale in Obltum Juliill. Pontificis Maximi;“” Epicedion in Funera Oliverii Cardinalis Caraphæ;“but these he disavowed in a postscript to the above edition of his poems. He was also the author of some pieces in prose, as” Dialogi de Republics Dignitate“” Orationes tres Cremonensium adversus Papienses in Controversia Principatus“and” Constitutiones Synodales Civitati Albæ et Diœcesi prescriptæ.“Of such of these works, a-s his reputation as a Latin poet is at this day founded on, his three books” De Arte Poetica“were probably the first produced; and these were soon afterwards followed by the” Bombyx,“and by his” Scacchias Ludus,“which, as we noticed, introduced him to Leo X. The” Bombyx,“or silk-worm, is written with classical purity, and with a just mixture of the styles of Lucretius and Virgil. Dr. Warton says it was a happy choice to write a poem on” Chess;“nor is the execution less happy.” The various stratagems and manifold intricacies of this ingenious game, so difficult to be described in Latin, are here expressed with the greatest perspicuity and elegance; so that, perhaps, the game might be learned from this description.“Of the” Christiad,“the same excellent critic observes, that amidst many prosaic flatnesses, there are many fine strokes in this poem; particularly his angels, with respect to their persons and insignia, are drawn with that dignity which we so much admire in Milton, who seems to have had his eye on those passages. The” Poetics,“however, are perhaps the most perfect of his compositions; he had formed himself upon Virgil, who is therefore his hero, and he has too much depreciated Homer. He is, in truth, so much an imitator of Virgil as to be very defective in originality. Although his precepts principally regard epic poetry, yet many of them are applicable to every species of composition. This poem has the praise of being one of the first, if not the very first piece of criticism, that appeared in Italy since the revival of learning; for it was finished, as is evident from a short advertisement prefixed to it, in 1520. We have an excellent translation of this poem by Pitt, and one more recent, with notes, by Mr. Hampson. There are, if we mistake not, English translations also of the” Game of Chess,“a'.id the” Bombyx." Of his original works, the best recent editions are that of Oxford, by Tristram, 1722, 4 vols. 8vo, with elegant plates; that of the Vulpii (including the prose works) Padua, 1731, 2 vols. 4to.

, a very celebrated French mathematician, was born in 1540, at Fontenai, or Fontenai-le-­Comte, in Lower Poitou, a province of France. He was master of requests at Paris, where he died in 1603, in the sixty-third year of his age. Among other branches of learning in which he excelled, he was one of the most respectable mathematicians of the sixteenth century, or indeed of any age. His writings abound with marks of great originality and genius, as well as intense application. His application was such, that he has sometimes remained in his study for three days together, without eating or sleeping. His inventions and improvements in all parts of the mathematics were very considerable. He was in a manner the inventor and introducer of Specious Algebra, in which letters are used instead of numbers, as well as of many beautiful theorems in that science. He made also corir siderable improvements in geometry and trigonometry. His angular sections are a very ingenious and masterly performance: by these he was enabled to resolve the problem of Adrian Roman, proposed to all mathematicians, amounting to an equation of the 45th degree. Romanus was so struck with his sagacity, that he immediately quitted his residence of Wirtzbourg in Franconia, and came to France to visit him, and solicit his friendship. His “Apollonius Gallus,” being a restoration of Apollonius’s tract on Tangencies, and many other geometrical pieces to be found in his works, shew the finest taste and genius for true geometrical speculations. He gave some masterly tracts on Trigonometry, both plane and spherical, which may be found in the collection of his works, published at Leyden in 1646, by Schooten, besides another large and separate volume in folio, published in the author’s life-time at Paris 1579, containing extensive trigonometrical tables, with the construction aad use of the same, which are particularly described in the introduction to Dr. Hutton’s Logarithms, p. 4, &c. To this complete treatise on Trigonometry, plane and spherical, are subjoined several miscellaneous problems and observations, such as, the quadrature of the circle, the duplication of the cube, &c. Vieta having observed that there were many faults in the Gregorian Calendar, as it then existed, he composed a new form of it, to which he added perpetual canons, and an explication of it, with remarks and objections against Clavius, whom he accused of having deformed the true Lelian reformation, by not rightly understanding it. Besides those, it seems, a work greatly esteemed, and the loss of which cannot be sufficiently deplored, was his “Harmonicon Cceleste,” which, being communicated to father Mersenne, was, by some perfidious acquaintance of that honest-minded person, surreptitiously taken from him, and irrecoverably lost, or suppressed, to the great detriment of the learned world. There were also, it is said, other works of an astronomical kind, that have been buried in the ruins of time, Vieta was also a profound decypherer, an accomplishment that proved very useful to his country. As the different parts of the Spanish monarchy lay very distant from one another, when they had occasion to communicate any secret designs, they wrote them in cyphers and unknown characters, during the disorders of the league: the cypher was composed of more than five hundred different Characters, which yielded their hidden contents to the penetrating genius of Vieta alone. His skill so disconcerted the Spanish councils for two years, that they reported at Rome, and other parts of Europe, that the French king had only discovered their cyphers by means of magic.

, grandson of the preceding historian, was born in 1606, at Blois. He was bred a protestant, and became bailiff“of Baugency; but having afterwards abjured the Protestant religion, he entered the congregation of the Oratory, in which he distinguished himself by his learning. He understood Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee, cultivated the belles lettres with success, and had a talent for Latin poetry, as appears from his paraphrases of some Psalms. He died November 14, 1661, at Paris, aged fiftysix. He left several works: among the principal are,” La Genealogie des Seigneurs d'Alsace,“1649, fol.; a very useful supplement to St. Augustine’s works, of which he found some Mss. at Clairvaux that had never been published.” A Harmony of the Gospels,“in French;” Stemma Austriacum,“1650, fol.; and” La Genéalogie des Comtes de Champagne.“He meant to have published a treatise, written by St. Fulgentius against Faustus, but was prevented by death, nor is it known what became of this treatise. Vignier found an ancient ms. at Metz, containing a relation of events in that city, and in which there was a long account of the famous Joan d‘Arc, better known by the name of the Maid of Orleans. According to this it appear,ed that she had been married to the Sire des Amboises, or D’Hermoises, descended from an illustrious house, and of the ancient knighthood. He also found in the treasury of Messrs, des Amboises, the contract of the above marriage, which imports” that in 1436, Robert des Amboises married Joan d'Arc, called the Maid of Orleans." But this fact is very generally doubted.

In order to acquire a greater knowledge of the principles of architecture, Vignola went to Rome, and at first returned to painting fora maintenance; but not reaping much profit, abandoned that art a second time, and procured employment as a draughtsman from Melighini, of Ferrara, then architect to pope Paul III. and who had established a school of architecture at Rome. Yignola was afterwards employed to make drawings, for the use of this academy, of the ancient edifices of the city, from which he derived great advantage in his studies. While here, about 1537, or J 540, he met with Primaticcio, who was employed by Francis I. king of France, to purchase antiques (See Primaticcio); and Vignola was of so much service in making casts for him, that Primaticcio engaged him to go with him to France. There Vignola assisted that celebrated artist in all his works, and particularly in making the bronze casts which are at Fontainebleau. He also made various architectural designs for the king, who was prevented from having them executed, by the wars in which France was then involved. After a residence of about two years, he was invited to Bologna, to undertake the new church of St. Petronius, and his design was allowed the preference, and highly approved by Julio Romano, the celebrated painter, and Christopher Lombard, the architect. At Minerbio, near Bologna, he built a magnificent palace for count Isolani, and in Bologna the house of Achilles Bocchi. The portico of the exchange in that city is also of his designing, but it was not built until 1562, in the pontificate of Pius IV. His most useful work at Bologna was the canal of Navilio, which he constructed with great skill for the space of a league. But happening to be ill rewarded for this undertaking, he went to Placentia, where he gave a design for the duke of Parma’s palace, which was executed by his son Hyacinth, who was now able to assist him in his various works. He afterwards built several churches and chapels in various parts of Italy, which it is unnecessary to specify. These, it is supposed, he had finished before his return to Rome in 1550, where Vasari presented him to pope Julius III. who appointed him his architect. While at Rome, he was employed in various works, both of grandeur and utility, the last of which, and reckoned his finest work, was the magnificent palace or castle of Caprarola, so well described and illustrated by plates in his works.

Vignola’s fame as an architectural author, is scarcely less than that of a practical artist. He published the “Regola delli cinque ordini d'architettura,” fol. no date, with thirtytwo fine plates, which has often been reprinted with additions and comments. The best is probably that printed at Amst. in 1631, or 1G42, fol. “con la nuova aggiunta de Michael Angelo Buonaroti.” The French have several good editions, with improvements, particularly the “Cours d'architecture qui comprend les ordres de Vignole, avec des cornmentaires, les figures, et descriptions de ses plus beaux batimens, et de ceux de Michel Ange,” by Daviler: the third edition, now before us, is dated 1699, but there are others of 1738 and 1760, large 4to. Jombert published at Paris in 8vo, “Regies des cinq orders d'architecture,” translated from the Italian of Vignola, with remarks, &c.

, a learned chronologist, was born Oct. 29, 1649, at the castle of Aubais, in Languedoc, of a very ancient family, and received a liberal education. His preparatory studies being finished, he passed a year at Geneva, and heard a course of lectures ou divinity. His father had intended him for the army, but was unwilling to put any restraint upon his inclinations, and therefore permitted him to go to Saumur, and afterwards to England, to complete his divinity studies. In 1675 he returned to Aubais, and was appointed minister of that church, which he afterwards resigned for that of Cailar, and while he performed the functions of his order with great zeal, found leisure at the same time to indulge his taste for chronological researches. On the revocation of the edict of Nantz he returned to Geneva, and afterwards to Berlin, where he was appointed pastor of the church of Schwedt. When his merit became better known, he had the choice of many churches of more emolument, but ^ave the preference to that of Brandenburgh, on account of its vicinity to the metropolis, where he might enjoy opportunities of study. In the mean time he began to form an intimacy with many eminent men, as Lenfant, La Croze, Kirck, &c. and distinguished himself by some learned papers inserted in the iiterary journals. When the royal society of Berlin was founded in 1701, he was chosen one of the members, and at the suggestion of Leibnitz was invited to settle in Berlin, that the new society might profit by his communications. With this he appears to have complied, and on the formation of the society of the Anonymi was chosen their secretary. In 1711 he became one of the editors of the “Bibliotheque Germanique,” which he enriched with many valuable criticisms, and analyses of books. Amidst all these employments he did not neglect the duties of his profession, but was a very frequent preacher, and having obtained the cure of Copenick, near Berlin, he passed his summers there, and there composed his great chronological work, the plan of which he published in 1721, but the whole did not appear until some years afterwards. Its success did not answer the expectation of the author, or of his friends, and although one of the best which had appeared on the subject, sold so slowly, that tKe bookseller was obliged more than once to have recourse to the trick of a new title-page. Vignoles, however, satisfied with a moderate competence, a stranger to worldly ambition and passions, lived quietly and happily among his books, with the occasional conversation of a few agreeable and steady friends. His wife died in child-bed, and none of the children she brought survived him. He was, in his old age, on the point of losing his sight by two cataracts, the one of which was dissipated naturally, and the other removed by an operation, the particulars of which he published in the “Miscellanea Berolinensia,” vol. IV. The king and queen shewed him many marks of kindness. The latter, it appears from the dedication of his chronology, had at one time ordered the eve of his birth-day to be kept by an entertainment, at which her proxy expressed her royal wishes forthe continuance of his life. He died at Berlin, July 24, 1744, aged upwards of ninety-four. His principal work, already noticed, was published under the title of “Chronologic de l‘historie sainte et des histoires etrangeres depuis la sortie d’Egypte jusqu'a la captivite de Babylone,” Berlin, 1738, 2 vols. 4to, a work unquestionably of vast labour and extent, and consequently cannot be supposed altogether free from imperfections.

, a French abbe, related to the celebrated Montfaucon the antiquary, appears to have been a native, or to have been educated at Toulouse, whence he came to Paris, in hopes of recommending himself by his talents in the pulpit, which were of no mean kind, and by his lively conversation, which perhaps fully as much contributed to procure him friends. He also entertained the public with his pen, and published various works of imagination and criticism, written in a peculiar style of humour, one of which at least entitles him to the notice of the English reader. This, which was first published at Paris in 1670, was entitled “Le eomte de Gabalis, ou entretiens sur les sciences secrettes,” with an addition entitled “Les genies assistans et les gnomes irreconciliables.” D'Argonne, in his “Melanges d'Histoire et de Litterature,” gives the following account of this singular work, as quoted by Dr. Warton: “The five dialogues of which it consists, are the result of those gay conversations in which the abbe was engaged with a small circle of men, of fine wit and kumour, like himself. When the book first appeared, it was universally read as innocent and amusing. But at length its consequences were perceived, and reckoned dangerous, at a time when this sort of curiosities began to gain credit. Our devout preacher was denied the pulpit, and his book forbidden to be read. It was not dear whether the author intended to be ironical, or spoke all seriously. The second volume, which he promised, would have decided the question; but the unfortunate abbe was soon afterwards assassinated by ruffians on the road to Lyons. The laughers gave out, that the gnomes and sylphs, disguised like ruffians, had shot him, as a punishment for revealing the secrets of the Cabala; a crime not to be pardoned by those jealous spirits, as Villars himself has declared in his book.” It was from this book that Pope took the machinery of the sylphs, of which he has made such admirable use in his “Rape of the Lock,” although it does not appear that he borrowed any particular circumstances relating to those spirits, but merely the general idea of their existence. The abbe* was killed in 1675, and it is said that the fatal shot came from one of his relations.

Charles succeeded to the throne in 1625; and the duke continued in the same degree of favour at the least with the son which he had enjoyed so many years under the father. This greatly disappointed certain courtiers, who, recollecting the great jealousy and indignation which the prince had heretofore conceived against the duke, for having been once very near striking him, expected that he would now take revenge. But, on the contrary, the new king, from the death of the old, even to the death of the duke himself, discovered the most entire confidence in, and even friendship to, him. All preferments in church and state were given by him; all his kindred and friends promoted to the degree in honour, or riches, or offices, that he thought fit; and all his enemies and enviers discountenanced, as he appointed. But, whatever interest he might have in the prince, he had now none with the parliament and people. The parliament, which nad so rashly advanced the war with Spain upon the breaking of the match with the Infanta, and so passionately adhered to his person, was now no more; and the attachment which the major part had for the duke, was changed now into prejudice and animosity. All the actions of his life were scrutinized, and every unfavourable representation given of what he had said and done. Votes and remonstrances passed against him as an enemy to the nation; and his misconduct was made the ground of the refusal to give the “king a supply. This kind of treatment, however, had no effect in taming the duke’s great spirit, who expressed the utmost indignation upon finding, that they who flattered him most before, mentioned him now with the greatest bitterness and acrimony; and that the same men, who called him” our Saviour“for bringing the prince safe out of Spain, called him now” corrupter of the king, and betrayer of the liberties of the people," without being able to impute to him the least crime, committed since the time of that exalted adulation. He ventured therefore to manifest a greater contempt of them than he should have done; for he caused this and the next parliament to be quickly dissolved, and, upon every dissolution, had such as had given any offence, imprisoned or disgraced. He caused new projects to be every day set on foot for raising money; and bad defiance to temperate and conciliatory measures.

As to the character of this great man, Clarendon says, he was “of a noble and generous disposition, and of such other endowments as made him very capable of being a great favourite with a great king. He understood the arts of a court, and all the learning that is possessed there, exactly well. By long practice in business, under a master that discoursed excellently, and surely knew all things wonderfully, and took much delight in indoctrinating his young unexperienced favourite, who (he knew) would always be looked upon as the workmanship of his own hands, he bad obtained a quick conception and apprehension of business, and had the habit of speaking very gracefully anci pertinently. He was of a most flowing courtesy and affability to all men who made any address to him, and so desirous to oblige them that he did not enough consider the value of the obligation, or the merit of the person he chose to oblige; from which much of his misfortune resulted. He was of a courage not to be daunted, which was manifested in all his actions, and in his contests with particular persons of the greatest reputation; and especially in his whole demeanour at the Isle of Rhee, both at the landing and upon the retreat; in both which no man was more fearless, or more ready to expose himself to the highest dangers. His kindness and affection to his friends was so vehement, that they were as so many marriages for better or worse, and so many leagues offensive and defensive: as if he thought himself obliged to love all his friends, and to make war upon all they were angry with, let the cause be what it would. And it cannot be denied, that he was an enemy in the same excess $ and prosecuted those he looked upon as enemies with the utmost rigour and animosity, and was not easily induced to a reconciliation. His single misfortune was, which was indeed productive of many greater, that he had never made a noble and a worthy friendship with a man so near his equal, that he would frankly advise him for his honour and true interest against the current, or rather the torrent, of his passions; and it may reasonably be believed, that, if he had been blessed with one faithful friend, who had been qualified with wisdom and integrity, he would have committed as few faults, and done as transcendant worthy actions, as any man who shined in such a sphere in that age in Europe; for he was of an excellent disposition, and of a mind very capable of advice and counsel; he was in his nature just and candid, liberal, generous, and bountiful; nor was it ever known, that the temptation of money swayed him to do an unjust or unkind thing. If he had an immoderate ambition, with which he was charged, it doth not appear that it was in his nature, or that he brought it with him to the court, but rather found it there. He needed no ambition, who was so seated in the hearts of two such masters.” This is the character which the earl of Clarendon has thought fit to give the duke; and if other historians have not drawn him in colours quite so favourable, yet they have not varied from him in the principal features.

, duke of Buckingham, and a very distinguished personage in the reign of Charles II. was the son of the preceding, by his wife lady Catherine Manners, and was born at Wallingford-house, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, January 30, 1627, which being but the year before the fatal catastrophe of his father’s death, the young duke was left a perfect infant, a circumstance which is frequently prejudicial to the morals of men born to high rank and affluence. The early parts of his education he received from various domestic tutors; after which he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where having completed a course of studies, he, with his brother lord Francis, went abroad, under the care of one Mr. Aylesbury. Upon his return, which was not till after the breaking-out of the rebellion, the king being at Oxford, his grace repaired thither, was presented to his majesty, and entered of Christ-church college. Upon the decline of the king’s cause, he attended prince Charles into Scotland, and was with him at the battle of Worcester in 1651; after which, making his escape beyond sea, he again joined him, and was soon after, as a reward for his attachment, made knight of the Garter. Desirous, however, of retrieving his affairs, he came privately to England, and in 1657 married Mary, the daughter and sole heiress of Thomas lord Fairfax, through whose interest he recovered the greatest part of the estate he had lost, and the assurance of succeeding to an accumulation of wealth in the right of his wife. We do not find, however, that this step lost him the royal favour; for, after- the restoration, at which time he is said to have possessed an estate of 20,000l. per annum, he was made one of the lords of the bed-chamber, called to the privy -council, and appointed lord-lieutenant of Yorkshire, and master of the horse. All these high offices, however, he lost again in 1666; for, having been refused the post of president of the North, he became disaffected to the king, and it was discovered that he had carried on a secret correspondence by letters and other transactions with one Dr. Heydon (a man of no kind of consequence, but a useful tool), tending to raise mutinies among his majesty’s forces, particularly in the navy, to stir up seditioa among the people, and even to engage persons in a conspiracy for the seizing the Tower of London. Nay, to sucii base lengths had he proceeded, as even to have given money to villains to put on jackets, and, personating seamen, to go about the country begging, and exclaiming for want of pay, while the people oppressed with taxes were cheated of their money by the great officers of the crown. Matters were ripe for execution, and an insurrection, at the head of which the duke was openly to have appeared, on the very eve of breaking-out, when it was discovered by means of some agents whom Heydon had employed to carry letters to the duke. The detection of this affair so exasperated the king, who knew Buckingham to be capable f the blackest designs, that he immediately ordered him to be seized; but the duke finding means, having defended his house for some time by force, to make his escape, his majesty struck him out of all. his commissions, and issued out a proclamation, requiring his surrender by a certain day. This storm, however, did not long hang over his head; for, on his making an humble submission, king Charles, who was far from being of an implacable temper, took him again into favour, and the very next year restored him both to the privy-council and bed-chamber. But the duke’s disposition for intrigue and machination was not lessened; for, having conceived a resentment against the duke of Ormond, because he had acted with some severity against him in the last-mentioned affair, he, in 1670, was supposed to be concerned in an attempt made on that nobleman’s life, by the same Blood who afterwards endeavoured to steal the crown. Their design was to have conveyed the duke to Tyburn, and there have hanged him; and so far did they proceed towards the putting it in execution, that Blood and his son had actuallyforced the duke out of his coach in St. James’s-street, and carried him away beyond Devonshire-house, Piccadilly, before he was rescued from them. That there must hare been the strongest reasons for suspecting the duke of Buckingham of having been a party in this villainous project, is apparent from a story Mr. Carte relates from the best authority, in his “Life of the duke of Ormond,” of the public resentment and open menaces thrown out to the duke on the occasion, by the earl of Ossory, the duke of Onnond’s son, even in the presence of the king himself. But as Charies II. was more sensible of injuries done to himself than others, it does not appear that this transaction hurt the duke’s interest at court; for in 1671 he was installed chancellor of the university of Cambridge, and sent ambassador to France, where he was very nobly entertained by Lewis XIV. and presented by that monarch at his departure with a sword and belt set with jewels, to the value of forty thousand pistoles; and the next year he was employed in a second embassy to that king at Utrecht. However, in June 1674, he resigned the chancellorship of Cambridge, and about the same time became a zealous partizan and favourer of the nonconformists. On February 16, 1676, his grace, with the earls of- Salisbury and Shaftesbury, and lord Wharton, were committed to the Tower, by order of the House of Lords, for a contempt, in refusing to retract the purport of a speech which the duke had made concerning a dissolution of the parliament; but upon a petition to the king, he was discharged thence in May following. In 1680, having sold Wallingfordhouse in the Strand, he purchased a house at Dowgate, and resided there, joining with the earl of Shaftesbury in all the violences of opposition. About the time of king Charles’s death, his health became affected, and he went into the country to his own manor of Helmisley, in Yorkshire, where he generally passed his time in hunting and entertaining his friends. This he continued until a fortnight before his death, an event which happened at a tenant’s house, at Kirkby Moorside, April 16, 1688, after three days illness, of an ague and fever, arising from a cold which he caught by sitting on the ground after foxhunting. The day before his death, he sent to his old servant Mr. Brian Fairfax, to provide him a bed at his own house, at Bishophill, in Yorkshire; but the next morning the same man returned with the news that his life was despaired of. Mr. Fairfax came; the duke knew him, looked earnestly at him, but could not speak. Mr. Fairfax asked a gentleman there present, a justice of peace, and a worthy discreet man in the neighbourhood, what he had said or done before he became speechless: who told him, that some questions had been asked him about his estate, to which he gave no answer. This occasioned another question to be proposed, if he would have a Popish priest; but he replied with great vehemence, No, no! repeating the words, he would have nothing to do with them. The same gentleman then askod him again, if he would have the minister sent for; and he calmly said, “Yes, pray seud for him.” The minister accordingly came, and did the office enjoined by the church, the duke devoutly attending it, and received the sacrament. In about an hour

after, he became speechless, and died on the same night. His body was buried in Westminster-abbey. As to his personal character, it is impossible to say any thing in its vindication; for though his severest enemies acknowledge him to have possessed great vivacity and a quickness of parts peculiarly adapted to the purposes of ridicule, yet his warmest advocates have never attributed to him a single virtue. His generosity was profuseness, his wit malevolence, the gratification of his passions his sole aim through life, his very talents caprice, and even his gallantry the mere love of pleasure. But it is impossible to draw his character with equal beauty, or with more justice, than iti that given of him by Dryden, in his “Absalom and Achitophel,” under the name of Zimri, to which we shall refer our readers. If he appears inferior to his father as a statesman, he was certainly superior to him as a wit, and wanted only application and steadiness to have made as conspicuous a figure in the senate and the cabinet as he did in the drawing-room. But his love of pleasure was so immoderate, and his eagerness in the pursuit of it so ungovernable, that they were perpetual bars against the execution of even any plan he might have formed solid or praise-worthy. In consequence of which, with the possession of a fortune that might have enabled him to render himself an object of almost adoration, we do not find him on record for any one deservedly generous action. As he had lived a profligate, he died a beggar; and as he had raised no friend in his life, he found none to lament him at his death. As a writer, however, he has very considerable merit. His poems, indeed, are very indifferent, but his memory will owe much to his celebrated comedy of “The Rehearsal,” 1672, which is a master-piece of wit, and every way an original.

Besides “The Rehearsal,” the duke was the author of some other dramatic pieces; as “The Chances,” a comedy altered from Fletcher; “The Restauration, or Right will take place,” a tragi-comedy; “The Battle of Sedgmoor,”' a farce; “The Militant Couple, or the Husband may thank himself,” a fragment. He was the author of some prose pieces, among which were “An Essay upon Reason and Religion,” in a letter to Nevile Pain, esq.; “On Human Reason,” addressed to Martin Clifford, esq.; “An account of a Conference between the duke and father Fitzgerald, whom king James’sent to convert his grace in his sickness;” and, “A short Discourse upon the reasonableness of men’s having a religion or worship of God.” This last was printed in 1685, and passed through three editions. The duke wrote also several small poems complimentary and satirical. One is entitled “The lost mistress, a complaint against the countess of” Shrewsbury, as is supposed; whose lord he killed in a duel on her account, and who is said to have held the duke’s horse, disguised like a page, during the combat. The loves of this tender pair are touched by Pope, in some well-known lines. Pope informed Spence, “that the duke’s duel with lord Shrewsbury was concerted between him and lady Shrewsbury. All that morning she was trembling for her gallant, and wishing for the death of her husband; and after his fall, 'tis said the duke lay with her in his bloody shirt.” The following account of this infamous affair, which Mr. Malone copied from a ms letter dated Whitehall, Jan. 10, 1673-4, affords but a sorry idea of the profligate reign in which such a tragedy could be acted vrith impunity.

He was not however fully satisfied with its success, and thought with reason that he might be more usefully employed in publishing some valuable work, not before given to the world. He had examined the libraries of France for this purpose ineffectually, and formed a project of going to Venice, to search the library of St. Mark, to which he knew that cardinal Bessarion had left his numerous manuscripts. He accordingly set out in 1781, under the patronage of the king, who appointed that the expenses of his journey and residence (to which no limits were fixed) should be defrayed by the government. His researches were not fruitless. In that depository, he soon discovered several inedited works of the rhetoricians and philosophers, and especially grammarians, which he deemed worthy of publication, either entire or in extracts; and these form the celebrated collection which was printed the same year, in 2 vols. 4to, under the title of “Anecdota Graeca e regia Parisiensi et e Veneta 8. Marci bibliotheca deprompta,” Venice. Of this some copies were taken off“in folio, and two on vellum. It was however unfortunate that publication followed so hastily on discovery, for Villoison soon found, but found too late, that a considerable proportion of the first volume of these” Anecdota“had already been given to the public. He made however a very important discovery in the library of Mark, of a ms. of Homer, which he judged to be of the 10th century, and consequently anterior by two centuries to the commentator Eustathius. This precious volume, which does not appear to have been before examined, contained the whole Iliad, enriched with the scholia of the most eminent grammarians of antiquity. The margins also were filled with various marks by which these grammarians distinguished the verses of Homer, which they judged to be supposititious, corrupted, or transposed, from those whose genuineness was universally recognized. He immediately prepared an edition of this valuable treasure, which was published in 1788, fol. accompanied by learned prolegomena, and was regarded as one of the most valuable presents made to the literary world during the last century, and every scholar hastened with his congratulations. But, says his biographer,” the satisfaction which this brilliant success must have given to M. de Villoison was not long unmixed. He could not see, without sentiments of pain, the spirit of system abusing his discoveries to attack the glory of the father of poetry: and perverting the critical marks affixed to a great number of verses in the Iliad, in support of the darling position, that parts of this poem, even entire books, were the work of ancient rhapsodists, and the first editors, &c. and the idea that he had unintentionally furnished the basis on which these conjectures were constructed, and the weapons by which their authors pretended to defend them, troubled him so much, that he almost repented of having published his work.“He had advanced but a little way in printing the Iliad, when he yielded to the invitation of the duke and duchess of Saxe-Weimar, who honoured him with their particular esteem, and quitting Venice, repaired to their capital. While here, he formed the collection of critical letters, printed at Zurich in 1783, under the title of” Epistolse Vinarienses, in quihus multa Graecorum scriptorum ioca emendantur ope librorum Ducalis bibliothecte,“4to. Having found in the library of St. Mark a very liberal translation of part of the Old Testament, made by a Jew in the ninth century, he laboured, during his stay at Weimar, to put it into a state fit for publication; and on his return to France in 1784, he remained some time at Strasburgh for the purpose of having it printed there under his own inspection. He soon after set out for Greece, in quest of other ancient Mss.; but after a tour of two years, found nothing of that description. He had made, however, many observations, and intended, with the aid of these, to have composed a history of ancient and modern Greece, For the same purpose he determined on a fresh perusal of all the Greek and Latin authors extant, and as Paris had now become the scene of the revolution, and all its enormities, he removed to Orleans, in the public library of which he executed his extensive plan of reading, and its fruits were fifteen large quarto volumes of extracts and observations, which were to contribute to his history of Greece. He also prepared during his retreat at Orleans, materials for a new edition of Montfaucon’s” Palasographia Graeca," all of which are now in the royal library.

After the last storms of the revolution, he returned to Paris with his treasures; and his property of other kinds having been lost in the general confusion, he endeavoured to supply his wants by a course of lectures on the Greek language, but either had few scholars, or was unable to level himself to their capacities. A professorship of modern Greek had just been founded, which was bestowed on him, but soon suppressed by Bonaparte, who, however, created for him a professorship of ancient and modern Greek in the college of France. On this he scarcely entered, when a malady, which at first he regarded as very slight, but the force of which was aggravated by degrees, put an end to his life, April 26, 1805.

, the late learned dean of Westminster, was born in London, Nov. 2, 1739. His father was a citizen of London, in commercial business, first as a packer, and afterwards as a Portugal'merchant, in which last concern he acquired opulence, but was impoverished by the failures consequent upon the great earthquake at Lisbon, in 1755. He lost also his second son, Giles, in that terrible catastrophe^ He was for twenty-seven years deputy of Lime-street Ward, London. His eldest son, Francis, continued the business of a packer, and prospered in it; and by him William was assisted in his expenses at college. His school education, excepting a mere infantine initiation at Cavendish, in Suffolk, was received entirely at Westminster; and from fourteen years old, when he entered the school, to the day of his death, he was never unconnected with that seminary, nor long personally absent from its precincts, except for the five years in which he was pursuing his academical studies. Passing through every gradation in the school, and collegiate foundation, he was thence elected scholar of Trinity college, Cam.­bridge, in 1757. In 1761 he took his first degree in arts, and was chosen a fellow of his college; soon after which (1762), he returned to Westminster, as usher, or assistant in the school. In that capacity he proceeded from, the lowest to the highest situation, so justly approved, in all respects, by the patrons of the school, that, on the resignation of Dr. Lloyd, the veteran second master in 1771, he was appointed to that office. In the same year he was nominated one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty.

The place of second master at Westminster schoqi is a situation of much labour and responsibility. Besides the daily business of the school, which, if not arduous, is at least fatiguing, the person who holds that office has the whole care and superintendence of the scholars on the foundation when out of school; that is, of forty boys, rapidly growing up into men, and yearly drafted off, by elections of from eight to ten, to the two universities. Yet in this much occupied situation it was, that Mr. Vincent was prosecuting those studies which gradually established his reputation at home as a scholar, and a man of research; and finally extended his celebrity over the whole continent of Europe. What is much to his honour, he studied under a natural disadvantage, which to a less ardent and persevering spirit would have served as an excuse for idleness. From an early period of life h was subject to a weakness of the eyes, attended with pain and inflammation, which never suffered him to read or write with impunity by artificial light. These attacks were so severe, that, to avoid yet more formidable consequences, he found himself compelled altogether to relinquish evening studies. But zeal can always find resources,. As he could not read at night he formed the habit of rising very early. Before the hours of school, in the intervals between morning and evening attendance, and after both, when the length of the days permitted, he was generally employed in his study. Of exercise, properly so called, he took very little, but his constitution was robust; and of a man who completed seventy-six years, we can hardly say that his days were shortened by his habits of life, of whatever kind they might be.

He had three principal objects of pursuit; theology, classical learning, and history in all its branches. Historical research was his peculiar delight, including geography, navigation, commerce, and even the military art, as illustrating the history of men, and connecting the memorials of remote periods. To this taste, perseveringly indulged, we owe his various works, particularly those on ancient commerce and navigation, on which his reputation chiefly rests. Yet he was no impatient candidate for fame. During the whole period of his being under-master, which was no less than seventeen years, he published nothing that was at all considerable. One small publication was a letter to Dr. Watson, then professor of divinity at Cambridge (afterwards bishop of Llandaff) on the subject of a sermon preached by him in 1780; a production neither then nor afterwards publicly avowedi; though far from being unworthy of his principles or talents, being a very clear and able argument against such theories as tend to overturn governments, and against the spirit of opposition in those times. The, other tract was entitled “Considerations on Parochial Music” (1787); not written as pretending to any knowledge of the science, or talent for it, which he had not; but byway of improving its rational and devotional effects in parish churches. He had then become a parish priest, and it was natural for him to attend to every thing relating to that office.

No man could be better qualified to enjoy and to promote domestic happiness. Easy of access, friendly, social, without any of the reserve of a student, or any of the pride of wisdom, real or assumed, he was always ready to take an active part in the innocent gratifications of society. With the learned, equally ready to inquire and to communicate, but never ostentatious of knowledge; with the ignorant and even the weak, so very indulgent that they hardly suspected their inferiority; certainly were never made to feel it painfully. Never ashamed to ask for information, when he found he wanted it; and most frankly ready to confess ignorance, if consulted upon any subject to which his mind had not been particularly applied. Never, perhaps, was “I know nothing of it,” so often said by one who knew so much. His entire contempt for every species of affectation produced these sometimes too sweeping declarations, in which he was hardly just to himself.

But neither his amusements nor his studies were ever suffered to interfere with his public or professional duties. In the church, in the school^ among his parishioners, or among his boys, he was always active and assiduous: fully prepared for the task of the day, whether to preach or teach; to illustrate the classics, or expound the Scriptures. His mode of instructing the boys on the foundation at Westminster, is admirably described by a well-informed writer in the Gent. Mag. 1815. “The under-master,” he says, “has the care of the college; and in his hands are the preservation of its discipline, the guardianship of its morals, and the charge of its religious instruction. With a steadiness and fidelity rarely equalled Dr. Vincent discharged these difficult functions; but perhaps there never existed a man who rivalled him in the art of attracting from boys attention to his lectures. Four times a year, each week preparatory to receiving the sacrament, Dr. V. explained the nature of that religious rite; its institution, its importance, and its benefits. And we believe, such was his happy mode of imparting instruction, that there never was known an instance of any boy treating the disquisition with levity, or not shewing an eagerness to be present at, and to profit by, the lesson. A clear sonorous voice, a fluent, easy, yet correct delivery, an expression at once familiar and impressive, rendered him a delightful speaker. These advantages he possessed in common conversation, but he displayed them more especially on. public occasions, and never to greater advantage than in the pulpit.”

At length, on the death of Dr. Smith in 1788, Dr. Vincent (who had taken his doctor’s degree in 1776), was nominated to succeed him r.s head-master an appointment which gave great satisfaction to the friends of the school, though the whole extent and force of his talents were far from being completely known. Particular attention seems to have been first paid to a sermon he preached at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, for a charity-school. This was in 1792, a period of great political turbulence and danger; and this sermon, being remarkable for the clear and powerful statement of principles favourable to social order, and for explaining the necessity of the gradations of rich and poor, was welcomed on its publication by all the zealous friends of the Britisu constitution, and to render it more serviceable, the patriotic association against republicans and levellers obtained leave from the author to reprint the principal part of it, for circulation among the people; and twenty thousand copies were thus distributed in London, and throughout the country, probably with excellent effect. We have seen already that the first publication of Dr. Vincent, though anonymous, was a defence of sound principles, against factious measures and artifices: and, as that tract was never afterwards owned, there cannot be any possible suspicion that the author wrote it with a view to praise or emolument; or otherwise than from the honest impulse of his heart, and the clear conviction of his mind. The principles which he there discovered, remained unaltered through life; and were felt with particular force when the movements of faction called for opposition. It cannot be floubted, therefore, that he must have felt the liveliest satisfaction in having his discourse thus circulated, in a, more attractive form than a sermon might have borne, for the general instruction of the people.

But the fruits of his long studies were now about to appear in a manner more conspicuous, or at least more conducive to his credit as a scholar, A small tract, in quarto, which he published in 1793, marked him to the learned world as a diligent investigator of historical facts, and an acute, though modest, verbal critic. This publication, which tends to clear up an almost desperate passage in Livy, was, with very good judgment, written in Latin, that it might be submitted not only to domestic but to foreign critics. It is entitled, “De Legione Manlian&, Quicstio ex Livio desumta, et Rei militaris Romanae studiosis proposita.” Subjoined to it is what the author has termed * An Explanatory Translation' in English. Polybius, in his description of the construction of the Roman legian, has given an account of it, which seems entirely irreconcileable with what Livy has said, in the eighth book of his History, of a manoeuvre of the great general Manlius in the management of his own army against the Latins. As both authors must have been perfectly well acquainted with the subject, the difficulty was to reconcile the difference between them, without supposing a mistake on either side.

In the attempt to do this, neither Lipsius, Fabricius, nor even Drakenborch, the most famous editor of Livy, appeared to have succeeded; and their conjectures for the purpose could not be admitted, without considerable violence to the text. How well Dr. Vincent succeeded appeared by the generous approbation of the illustrious Heyne on the continent, and of the no less acute Porson at home. The few points in which these critics differed from him, the author fairly states in a short preface, and endeavours to answer but leaves the ultimate decision to the reader. Two successive years produced two publications, the result of our author’s long and careful study of the analysis of languages. The first of these, entitled “The Origination of the Greek Verb, an Hypothesis,” appeared in 1794; and was followed, in 1795, by “The Greek Verb analyzed, an Hypothesis, in which the source and structure of the Greek language in general is considered.” The latter of these was principally a sequel to the first, and an extension of its theory. Sagacity and learning are eminently displayed in both these publications; nor is it easy to say which quality is most conspicuous in them, sagacity in sug* gesting probable reasons for the various inflections of verbs in the Greek, and afterwards in other languages; or learning, in the production of proofs or illustrations in support of every fact assumed. The principal notion is, that such inflections were derived from some simple and very short original verb, signifying to do or to exist, which being afterward subjoined to radicals denoting various actions or modes of being, formed their tenses, modes, and other variations. The idea was happy, and it is astonishing how far it may be pursued; and nothing can more fully prove its foundation in probable conjecture, than that it had occurred, nearly at the same time, to a writer at Edinburgh, who published it in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica:” the time of composition so exactly coincided, that neither author could possibly have seen or heard of the theory of the other. In both it was equally original.

Dr. Vincent had long been diligently employed upon a much more arduous task, and more connected with the studies, to which he was by preference attached. In 1797, he published the result of those labours r in his celebrated commentary on Arrian’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” which formed the basis of our author’s reputation. On a work so well known, it is not necessary that we should expatiate at any great length. Nearchus’s voyage is related by Arrian of Nicomedia (See Arrian), and is comprised in his “ludica,” or general account of India, and is professedly taken from the journal of Nearchus himself. The authenticity of the narrative had indeed been questioned by some learned men; but it is so victoriously defended by Dr. Vincent, in the concluding section of his preliminary Disquisitions, that Schmieder, the latest editor of Arrian, has translated the whole of his arguments into Latin; and has subjoined them to the objections of Dodwell, as a complete and satisfactory refutation. So strongly was Schmieder himself of the same opinion, that in his preface to the Indica he says, that “they who deny the genuineness of this account are hardly worth refuting.”

If this obscurity could have been completely removed by any sagacity or patience, it would undoubtedly have yielded to the labours of Dr. Vincent. His researches extended to every possible source of information, ancient and modern, rist excepting the oral intelligence of individuals who had recently visited those coasts, and whom he was always anxious to see and to consult. Dr. Horsley, then dean of Westminster, a man who had tew if any superiors in learning and sagacity, was often his adviser on difficult points. He admired the zeal and talents of the author, and strongly marked his regard for him and his work, by furnishing uvo very profound dissertations on astronomical subjects. To Mr. Wales he sometimes resorted for similar information; candidly confessing his own want of skill in that branch of knowledge. But his most abundant source of original information was found in the friendly kindness of Mr. Dalrymple, then hydrographer to the admiralty, who opened to him, without reserve, all the stores of his vast geographical collections, and documents of every kind. Of this indulgence he was most happy to avail himself, and often refers to charts and journals, so communicated, to which there were no other means of access.

“The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea,” though usually called Adrian’s, is confessedly not the work of the author of the Voyage of Nearchus. This is avowed by Dr. Vincent, in entering upon the subject. It had probably been imputed to Arrian in later times, from his having written the Periplus of the Euxine Sea. Whether ewn i<<e name properly belonged to this writer is altogether uncertain; and the probability is rather against it: but, from the most accurate examination of the work, Dr. Vincent thinks that the author, whatever was his true name, was a Greek merchant of Alexandria, between the times of the emperors Claudius and Adrian, in the first or second century, and probably by near a century prior to Arrian of Nicornedia. The author was certainly a man who had sailed ora board of a Greek fleet from Egypt to the Gulph of Cambay, if not beyond it. Those who had assigned a different age or character to his author, Dr. Vincent has answered in a manner the most satisfactory.

The “Second Part of the Periplus,” which completes the whole design, appeared in 1805, making a larger volume than the first, furnished with further dissertations, and an additional appendix of commercial articles, thus completing the knowledge of oriental commerce and oriental geography, as they existed among the ancients. Both parts of the Periplus were dedicated to the king. Throughout this work Dr. Vincent followed the same plan which he had formed for his Nearchus: not translating his author, but supplying a continual commentary upon his text, the sections of which are formed by the stations of the navigator, or the geographical divisions of the coast. This plan was here even more necessary than it had been in the former work, since in this the account of each place consists frequently of little more than a mere invoice of the usual exports and imports, very curious when explained, but very unsatisfactory, because unintelligible to a common reader in the original form. He has said, therefore, very properly, in his first disquisition, “of this work no adequate idea could be formed by a translation; but a comparison of its contents with the knowledge of India, which we have obtained, since Gama burst the barrier of discovery, cannot but be acceptable to those who value geography, as a science, or delight in it, as a picture of the world.”

All these volumes are furnished with maps, and other illustrations, from original materials, collected from various sources, by the author’s own researches, or with the aid of friendly communication. One or two charts, in defect of direct authorities, were made out by himself, on the basis of his own reasonings and proofs. For these he has condescended to apologize, as not deeming himself regularly a practical geographer; which others will probably consider as the more meritorious exertion. But his care was, in all cases, not to assume too much to himself, and to err, if at all, on the opposite side. One important map, that by De la Rochette, he greatly wished to have added, but as the proprietors would neither consent to have it copied, nor accommodate him with a sufficient number for an edition, on such terms as he could prudently accept, he unwillingly gave up the thought. Into a very few copies of Nearchus he inserted it, for the benefit of particular friends, but the public was deprived of the advantage.

But all these various objects could not estrange him from his great pursuit, the investigation of ancient commerce and navigation. He continued assiduous in extending his inquiries; and was most scrupulous in acknowledging and correcting every error which his unremitting diligence could detect. Attentive more especially to the remarks of those wko had visited the places described, he anxiously sought their conversation, as well as their writings, and was highly gratified to learn, that several very intelligent men had carefully compared his books with the situations to vrhich they alluded, and expressed in general extreme surprise, that a recluse scholar, quietly seated in his study, could possibly have arrived at suchaccuracy of conjecture or discovery. When they thought him mistaken, he readily resumed the inquiry, and, weighing all the reasons, quitted it not till he had brought it to a satisfactory result. Truth was his sole object, and whether it was brought to light by himself or others, he was equally ready to embrace it-; abandoning the most favoured opinion, without hesitation, if not without regret, when he discovered its foundations to be unsound. As his materials were thus increased, and his work improved, he prepared for a second edition -, which, with more view to the propriety of the measure, than any hope of advantage from it, was published in 1807.

The principal works of Dean Vincent have now been distinctly enumerated; as forming an important part of his history, as a literary man; but he wrote occasionally in periodical works, in which he had no other interest, but such as arose from the general wish to promote the progress of sound literature, both sacred and profane; or to benefit the editors of works whose design was of that nature. His communications to the “Classical Journal” were not many, but va|uable, and regularly signed with his name. They were these 1. On Ancient Commerce No. v. p. 60. 2. On China, as known to Classic Authors No. xiii. p. 32. 3. On Theophilus, an African Bishop No. xiv. p. 382. 4. On the Geography of Susiana; Suppl. to No. xviii. p. 449. 5. Correction of an Error in the Periplus; No. xx. p. 322. The contributions of Dr. Vincent to the “British Critic” commenced at a very early period of that publication, and were never entirely discontinued till the close of the first series. The friendship with which he honoured the original editor of that work, together with his entire approbation of the design and principles, with which it was undertaken and conducted, made him at all times ready to give his aid to it, when his other occupations and studies would permit. As he was always completely a volunteer, so the choice of his subjects, as well as of his opportunities, was left entirely to himself. These communications were not marked with his name, because it was not suitable to the practice of the Review, but he had no particular wish to be concealed, and his biographer has accordingly given a list of his articles, with useful remarks, for which, on account of its length, we must refer to our authority.

He continued to assist in this Review until 1812 or 1813, when the close of his career was more nearly approaching than his friends were willing. to believe, or any visible decay appeared to indicate. It was not, however till the Spring of 1815, that the powers of the stomach began to fail, so much as to create alarm. But the apprehensions then excited were soon too fully justified. Imperfect efforts towards recovery were constantly followed by relapses, each more formidable than the former. He remained at Islip, to his usual period of removal in the autumn, when he returned to Westminster, infirm, but not despaired of by the faculty; sound in mind, which he continued to the last, and not materially impaired in his external organs. But he felt within, that his complaints were beyond the reach of medicine, and calmly rejected all attempts to persuade him to rely upon it. At length, with the least possible disturbance from bodily suffering, he placidly obeyed the inevitable call; and died on the 21st of December, 1815, having passed his seventy-sixth year, by rather more than a month.

, an illustrious Italian painter, and universal genius, was the natural son of one Piero, a notary at Florence, and was called Da Vinci from the place of his birth, a small burgh or castle of Valdarno di Sotto. He was born in 1452, and was placed under Andrea Verrochio, a painter of some note in that city; but soon surpassed him, particularly in a piece which that painter had made of St. John baptizing our Saviour, and in which Da Vinci, by his order, had painted an angel, holding up some of the vestments. This appeared so much the finest figure, that it visibly discredited all the rest: which so hurt Verrochio, that he relinquished painting ever after.

Da Vinci now set up for himself; and executed many pictures at Florence of great credit, and the universality of his genius soon appeared. He had a perfect knowledge of the theory of his art. He was, by far, the best anatomist and physiologist of his time, the first who raised a spirit for anatomical study, and gave it credit, and certainly the first man we know of who introduced the practice of making anatomical drawings. His first attempt, according to Vasari, was a book of the anatomy of a horse; he afterwards applied with more diligence to the human anatomy, in which study he reciprocally received and communicated assistance to Marc. Antonio della Torra, an excellent philosopher, who then read lectures in Pavia, and wrote upon this subject. For him Da Vinci made a book of studies, drawn with red chalk, and touched with a pen, with great diligence, of such subjects as he had himself dissected: where he made all the bones, and to those he joined, in their order, all the nerves, and covered them with the muscles. And concerning those, from part to part, he wrote remarks in letters of an ugly form, which are written by the left hand, backwards, and not to be understood but by those who know the method of reading them. These very drawings and writings are now in his majesty’s collection of drawings. After inspecting them some years ago, Dr. Hunter expressed his full persuasion that Da Vinci was the best anatomist, at that time, in the world , Lionardo was also well skilled in optics and geometry, almost every branch of literature, and the arts. He was a good architect, an able carver, and extremely well versed in the mechanics: he had a fine voice, and understood music, and both played and sang with taste and skill. Having also the advantage of a well-formed person, he excelled in all the manly exercises. He understood the management of a horse, and took delight in appearing well mounted: and he was very dextrous in the use of arms’. His behaviour also was polite, and his conversation so engaging, that no man ever partook of it without pleasure, or left it without regret.

, an eminent benefactor to the study of law, is introduced here in that character, although we have scarcely any memorials of his personal history. He died at his house at Aldershot, Hampshire, June 5, 1756, at what age we are not told, nor have we heard of any particulars of his life having been then or since collected, or published. That he was of the profession of the law may be supposed from his having dedicated a considerable portion of his life to the Herculean labour, which will long preserve his name, and which he executed at his house at Aldershot, under the title of “A general and complete Abridgment of Law and Equity,” 1741—1751, 24 vols. fol. It was not only printed under his own inspection (by agreement with the law patentees) at his house, but the paper also was manufactured under his direction, as appears by a peculiar water-mark, describing the number of the volume or the initials of C. V. He began at the title Factor, where D'Anvers left off, and published to the end of the alphabet; he then proceeded to the title Abatement, but by his Index he directed the volumes to be placed in alphabetical order.

, a learned and excellent divine, a popular and laborious preacher, and a most industrious and useful man in his college, was born at Blaston in Leicestershire, and educated in Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he commenced M. A. and was remarkable for his sober and grave behaviour, not being chargeable even with the venial levities of youth. From the university he was elected (most probably at the recommendation of his contemporary Thomas Cleiveland) school-master at Hinckley; where he entered into holy orders, and (as appears by an extract from the register of that parish) married, and had at least one child. After remaining some time in the faithful discharge of his office at Hinckleyschool, he obtained the rectory of Weddington, in Warwickshire; and, at the beginning of the civil war, was driven from his parish, and forced to take shelter in Coventry. When the assembly of divines which established the presbyterian government in 164 1 was called, Mr. Vines, who was a good speaker, was unanimously chosen of their number; and, as Fuller says, was the champion of the party. While he was at London he became the minister of St. Clement Danes, and vicar of St. Lawrence Jewry; afterwards he removed to Watton, in Hertfordshire; and was appointed master of Pembroke Hall, in Cambridge, in 1645, by the earl of Manchester, on the ejection of Dr. Benjamin Lavey; but resigned that and his living of St. Lawrence Jewry in 1650, on account of the engagement. He joined in a letter from the principal ministers of the city of London (presented Jan. 1, 1645, to the assembly of divines sitting at Westminster by authority of parliament), complaining against the independents. He was a son of thunder, and therefore compared to Luther; yet moderate and charitable to them that differed from him in judgment. The parliament employed him in all their treaties with the king; and his majesty, though of a different judgment, valued him for his ingenuity, seldom speaking to him without touching his hat, which Mr. Vines returned with most respectful language and gestures. This particular was the more remarkable, as no other of the parliament commissioners ever met with the same token of attention. Dr. Grey, in his answer to Neal, relates that when Mr. Vines returned from this treaty, he addressed one Mr. Walden, saying, “Brother, how hath this nation been fooled We have been told that our king is a child, and A foot- but if I understand any thing by my converse with him, which I have had with great liberty, he is as much of a Christian prince as ever I read or heard of since onr Saviour’s time. He is a very precious prince, and is able of himself to argue with the ablest divines we have. And among all the kings of Israel and Jndah, there was none like him.”

When sentence of death was pronounced on this unhappy sovereign, Mr. Vines came with the other London ministers to offer their services to pray with his majesty the morning before his execution. The king thanked them, but declined their services. Vines was an admirable scholar; holy and pious in his conversation, and indefatigable in his labours, which wasted his strength, and brought him into a consumption when he had lived but about fifty -six years. He was a very painful and laborious minister, and spent his time principally amongst his parishioners, in piously endeavouring “to make them all of one piece, though they were of different colours, and unite them in judgment who dissented in affection.” In 1654 he was joined in a commission to eject scandalous and ignorant ministers and schoolmasters in London. He died in 1655, and was buried Feb. 7, in the parish-church of St. Lawrence Jewry, which having been consumed in the general conflagration of 1666, no memorial of him is there to be traced. His funeral-sermon was preached Feb. 7, by Dr. Jacomb, who gave him his just commendation. He was a perfect master of the Greek tongue, a good philologist, and an admirable disputant. He was a thorough Calvinist, and a bold honest man, without pride or flattery. Mr. Newcomen calls him “Disputator acutissimus, Concionator felicissimus, Theologus eximius.” Many funeral poems and elegies were made upon his death.

Vinet was a man of indefatigable literary labour, and of great learning. Scaliger says he never knew a more learned man, “Nullum novi doctiorem Vineto;” and it appears the practice of many laborious scholars was also his, “nulla dies sine linea.” He always read with his pen in his hand. We have a list of twenty-eight publications by him, most of them editions of the classics, or ancient authors. Among them are editions of Theognis, Sidonius Apollinaris, Julius Solinus, Proclus, Eutropius, Persius, Florus, Censorinus, Pomponius Mela, and some historical and mathematical works, translations, &c.

Parthenope cecini Pascua, Kura, Duces." His bones were carried to Naples, according to his earnest request; and a monument was erected at a small distance from the city. He was of a swarthy complexion, tall, of a sickly constitution, afflicted with frequent head-aches and spitting of blood, very temperate, sober, and chaste, whatever may have been surmised to the contrary. That he wrote in his youth some indecent verses is not to he doubted, since the younger Pliny, who had done the same, justifies himself by his example; and, in his “Bucolics,” he relates very criminal passions; but it does not thence follow that he was tainted with them. On the contrary, it is delivered down to us as a certain truth, that the inhabitants of Naples gave him the name of Parthenias, on account of the purity of his words and manners. He was so very bashful, that he frequently ran into the shops, to prevent being gazed at in the streets; yet so honoured by the Roman people, that once, coming into the theatre, the whole audience rose, out of respect to him. He was of a thoughtful and melancholy temper, spoke little, loved retirement and contemplation. His fortune was not only easy, but affluent: he had a delightful villa in Sicily, and a fine house and well furnished library near Maecenas’s gardens on the Esquiline-hill at Rome. He revised his verses with prodigious severity, and used to compare himself to a she-bear, which licks her cubs into shape. He was so benevolent and inoffensive, that most of his contemporary poets, though they envied each other, agreed in loving and esteeming him. Among Caligula’s follies we may undoubtedly reckon his contempt and hatred of Virgil; who, he had the confidence to say, had neither wit nor learning, and whose writings and effigy he endeavoured to remove out of all libraries. The emperor Alexander Severus, on the contrary, called him the Plato of the poets, and placed his picture with that of Cicero in the temple in which he had placed Achilles and other great men. So did Silius Italicus the poet, when he kept Virgil’s birthday, as Pliny relates, with greater solemnity than his own; and so did our sir William Temple, who did “not wonder that the famous Dr. Harvey, when he was reading Virgil, should sometimes throw him down upon the table, and say, `He had a devil'.” With regard to the characteristical difference between Virgil and Homer, so much disputed, it may with truth be affirmed, that the former excelled all other poets in judgment, and the latter in invention; the former is the greater genius, the latter the most correct writer. “Methinks the two poets,” says Mr. Pope, “resemble the heroes they celebrate. Homer, boundless and irresistible as Achilles, bears all before him, and shines more and more, as the tumult increases Virgil, calmly daring, like Æneas, appears undisturbed in the midst of the action, disperses all about him, and conquers with tranquillity. Or, when we look on their machines, Homer seems like his own Jupiter in his terrors, shaking Olympus, scattering the lightnings, and firing the heavens: Virgil, like the same power in his benevolence, counselling with the gods, Jaying plans for empires, and regularly ordering his whole creation.”

The genuine and undisputed works of this poet are, ten “Eclogues, or Bucolics,” four books of “Georgics,” and the “Æneid,” in twelve books. The “Culex,” the “Ciris,” and some smaller pieces, called “Catalecta,” are subjoined to some editions of his works; particularly to that of Masvicius, with the notes of Servius, at JLeewarden, 1717, in 2 vols. 4to; which is, perhaps, the best edition of Virgil, although that of Burman, at Amsterdam, 1746, in 4 vols. 4 to., bears a higher price. There are, besides these 4 several good ones; as the “Elzevir” in 1636, 12mo; “Da la Cerdu’s” in 1642, folio; that “in Usum Delphini a Ruæo, 1675,” 4to; the “Variorum” edition at Leyden, 1680, 3 vols. 8vo and the edition of Heyne, republished in London in 1793. The versions of, and commentaries upon, his works are innumerable; those into our own lair* guage by Ogilby, Dryden, and Trapp, are well known: but Dr. Warton’s edition in Latin and English, referred to above, is preferable to any of these, not on account of th translation only, but because the Latin text is correctly printed with it. The “Bucolics” and “Georgics” have also been published by Dr. John Martyn, F. R. S. professor of botany in Cambridge, with an English version in prose, and with useful and curious notes.

, or Vitello, a Polish mathematician of the 13th century, flourished about 1254. We have of his a large “Treatise on Optics,” the best edition of which is that of 1572, fol. Vitello was the first optical writer of any consequence among the modern Europeans. He collected all that was given by Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolomy, and Alhazen; though his work is but of little use now.

It is supposed that Vitruvius was born either at Rome or Verona; but it is not known which. His books of architecture are addressed to Augustus Csesar, and not only shew consummate skill in that particular science, but also very uncommon genius and natural abilities. Cardan, in his 16th book “De Subtilitate,” ranks Vitruvius as one of the twelve persons, whom he supposes to have excelled all men in the force of genius and invention; and would not have scrupled to have given him the first place, if it could be imagined that he had delivered nothing but his own discoveries. These twelve persons were, Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius Pergaeus, Aristotle, Archytas of Tarentum, Vitruvius, Achindus, Mahomet Ibn Moses the inventor or improver of Algebra, Duns Scotus, John Suisset surnamed the Calculator, Galen, and Heber of Spain.

, one of the revivers of literature, was born at Valentia, in Spain, in 1492. He learned grammar and classical learning in his own country, and went to Paris to study logic and scholastic philosophy, the subtleties and futility of which he had soon the good sense to discover, and when he removed from Paris to Louvain, he there published a book against them, entitled “Contra Pseudo-Dialecticos.” At Louvain he undertook the office of a preceptor, and exerted himself with great ability and success in correcting barbarism, chastising the corruptors of learning, and reviving a taste for true science and elegant letters. This so raised his reputation that he was chosen to be preceptor to William de Croy, afterwards archbishop of Toledo, and cardinal, who died in 1521. In July 1517 he was made, though then at Louvain, one of the first fellows of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford, by the founder; his fame being spread over England, as well on account of his great parts and learning as for the peculiar respect and favour with which queen Catherine of Spain honoured him. In 1522 he dedicated his “Commentary upon St. Augustin de Civitate Dei” to HenryVlII; which, says Wood, was so acceptable to that prince, that cardinal Wolsey, by his order, invited him over to England; but this must be a mistake, for in a letter of the cardinal’s to the university in 1519, mention is made of his being then reader of rhetoric, and that by the cardinal’s appointment. He was also employed to teach the princess Mary polite literature and the Latin tongue: it was for her use that he wrote “De Ratione studii puerilis,” which he addressed to his patroness queen Catharine, in 1523; as he did the same year “De institutione fceminae Christiance,” written by her command. During his stay in England he resided a good deal at Oxford, where he was admitted doctor of law, and read lectures in that and the belles lettres. King Henry conceived such an esteem for him, that iie accompanied his queen to Oxford, in order to be present at the lectures which he read to the princess Mary, who resided there: yet, when Vives afterwards presumed to speak and write against the divorce of Catherine, Henry considered his conduct as criminal, and confined him six months in prison. Having obtained his liberty, he returned to the Netherlands, and resided at Bruges, where he married, and taught the belles lettres as long as he lived. He died in 1537, or, according toThuanus, 1541.

His writings were printed at Basil, 1555, in 2 vols. folio; his commentary upon St. Austin is not included, but has been published separately. It discovers an extensive acquaintance with ancient philosophy. Among his works are “De Prima Philosophia,” “De Explanatione Essentiarum,” “De Censura Veri,” “De Initiis, Sectis, et Laudibus Philosophise,” and “De corruptis Artibus et tradendis Disciplinis.” These writings, says Brutker, of which the two last are the most valuable, discover great strength or judgment, an extensive knowledge of philosophy, much enlargement of conception, uncommon sagacity in detecting the errors of ancient and modern philosophers, particularly of Aristotle and his followers, and, in fine, a capable of attempting things beyond the standard of the age in which he lived. To all this he added great perspicuity and elegance of style, not unworthy of the friend of Erasmus. Morhoff calls the writings of Vives, golden remains, which are worthy to be carefully perused by all learned men.

, a celebrated Italian mathematician, was born at Florence in 1621, or, according to some, in 1622. He was a disciple of the illustrious Galileo, and lived with him from the seventeenth to the twentieth year of his age. After the death of his great master he passed two or three years more in prosecuting geometrical studies without interruption, and in this time it was that he formed the design of his Restoration of Aristeus. This ancient geometrician, who was contemporary with Euclid, had composed five books of problems “De Locis Solidis,” the bare propositions of which were collected by Pappus, but the books are entirely lost; which Viviani undertook to restore by the force of his genius. He discontinued his labour, however, in order to apply himself to another of the same kind, which was, to restore the fifth book of Apollonius’s Conic Sections. While he was engaged in this, the famous Borelli found, in the library of the grand duke of Tuscany, an Arabic manuscript, with a Latin inscription, which imported, that it contained the eight books of Apollonius’s Conic Sections; of which the eighth however was not found to be there. He carried this manuscript to Rome, in order to translate it, with the assistance of a professor of the Oriental languages. Viviani, very unwilling to lose the fruits of his labours, procured a certificate that he did not understand the Arabic language, and knew nothing of that manuscript: he was so jealous on this head, that he would not even suffer Borelli to send him an account of any thing relating to it. At length he finished his book, and published it 1659, in folio, with this title, “De Maximis et Minimis Geometrica Divinatio in quintum Conicorum Apollonii Fergsei.” It was found that he had more than divined; as he seemed superior to Apollonius himself. After this he was obliged to interrupt his studies for the service of his prince, in an affair of great importance, which was, to prevent the inundations of the Tiber, in which Cassini and he were employed for some time, though nothing was entirely executed.

, an eminent Dutch divine, and the founder of a sect, if it may be so called, who were in opposition to the Cartesian philosophy, was born at Heusden, March 3, 1589, of an ancient and considerable family. His education commenced in the schools of his native place, and was greatly promoted by a memory of more than common retention, which he displayed to the astonishment of his teachers and friends, while he was learning Greek and Latin, rhetoric, arithmetic, and logic. It is said that he could repeat without book three entire comedies of Terence, as many of Plautus, the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the first book of Horace’s Odes, &c. and many other extensive parts of the authors he read. After finishing his classical course, he was sent in 1604 to Leyden, where he passed seven years, increasing his knowledge of the Greek language, but particularly employed on the study of the belles lettres, philosophy, and theology. In general science he had made such progress, as to be able to give lectures on logic, during his divinity course, and had among other pupils the celebrated Burgersdicius, afterwards professor of philosophy at Leyden. Voetius was also solicited to take the degree of doctor, but some particular reasons prevented him at this time. Having completed his academical studies in 1611, he returned to Heusden, and became a candidate for the ministry. He had also a design to have visited Germany, France, and England, but was long confined by an illness; and on his recovery was appointed to officiate in the church of Vlymen, a village between Heusden and Bois-le-Duc. He preached also occasionally at Engelen, about a league from Vlymen, and in both places with great ability and reputation, for about six years. In 1617 he accepted a call to Heusden, where he settled for seventeen years, although repeatedly invited to superior situations in Rotterdam and other parts of the United Provinces. In 1619, he assisted for six months at the synod of Dort, and during this time, along with three of his brethren, preached at Gouda against the Arminians or Remonstrants, to whom he was always a decided enemy, and was as zealous a friend to the doctrines of Calvin. While at Heusden, he preached occasionally at other places, and in 1629 to the army which besieged Bois-le-duc, and after the capture of that city he officiated there for about nine months alone with three other ministers. During his residence here, he and his brethren published a sort of manifesto, inviting all the inhabitants, and particularly the clergy, to a conference, either public or private, on the points in dispute between the reformed and the Romish church. Jansenius answered this manifesto in a work entitled '“Alexipharmacum civibus Sylvsc-ducensibus propinatum ad versus mi nistrorum suorum fascinum,” Brussels, 1630, This produced a controversy, of whicu we have already given an account. (See Jansen, p. 470——471).

Notwithstanding the controversies and writings which occupied a considerable part of the life of Voetius, and his academical and pastoral duties, he lived to a very advancvd age, dying Nov. 1, 1676, in his eighty-eighth year. The most valuable of the works he left, not of the controversial kind, is his “Select Disputationes Theolegicce,” or Theses, 1648, &c. 5 vols. 4to. Voetius had two sons, Daniel and Paul, who also left several works the former died in 1660, the latter in 1667. John Voet, son of Paul, was doctor and professor of law at Herborn, and died 1714, leaving a “Commentary on the Pandects,” Hagse, 1734-, 2 vols. fol. which is valued, and some other works on law.

, once celebrated as an elegant French writer, was the son of a wine-merchant, and born at Amiens in 1598. His talents and taste for the Belles Lettres gave him considerable celebrity, and easily introduced him to the polite world. He was the first in France distinguished for what is called a bel esprit; and, though this is all the merit of his writings, yet this merit was then great, because it was uncommon. His reputation opened his way to court, and procured him pensions and honourable employments. He was sent to Spain about some affairs, whence out of curiosity he passed over to Africa. He was mightily caressed at Madrid, where he composed verses in such pure and natural Spanish, that every body ascribed them to Lopez de Veo;a. It appears by his “Letters,” that he was in England in 1633. He made two journeys to Rome, where in 1633 he was admitted a member of the academy of Humoristi; as he had been of the French academy in 1634. He was the person employed to carry the news of the birth of Lewis XIV. to Florence; and had a place in the household of that monarch. He had several considerable pensions from the court; but the love of play and women kept him from being rich. He died in 1648. He wrote verses in French, Spanish, and Italian; and there are some very fine lines written by him, but they are but few. His letters make the bulk of his works; and have been often printed in 2 vols. 12mo. They are elegant, polite, and easy; but, like the genius of the writer, without nerves or strength. Boileau praises Voiture excessively; and doubtless, considered as a polisher and refiner in a barbarous age, he was a writer to be valued; yet his letters would not now be thought models, and are indeed seldom read. Voiture, ( says Voltaire, gave some idea “of the superficial graces of that epistolary style, which is by no means the best, because it aims at nothing higher than pleasantry and amusement. His two volumes of letters are the mere pastime of a wanton imagination, in which we meet not with one that is instructive, not one that flows from the heart, that paints the manners of the times, or the characters of men: they are rather an abuse than an exercise of wit.” With all this insignificance, Voiture’s letters cost him much labour: a single one took nearly a fortnight, a proof that his wit came slower in writing than in conversation, otherwise he would never have been the delight of every company. Pope appears to have had a good opinion of these letters, as he thought them a suitable present for Miss Blount, and never seems to have suspected that this was not paying that lady’s delicacy any great compliment.

, the greatest literary character which France produced in the last century, was born at Paris, February 20, 1694. His father, Francis Arouet, was “ancien notaire du Chatelet,” and treasurer of the chamber of accounts; his mother, MaryMargaret Daumart. At the birth of this extraordinary man, who lived to the age of eighty-five years and some months, there was little probability of his being ‘reared, and for a considerable time he continued remarkably feeble. In his earliest years he displayed a ready wit and a sprightly imagination: and, as he said of himself, made verses before he was out of his cradle. He was educated under Father Por6, in the college of Louis the Great; and such was his proficiency, that many of his essays are now existing, which, though written when he was between twelve and fourteen, shew no marks of infancy. The famous Ninon de l’Enclos, to whom this ingenious boy was introduced, left him a legacy of 2000 livres to buy him a library. Having been sent to the equity-schools on his quitting college, he was so disgusted with the dryness of the law, that he devoted himself entirely to the Muses. He was admitted into the company of the abb< Chaulieu, the marquis de la Fare, the duke de Sully, the grand prior of Vendo;ne, marshal Villars, and the chevalier du Bouillon; and caught from them that easy taste and delicate humour which distinguished the court of Louis XIV. Voltaire had early imbibed a turn for satire; and, for some philippics against the government, was imprisoned almost a year in the Bastile. He had before this period produced the tragedy of “Oedipus,” which was represented in 1718 with great success; and the duke of Orleans, happening to see it performed, was so delighted, that he obtained his release from prison. The poet waiting on the duke to return thanks: “Be wise,” said the duke, “and I will take care of you.” “I am infinitely obliged,” replied the young man; “but I intreat your royal highness not to trouble yourself any farther about my lodging or board.” His father, whose ardent wish it was that the son should have been an advocate, was present at one of the representations of the new tragedy: he was affected, even to tears, embraced his son amidst the felicitations of the ladies of the court, and never more, from that time, expressed a wish that he should become a lawyer. About 1720, he went to Brussels with Madam de Rupelmonde. The celebrated Rousseau being then in that city, the two poets met, and soon conceived an unconquerable aversion for each other. Voltaire said one day to Rousseau, who was shewing him “An Ode to Posterity,” “This is a letter which will never reach the place of its address.” Another time, Voltaire, having read a satire which Rousseau thought very indifferent, was advised to suppress it, lest it should be imagined that he “had lost his abilities, and preserved only his virulence.” Such mutual reproaches soon inflamed two hearts already sufficiently estranged. Voltaire, on his return to Paris, produced, in 1722, his tragedy of “Mariamne,” without success. His “Artemira” had experienced the same fate in 1720, though it had charmed the discerning by the excellence of the poetry. These mortifications, joined to those which were occasioned by his principles of imprudence, his sentiments on religion, and the warmth of his temper, induced him to visit England, where he printed his “Henriade.” King George I. and particularly the princess of Wales (afterwards queen Caroline) distinguished him by their protection, and obtained for him a great number of subscriptions. This laid the foundation of a fortune, which was afterwards considerably increased by the sale of his writings, by the munificence of princes, by commerce, by a habit of regularity, and by an ceconomy bordering on avarice, which he did not shake off till near the end of his life. On his return to France, in 1728, he placed the money he carried with him from England into a lottery established by M. Desforts, comptroller-general of the finances; he engaged deeply, and was successful. The speculations of finance, however, did not check his attachment to the belles lettres, his darling passion. In 1730, he published “Brutus,” the most nervous of all his tragedies, which was more applauded by the judges of good writing than by the spectators. The first wits of the time, Fontenelle, La Motte, and others, advised him to give up the drama, as not being his proper forte. He answered them by publishing “Zara,” the most affecting, perhaps, of all his tragedies. His “Lettres Philosophiques,” abounding in bold expressions and indecent witticisms against religion, having been burnt by a decree of the parliament of Paris, and a warrant being issued for apprehending the author in 1733, Voltaire very prudently withdrew; and was sheltered by the marchioness du Chatelet, in her castle of Cirey, on the borders of Champagne and Lorraine, who entered with him on the study of the “System” of Leibnitz, and the “Principia” of Newton. A gallery was built, in which Voltaire formed a good collection of natural history, and made a great many experiments on light and electricity. He laboured in the mean time on his “Elements of the Newtonian Philosophy,” then totally unknown in France, and which the numerous admirers of Des Cartes were very little desirous should be known. In the midst of these philosophic pursuits, he produced the tragedy of “Alzira.” He was now in the meridian of his age and genius, as was evident from the tragedy of “Mahomet,” first acted in, 174-1 but it was represented to the “procureur general” as a performance offensive to religion and the author, by order of cardinal Fleury, withdrew it from the stage. “Merope,” played two years after, 1743, gave an idea of a species of tragedy, of which few models have existed. It was at the representation of this tragedy that the pit and boxes were clamorous for a sight of the author; yet it was severely criticised when it came from the press. He now became a favourite at court, through the interest of madam d'Etoile, afterwards marchioness of Pompadour. Being employed in preparing the festivities that were celebrated on the marriage of the dauphin, he attained additional honours by composing “The Princess of Navarre.” He was appointed a gentleman of the bed-chamber in ordinary, and historiographer of France. The latter office had, till his time, been almost a sinecure; but Voltaire, who had written, under the direction of the count d'Argenson, the “History of the War of 1741,” was employed by that minister in many important negociations from 1745 to 1747; the project of invading England in 1746 was attributed to him and he drew up the king ofFrance’s manifesto in favour of the pretender. He had frequently attempted to gain admittance into the academy of sciences, but could not obtain his wish till 1746 , when he was the first who broke through the absurd custom of filling an inaugural speech with the fulsome adulation of Richelieu; an example soon followed by other academicians. From, the satires occasioned by this innovation he felt so much uneasiness, that he was glad to retire with the marchioness du Chateletto Luneville, in the neighbourhood of king Stanislaus. The marchioness dying in 1749, Voltaire returned to Paris, where his stay was but short* Though he had many admirers, he was perpetually complaining of a cabal combined to filch from him that glory of which he was insatiable. “The jealousy and manoeuvres of a court,” he would say, “are the subject of conversation; there is more of them among the literati.” His friends and relations endeavoured in vain to relieve his anxiety, by lavishing commendations on him, and by exaggerating his success. He imagined he should find in a foreign country a greater degree of applause, tranquillity, and reward, and augment at the same time both his fortune and reputation, which were already very considerable. The king of Prussia, who had repeatedly invited him to his court, and who would have given any thing to have got him away from Silesia, attached him at last to his person by a pension of 22,000 livres, and the hope of farther favour . From the particular respect that was paid to him, his time was now spent in the most agreeable manner; his apartments were under those of the king, whom he was allowed to visit at stated hours, to read with him the best works of either ancient or modern authors, and to assist his majesty in the literary productions by which he relieved the cares of government. But this happiness was soon at an end; and Voltaire saw, to his mortification, when it was too late, that, where a man is sufficiently rich to be master of himself, neither his liberty, his family, nor his country, should be sacrificed for a pension. A dispute which our poet had with Manpertuis, the president of the academy at Berlin, was followed by disgrace . It has been said that the king of Prussia dismissed him with this reproof: “I do not drive you away, because I called you hither; I do not take away your pension, because I have given it to you; I only forbid you my presence.” Not a word of this is true; the fact is, that he sent to the king the key of his office as chamberlain, and the cross of the order of merit, with these verses:

But the king returned him the key and the ribbon. Things assumed a different aspect when he took shelter with the duchess of Saxe Gotha. Maupertuis, as Voltaire himself related, took the advantage of misrepresenting him in his absence; and he was detained by the king’s order, at Francfort on the Maine, till he had given up a volume of“Royal Verses.” Having regained his liberty, be endeavoured to negociate a return to Paris; but this he was not able to accomplish, since one of his poems, the “Pucelle D' Orleans,” which was both impious and obscene, had begun to make a noise. He was resident for about a year at Colwar, whence retiring to Geneva, he purchased a beautiful villa near that city, where he enjoyed the homages of the Genevans, and of occasional travellers; and for a short time was charmed with his agreeable retirement, which the quarrels that agitated the little republic of Geneva compelled him soon to quit. He was accused of privately fomenting the disputes, of leaning towards the prevailing party, and laughing at both. Compelled to abandon Les Delices (which was the name of his countryhouse), he fixed himself in France, within a league of Geneva, in Le Pays de Gex, an almost savage desert, which he had the satisfaction of fertilizing. The village of Ferney, which contained not above 50 inhabitants, became by his means a colony of 1200 persons, successfully employed for themselves and for the state. Numbers of artists, particularly watchmakers, established their manufactures under the auspices of Voltaire, and exported their wares to Russia, Spain, Germany, Holland, and Italy. He rendered his solitude still more illustrious by inviting thither the great niece of the famous Corneille, and by preserving from ignominy and oppression Sirven and the family of Calas, whose memory he caused to be restored. In this retirement Voltaire erected a tribunal, at which he arraigned almost all the human race. Men in power, dreading the force of his pen, endeavoured to secure his esteem. Aretin, in the sixteenth century, received as many insults as rewards. Voltaire, with far more wit and address, obtained implicit homage. This homage, and some generous actions, which he himself occasionally took care to proclaim, either with a view that they should reach posterity, or to please the curious, contributed as much to extend his reputation as the marks of esteem and bounty he had received from sovereign princes. The king of Prussia, with whom he still maintained an uninterrupted correspondence, had his statue made in porcelain, and sent to him, with the word Immortali engraven on its base. The empress of Russia sent him a present of some magnificent furs, and a. box turned by her own hands, and adorned with hi& portrait and 20 diamonds. These distinctions did not prevent his sighs for Paris. Overloaded with glory and wealth, he was not happy, because he never could content himself with what he possessed. At length, in the beginning of 1778, he determined to exchange the tranquillity of Ferney for the incense and bustle of the capital, where he met with the most flattering reception. Such honours were decreed him by the academies as till then had been unknown; he was crowned in a full theatre, and distinguished by the public with the strongest enthusiasm. But the philosopher of fourscore soon fell a victim to thi* indiscreet officiousness: the fatigue of visits and attendance at theatrical representations, the change of regimen and mode of living, inflamed his blood, already too much disordered. On his arrival, he had a violent haemorrhage, which greatly impaired him. Some days before his last illness, the idea of approaching death tormented him. Sitting at table with the marchioness de Villette, at whose house he had taken up his abode, after a solemn reverie, he said, “You are like the kings of Egypt, who, when they were at meat, had a death’s head beTore them.” On his arrival at Paris, he said, “he was come to seek glory and death;” and to an artist, who presented him the picture of his triumph, replied, “A tomb would be fitter for me than a triumph.” At last, not being able to obtain sleep, he took a large dose of opium, which deprived him of his senses. He died May 30, 1778; and was buried at Sellices, a Benedictine abbey between Nogent and Troyes; Many accounts have been published respecting his behaviour when in the nearer view of death. Some of these are so contradictory, that it is difficult to attain the exact truth. His infidel friends, Diderot, D'Alembert, and others, took every pains to represent that he died as he had lived, a hardened infidel, and a blasphemer; but they have not been credited, and it is more generally believed that he was visited on this awful occasion with the remorse of a man, whose whole life had been a continued attempt to erect vice and immorality on the ruins of revealed religion. The mareschal cle Richelieu is said to have fled from the bed-side, declaring it to be a sight too terrible to be sustained; andTronchin, the physician, asserted that the furies of Orestes could give but*a faint idea of those of Voltaire.

While he had the vomiting of blood, he confessed himself, and even made a sort of profession of faith: this was supposed to be policy and illusion, and served only to shew the suppleness of this singular man; who was a freethinker at London, a Cartesian at Versailles, a Christian at Nancy, and an infidel at Berlin. In society, he was alternately an Aristippus and a Diogenes. He made pleasure the object of his researches: he enjoyed it, and made it the object of his praise; he grew weary of it, and turned it into ridicule. By the natural progress of such a character, he passed from a moralist to a buffoon, from a philosopher to an enthusiast, from mildness to passion, from flattery to satire, from the love of money to the love of luxury, from the modesty of a wise man to the vanity of an impious wit. It has been said, that by his familiarity with the great, he indemnified himself for the constraint he was sometimes under among his equals; that he had sensibility without affection; that he was voluptuous without passions, open without sincerity, and liberal without generosity. It has been said, that, with persons who were jealous of his acquaintance, he began by politeness, went on with coldness, and usually ended by disgust, unless perchance they were writers who had acquired reputation, or men in power, whom he had adroitness enough to attach to his interests. It has been said that he was steadfast to nothing by choice, but to every thing by irregular starts of fancy. “These singular contrasts,” says M. Pelisson, “are not less evident in his physical than in his moral character. It has been remarkable, that his physiognomy partook of those of an eagle and an ape: and who can say that this contrast was not the principle of his predominant taste for antithesis? What an uncommon and perpetual change from greatness to meanness, from glory to contempt! How frequently has he combined the gravity of Plato with the legerdemain of Harlequin!” Hence the name of Micromegas, the title of one of his own crudities, which was given him by La Beaumelle, has been confirmed by the public voice. This is the portrait of an extraordinary personage; and such was Voltaire, who, like all other extraordinary men, has occasioned some strong enthusiasts and eccentric critics. Leader of a new sect, having survived many of his rivals, and eclipsed, towards the end of his career, the poets his contemporaries; he possessed the most unbounded influence, and has brought about a melancholy revolution in wit and morals. Though he has often availed himself of his amazing talents to promote the cause of reason and humanity, to inspire princes with toleration, and with a horror for war; yet he was more delighted, more in his element, and we are sorry to add more successful, when he exerted himself in extending the principles of irreligion and anarchy. The lively sensibility which animates his writings pervaded his whole conduct; and it was seldom that he resisted the impressions of his ready and overflowing wit, or the first feelings of his heart. Voltaire stands at the head of those writers who in France are called Beaux Esprits; and for brilliancy of imagination, for astonishing ease, exquisite taste, versatility of talents, and extent of knowledge, he had no superior, scarcely an equal among his countrymen. But, if genius be restricted to invention, Voltaire was deficient. His most original pieces are, his “Candide,” a tissue of ridiculous extravagancies, which may be traced to Swift; and his infamous poem, the “Pucelle,” for which he was indebted to Chapelain and Ariosto. His “Henriade” is the finest epic poem the French have; but it wants the sublimity of Homeric or Miltonic invention. The subject, indeed, could not admit supernatural machinery. It is, as lord Chesterfield said (who did not mean to depreciate it) “all good sense from beginning to end.” It is an excellent history in verse, and the versification is as harmonious as French versification can be, and some of his portraits are admirably touched; but as a whole, as an epic, it sinks before the epics of Greece and Rome, of Italy and England.

, a very celebrated Dutch poet, was born Nov. 17, 1587. He was bred an anabaptist; afterwards joined the Arminians, for whose defence he employed his pen with great zeal; and in his old age turned Roman Catholic. His verses, it is said, would have equalled those of the greatest poets, had he been acquainted with the ancients; but he had no other master than his own genius, and did not begin to learn Latin till he was near thirty. Vondel married Mary de Wolf in 1610, and opened a hosier’s shop at Amsterdam, leaving however all the care of it to his wife, while he was wholly occupied with poetry. The profligacy of his son having at length deranged his affairs, he obtained a place worth 650 livres yearly, but discharged the business of it so negligently, that in compassion to his situation he was permitted to keep the place as a sinecure. He died February 5, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Vondel’s poems have been collected in 9 vols. 4to. The most celebrated are, “The Park of Animals;” “The Heroes of God;” “The Destruction of Jerusalem,” a tragedy; “The Grandeur of Solomon;” Jl1 Palamede, or Innocence oppressed,“a celebrated tragedy, which he wrote while an Arminian. By Palamede he meant the famous Barneveldt, who was condemned to death by prince Maurice. Vondel exclaims in this piece against both the prince and the synod of Dort, in terms which sufficiently point them out, and was near being carried to the Hague, and tried in consequence of it; but some magistrates saved him, and he escaped by paying a fine of 300 florins. He wrote also satires against the protestant ministers, full of passion and invective; and a poem in favour of the catholic church, entitled” The Mysteries, or Secrets of the Altar," &c. He translated one of Grotius’s tragedies into Dutch, on which that celebrated writer expressed a high sense of Venders friendship, in condescending to translate his works, when he could write much better of his own.

Having accepted this office, he acquired so much reputation in discharging the duties of it, that other universities became desirous of obtaining such a teacher, but he declined a change for the present. While here, however, his principles became again suspected, and this reaching the ears of count de Bentheim, his great patron, in 1599, he ordered Vorstius to clear himself immediately, by going to the university where he had received his doctor’s degree, and convincing them of his being orthodox. Accordingly Vorstius went to Heidelberg, where he gave an. account of his faith; and returned, cleared, to his abode. The faculty of divines admitted him to the kiss of peace, and gave him tesseram hospitalitatis (the mark or token of hospitality) after signifying to him, that he had been in the wrong to advance certain particulars which favoured the Socinians, and making him promise that he would thenceforward refrain from employing such phrases as might give occasion for suspicion. He also was forced to make a protestation that he abhorred Socinus’s opinions; and was very sorry the fire of youth had made him employ certain expressions, which seemed to favour that heretic, and clash with the doctrine of the protestant churches.

In 1605, he was appointed minister at Steinfurt, and he was also made president of the court for trying matrimonial causes, and was principal examiner of young candidates for the ministry. In consideration of these various employments, an extraordinary stipend was allowed. In 1610, he was invited to Leyden, to succeed the celebrated Arminius. This invitation was of the most flattering kind, being approved both by the States of Holland and by prince Maurice; yet his biographer is of opinion, that had he not been most strongly solicited by the chiefs of the Arminians he would never have embarked on so stormy a sea. He was beloved and honoured in Steinfurt; there he enjoyed the utmost tranquillity, and was in the highest reputation; and he doubtless foresaw that, in the state in which the controversies of Arminius and Gomarus were at that time, he should meet with great opposition in Holland. But he was tempted by the glory he should gain in supporting a party which was weakened by Arminius’s death. To this were added motives pretended to be drawn from conscience; for they represented to him, that he would one day be accountable for the ill use he should make of his talents, in case too great a fondness for ease should make him neglect so happy an opportunity of establishing the truth, in a country where it had already taken root. However this be, he was induced to leave count de Bentheim, and go to Holland, where he found, or made innumerable enemies.

In Feb. 1602, he married a minister’s daughter of Dort, who died in 1607, having brought him three children. He married a second wife six months after, by whom he had five sons and two daughters. This fertility in Vossius, which was at the same time attended with a wonderful fertility in his pen, made Grotius say, with some pleasantry, that he did not know whether Vossius had a better knack at producing children or books; “scriberetne accuratius, an gigneret felicius.?” These children were educated with the utmost care, so that his house was called the habitation of Apollo and the Muses; but he had the misfortune to survive them all, except Isaac Vossius. One of his daughters, a very accomplished young lady, was drowned while sliding, according to the custom of the country, upon the canals near Leyden. In 1614, an attempt was made to draw him to Steinfurt, to be divinity-professor there; but the university of Leyden having named him at the same time to be director of the theological college which the States of Holland had just founded in that town, he preferred the latter situation; and his office of professor of eloquence and chronology, which was conferred upon him four years after, was peculiarly agreeable to his taste. Though he took all imaginable care to keep himself clear from the disputes about grace and predestination, which then ran high among the ministers of that country, yet his precautions did not avail, for he was entangled in spite of them. He had rendered himself suspected and obnoxious to the Gomarists, who had prevailed in the synod of Dort held in 1612, because he had openly favoured the toleration of the Remonstrants, and because, in his history of the Pelagian controversy, printed in 1618, he had affirmed, that the sentiments of St. Augustin upon grace and predestination were not the most ancient, and that those of the Remonstrants were different from those of the Semi-Pelagians. And although he did not separate himself from the communion of the Anti-Remonstrants, yet they, knowing well that he neither approved their doctrines nor their conduct, procured him to be ejected from his professorship at the synod of Tergou, held in 1620. The year after, another synod was held at Rotterdam; where it was ordered, that he should be received again, provided he would promise neither to do nor say any thing against the synod of Dort, and would also retract the errors advanced in his history of Pelagianism. It was with great reluctance that he consented to these terms, but the loss which he would suffer by resistance, induced him in 1624 to make such promises as appeared satisfactory.

M. des Maizeaux, in his life of St. Evremond, has recorded several particulars relative to the life and character of Isaac Vossius, which are certainly not of a very favourable cast. St. Evremond, he tells us, used to spend the summers with the court at Windsor, and there often saw Vossius; who, as St. Evremond described him, understood almost all the languages in Europe, without being able to speak one of them well; who knew to the very bottom the genius and customs of antiquity, yet was an utter stranger to the manners of his own times. He expressed himself in conversation as a man would have done in a commentary upon Juvenal or Petronius. He published books to prove, that the Septuagint version was divinely inspired; yet discovered, in private conversation, that he believed no revelation at all: and his manner of dying, which was far from being exemplary, shewed that he did not. Yet, to see the frailty of the human understanding, he was in other respects the weakest and most credulous man alive, and ready to swallow, without chewing, any extraordinary and wonderful thing, though ever so fabulous and impossible. This is the idea which St. Evremond, who knew him well, has given of him. If any more proofs of his unbelief are wanting, Des Maizeaux has given us them, in a note upon the foregoing account of St. Evremond. He relates, that Dr. Hascard, dean of Windsor, with one of the canons, visited Vossius upon his death-bed, and pressed him to receive the sacrament; but could not prevail, though they begged of him at last, that, “if he would not do it for the love of God, he would at least do it for the honour of the chapter.” Des Maizeaux relates another fact concerning Vossius, which he received from good authority; namely, that, when Dr. Hascard pressed him to take the sacrament, he replied, “I wish you would instruct me how to oblige the farmers to pay me what they owe me: this is what I would have you do for me at present.” Such sort of replies are said to have been common with him; and that once, when a brother of his mother was sick, and a minister was for giving him the communion, he opposed it, saying, “this is a pretty custom enough for sinners; but my uncle, far from being a sinner, is a man without vices.” As to his credulity and propensity to believe in the most implicit manner any thing singular and extraordinary, Mons. Renaudot, in his dissertations added to “Anciennes Relations des Indes & de la Chine,” relates, that Vossius, having had frequent conferences with the father Martini, during that Jesuit’s residence in Holland for the printing his “Atlas Chinois,” made no scruple of believing all which he told him concerning the wonderful things in China; and that he even went farther than Martini, and maintained as a certain fact the antiquity of the Chinese accounts above that of the books of Moses. Charles II. who knew his character well, used to call him the strangest man in the world for “there is nothing,” the king would say, “which he refuses to believe, except the Bible;” and it is probable, that the noble author of the “Characteristics” had him in his eye while he was writing the following paragraph. “It must certainly be something else than incredulity, which fashions the taste and judgment of many gentlemen, whom we hear censured as Atheists, for attempting to philosophize after a newer manner than any known of late. I have ever thought this sort of men to be in general more credulous, though after another manner, than the mere vulgar. Besides what I have observed in conversation with the men of this character, I can produce many anathematized authors, who, if they want a true Israelitish faith, can make amends by a Chinese or Indian, one. If they are short in Syria or the Palestine, they have their full measure in America or Japan. Histories of Incas or Iroquois, written by friers and missionaries, pirates and renegadoes, sea-captains and trusty travellers, pass for authentic records, and are canonical with the virtuosos of this sort. Though Christian miracles may not so well satisfy them, they dwell with the greatest contentment on the prodigies of Moorish and Pagan countries.” This perfectly corresponds with the nature and character of Isaac Vossius, although lord Shaftesbury might have more than one in his eye when he wrote it.

His works, though very numerous, are yet neither so numerous nor so useful as his father’s. His first publication was “Periplus Scylacis Caryandensis & Anonymi Periplus Ponti Euxini, Græce & Latinæ, cum notis.” Amst. 1639, 4to. Although he was only a youth of twenty-one when he published this, James Gronovius judged his notes worth inserting in the new augmented edition which he gave of these authors at Leyden 1697, under the title of “Geographia antiqua,” in 4to. The year after, 1640, he published “Justin,” with notes, at Leyden, in 12mo, also a juvenile production, but of no particular value. “Ignatii Epistolæ, & Barnabæ Epistola, Græce & Latinæ, cum notis,” Amst. 1646, in 4to. He was the first who published the genuine epistles of Ignatius, from a Greek manuscript in the library at Florence, which was found to agree exactly with the ancient Latin version which archbishop Usher had published two years before. His notes have been inserted in Le Clerc’s edition of the “Patres Apostolici.” “Pomponius Mela de situ orbis, cum observationibus,” Hagse Com. 1648, 4to. Salmasius is the subject of his animadversion in these notes. “Dissertatio de vera estate mundi, &c.” Hagae Com. 1659, 4to. This dissertation, in which it is attempted to establish the chronology of the Septuagint upon the ruin of that of the Hebrew text, was attacked by many authors, and particularly by Hornius, to whom Vossius replied in “Castigationes ad Scriptum Hornii de ætate Mundi,” Hagse Com. 1659, 4to. Hornius defended what he had written, the same year; and Vossius, the same year, replied to him again in “Auctarium Castigationum, &c.” 4to. Hornius was not however to be silenced, but published another piece, still in the same year; and then father Pezron adopted and maintained the opinion of Vossius, in his book, entitled “L'Antiquite de temps retablie,” 1661. Vossius published “De Septuaginta Interpretibus, eorumque translatione & chronologia Dissertationes;” and, in 1663, “Appendix ad hunc librum, seu Responsiones ad objecta variorum Theologorum:” both in 4to. His next publications were upon philosophical subjects, as “Deluce,” “De motu marium & ventorum,” “De Nili & aliorum fluminum origine;” which are not thought of much consequence. "De Poematum Cantu et Viribus Rythmi, Oxon. 1673,“in 8vo, in which are some curious remarks.” De Sibyllinis aliisque, quae Christi natalem præcessere, Oraculis,“Oxon. 1679: reprinted in” Variarum Observationum Liber.“”Catullus, & in eum Isaaci Vossii Observationes,“Lond. 1684, 4to, and Leyden, 1691. There is a great deal of erudition in these notes of Vossius, mixed with gross indelicacies. The greatest part of a treatise by Adrian Beverland,” De prostibulis veterum,“the printing of which had been prohibited, was inserted in them; but this being discovered, the press was stopped from proceeding any farther; and the edition, the first of those mentioned above, though begun and carried on in Holland, was brought over to England to be finished; as may appear from the different characters of the end, the title, and the preface. In 1685, he published a thin quarto volume at London, entitled,” Variarum Observationum Liber,“in which are contained the following dissertations:” De Antiquae Romae & aliarum quarundam urbitnn magnitudine; De Artibus & Scientiis Sinarum; De Originæ & Progressu Pulveris Bellici apud Europaeos; De Triremium & Libnrnicarum constructione; De emendatione Longitudinum; De patefacienda per Septentrionem ad Japonenses & Indos navigatione; De apparentibus in Luna circulis; Diurna Telluris coriversione omnia gravia ad medium tendere;“to which are subjoined,” De Sibyllinis Oraculis, Responsio ad Objecta nupera: Criticae Sacræ,“and” Ad iteratas P. Simonii objectiones altera Responsio.“Vossius’s propensity to the marvellous, and his prejudices for antiquity, appear from the first page of this book of various observations; where he tells us, that ancient Rome was twenty times as large as Paris and London put together are at present; and assigns it fourteen millions of inhabitants; which however is nothing in comparison of the single town of Hanchou in China, whose inhabitants, he assures us, amount to twenty millions, besides the suburbs. This” Variarum Observationum Liber,“however, as well as Isaac Vossius’s works in general, all shew ingenuity and learning, and there are in them some singular and striking observations; but yet very little knowledge is to be drawn from, and very little use to be made of them. Thirlby says very justly of him, that he was a man of great learning, had excellent parts, and sufficient judgment, but never troubled his head about what was the truth in any question whatever. If criticism, or philosophy, or theology, was the subject, it was, says Thirlby,” quite enough for him to cast about for and invent things new, out of the way, and wonderful; but whether these strange and newly-discovered things were true or false, was a point which he left to be examined by those who might think it worth their while.“The last of his works we shall notice is,” Observationum ad Pomponium Melam appendix: accedit ad tertias P. Simonii objectiones Responsio, c.“Lond. 1686, 4to. James Gronovius, having used Vossius ill in his edition of” Mela,“at Leyden, 1685, in 8vo, is in this appendix paid in kind; Humphrey Hody is also answered, in a short piece contained in this publication; who had advanced something against Vossius’s notions of the Septuagint version, in his” Dissertatio contra Historiam Aristeae de LXX. Interpretibus,“printed at Oxford,” 1685.

, a French painter, very celebrated in his day, was born at Paris in 1582, and bred up under his father, who was a painter also. He knew so much of his art, and was in such repute at twenty years of age, that Mons. de Saucy, who was going ambassador to Constantinople, took him with him as his painter. There he drew the picture of the grand signer; and, though it was impossible to do it otherwise than by the strength of memory, and from a view of him at the ambassador’s audience, yet it proved a great likeness. Thence he went to Venice; and afterwards, settling himself in Rome, became so illustrious* in his profession, that, besides the favours which he received from pope Urban VIII. and the cardinal his nephew, he was chosen prince of the Roman academy of St. Luke. He staid fourteen years in Italy; and then, in 1627, Lewis XIII. who, in consideration of his capacity, hatl allowed him a pension all the while he was abroad, sent for him borne to work in his palaces. He practised both in portrait and history; and furnished some of the apartments of the Louvre, the palaces of Luxemburg and iSt. Germains, the galleries of cardinal Richelieu, and other public places, with his works. His greatest perfection lay in his colouring, and his brisk and lively pencil; otherwise he was but tery indifferently qualified. He had no genius for grand compositions, was unhappy in his invention, unacquainted with the rules of perspective, and understood but little of the union of colours, or the doctrine of lights and shadows. Yet France was indebted to him for destroying the insipid and barbarous manner which then reigned, and for beginning to introduce a better taste. The novelty of Vouet’s manner, and the kind reception he gave all who came to him, made the French painters, his contemporaries, follow it, and brought him disciples from all parts. Most of the succeeding painters, who were famous in their profession, were bred up under him, as Le Brun, Perrier, Mignard, Le Sueur, Dorigny, Du Fresnoy, and several others, whom he employed as assistants in a great number of pictures he drew, and from his instructions they well knew how to execute his designs. He had the honour also to instruct the king himself in the art of designing.

, a distinguished French statesman, of a very ancient and honourable family, was born at Venice in 1652, where his father then resided as ambassador from France, and was so much respected that the senate gave him and his descendants permission to add the arms of the republic <o his own, with the lion of St. Mark as his crest. The senate also, as sponsor for his son, gave him the additional name of Mark. He was brought up to the law, and after filling the place of master of the requests, was promoted by the king to the place of lieutenant-general of the police of Paris, and conducted himself in this office with so much ability and propriety, that it is said that city never enjoyed more plenty, quiet, and security, than under his administration. In times of scarcity or commotion on any other account, and during fires or other calamities, he displayed the talents of a humane and enlightened magistrate, and by address only, and sharing in every danger, and listening to all reasonable complaints, he succeeded, in preventing or allaying popular tumults, without having recourse to extremities. His ability in this office recommended him to a superior rank in the administration, and accordingly, after being made a counsellor of state, he was in 1718 promoted to be keeper of the seals, president of the council of finance, and in 172() minister of state; but of these offices he was almost immediately deprived, we are not told why, and died May 8, 1721. He was attached to literature, and was a member of the French academy and of that of sciences. His character has been variously represented. We have given the most favourable account, but it must not be concealed that he was accounted by many as a friend to despotic authority, and as meanly subservient to the tyranny of the court or its ministers. He is said to have obliged the Jesuits by persecuting the Jansenists, but neither ioved or hated the one or the other, unless as they might promote or obstruct his ambition. In private life he was a more amiable character. Some of his descendants made a considerable figure in the latter French history.

, an Anglo-Norman poet, whose works are esteemed the most ancient monuments of French literature, was born in the isle of Jersey, in the early part of the twelfth century. Huet, bishop of Avranches, assures us that his Christian name was Robert, and this opinion has generally prevailed, although Ducange calls him Mathew. From the poet himself, nothing can be determined, for in none of his works does he once mention his Christian name, calling himself generally Maitre Wace, Clerc-lisant, or Clerc de Caen. Wace commenced his studies at Caen, a city which at that time had many celebrated schools, and afterwards travelled in France to complete his education, hut under what tutors, or in what places, does not appear. Whether however from being dissatisfied with his situation, or from the natural predilection of his countrymen in favour of the English government, it is certain that he returned to Caen, and there made his first essay.

It is difficult to ascertain the first specimen he exhibited of the literature of his time. We know that he had composed many works, that he translated others into the language of his country, and that he particularly applied himself to the composition of light poetry and romances, in which last he excelled. He assures us that he composed a great number of romances; and, as most of them have been preserved, it is natural to conclude that they were held in the same estimation by his contemporaries as they have been by posterity. But it is proper to remark in this place, that the word romance is not always to be understood as applicable to those chimerical tales which have no other basis than the imagination of the inventor. During the twelfth, thirteenth, and even the fourteenth centuries, every thing that was written in French or Romance, or that was translated into that language, was generally termed a romance. Philip de Than, the most ancient of the Norman poets, and William, another poet of the same country, composed in verse a work upon the natural history of animals, and each of them called his works a romance. Richard d'Annebaut, likewise a Norman poet, translated into verse the institutes of Justinian, which he says he has romanced. Samson de Nanteuil versified the proverbs of Solomon; Helie de Winchester, Cato’s distichs; and both of them call their translations a romance.

We are not then to consider the romances of Wace as the offspring of a fertile imagination which has created events for the purpose of embellishing them with the charms of poetry; on the contrary, they are monuments of antiquity of the most respectable nature, inasmuch as they form for the most part a precious repository of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon history When this poet wrote the history of events which preceded him, he drew his materials from memoirs which then existed. He often cites the authors upon whose faith he advances his facts, and of whom many have not been preserved to us. When he wrote the history of his own times, he always relied upon the testimony of eye-witnesses, or related what he himself had seen. In general he is very candid in his narrations, and though he may sometimes appear to deal a little in the marvellous, he takes care to observe that he has found what he advances so written, and that he gives it in the same manner.

That work of Wace’s which his learned biographer places first, was composed in 1155. It is his translation in verse of the famous “Brut of England,” so called from Brutus the great grandson of Æneas, and first king of the Britons. It contains the history of the kings of Great Britain, almost from the destruction of Troy to the year 689 of the common sera. Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, had imported the original from Armoric Britain, Geoffroy of Monmouth translated it into Latin, and Wace into French verse. Several copies of this work are in the British Museum, one at Bene't college, Cambridge, and one, at least, a very superb one, in the royal library at Paris, supposed to be coeval with the author. The verses of this poem are always masculine of eight syllables, and feminine of nine; by which circumstance the error of attributing this work, as Fauchet has done, to a Huistace, or Wistace, is detected; for, by substituting Wace, as is found in the ancient ms. the verses acquire their necessary measure. Warton has fallen into this mistake by depending upon Fauchet; and the same error is repeated by several French writers. The learned Tyrwhitt was the first person who attempted to clear up a subject which from time to time became more involved in darkness, and to vindicate our author from the errors or injustice of modern writers. By means of sound criticism, the authority of the manuscripts in the British Museum, and the testimony of Layamon and Robert de Brunne, he proved, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Wace was the author of the translation of the “Brut” into French verse. Lastly, Dr. Burney, in, his < c History of Music," by means of the rules of French poetry alone, demonstrated the want of fidelity in the manuscripts which had misled Fauchet and all other writers, who, as he had done, drew their materials from faulty and imperfect copies.

The second production of Wace is the history of the irruptions into England and the northern provinces of France, written in verses of eight syllables. His third work is the famous Roman du Rou, composed in 1160, in verses of twelve syllables. Raoul, or Rollo, is the hero of this poem. His fourth piece is the romance of William Longsword, the son of Rollo, written in verses of twelve syllables. It is to be found in the royal library at Paris, at the end of the Roman du Rou; and his fifth work, or the romance of Richard I. duke of Normandy, composed in the same measure, may be seen in the same repository. His sixth work contains, in 12,000 lines, the history of the Norman dukes, from the time of duke Richard I. to the sixth year of Henry I. and was composed after 1170. A copy is in the British Museum, Bib. Reg. iv. c. xi. His seventh performance is an abridged chronicle of the history of the dukes of Normandy, beginning with Henry II. and going upwards to Rollo.

Huet, and almost every one of those who have spoken of our poet, have maintained that he had been clerk of the chapel to king Henry II. Wace, however, mentions nothing concerning this dignity, although he minutely describes all the favours which that monarch conferred upon him; he is even so attentive upon this subject, that he assures us the king gave him many things, but had promised him more. Besides, as the title of clerk of the King’s chapel was a very honourable one, which generally led the way to a bishopric, we may presume from his silence that he was not invested with it. Monsieur Huet has certainly been misled by the description of clerk, which Wace often assumes; but he should have remarked, that he never calls himself clerc du roi, but always clerc de Caen, or clerc lisant, a title which then signified nothing more than a learned man, and which was even given to laymen, since Henry I. was surnamed Beauclerc.

Accordingly, having introduced our divine at court, the bishop took him with him to Rome, where they were lodged in the palace of cardinal Gabriel a Trejo, the bishop’s brother, who employed Wadding in compiling or composing from the libraries and archives of Rome such arguments and proofs as related to the question before them; and he even visited Assisi, Perugia, Naples, and many other places fr the same purpose. Besides this, at the request of some who had perused what he had brought together with great satisfaction, he was induced to write a history of that legation, not indeed with a view to publication, but having intrusted the ms to some who were of opinion it ought not to be concealed, it was at last published by Maximilian de Bouchorne, at Louvaine, under the title “Legatio Philippi III. et IV. Hispaniae regum, ad sanctissimos D. D. Paulum V- et Gregorium XV. et Urbanum VIII. pro definienda controversia conceptions B. Mariae Virginia; per illustrissimum, &c. Anthonium a Trejo,” &c. Lonvain, 1624, folio.

In the mean time, his reputation had so much increased that in 1630, he was appointed procurator for the Franciscans at Rome, which he held until 1634. In 1645, he was appointed vice-commissary of his order, which it appears he resigned in 1648. He was also, in 1625, the founder of the college of St. Isidore, for the education of Irish students of the Franciscan order, of which he was the first guardian or head. The expenses of this college, the chapel, library, &c. were defrayed by contributions from the people of Rome, out of regard to the founder. He also persuaded cardinal Ludovisius to found a secular college there for six Irish students; and this, and some other institutions, suggested and promoted by him, he lived to see well endowed. His influence, from whatever cause, appears to have been very great; but the worst, and, as his biographers say, the only stain on his character, is the encouragement he gave to the Irish rebellion and massacre in 1641. He died Nov. 18, 1657, and was buried in the chapel of St. Isidore. Not long before his death he had refused the promotion to the rank of cardinal.

, esq. of Edge and Merrifield, in Somersetshire, in which county he was born, the founder of Waclham-college, Oxford, was a descendant of the ancient family of YVadhams of Devonshire; but the period of his birth is not known, nor have we many particulars of his personal history. According to Wood, he was a gentleman-commoner either of Christ-church, or CorpusChrist! college, where he is supposed to have been admitted about 1548. He inherited an estate which he increased to more than 3000l. a-year, and accumulated about 14,000^. in money. A large portion of this property he resolved to devote to some foundation of public utility. His first intention is said to have been to found a college at Venice for such Englishmen of the Roman catholic persuasion as might wish to enjoy their education and religion, now no longer tolerated in England. From this it may be inferred, that he was himself attached to popery; but his adherence could not be inflexible, as he was soon persuaded by his friend Mr. Grange to erect a college in Oxford, in imitation of the others, where the established religion was now cultivated with zeal. His, or rather his wife’s, appointing, that the warden should not be married, may be thought a part of the old persuasion; but it must be remembered, that the marriage of the clergy was one of the last changes of opinion to which the nation was completely reconciled. Queen Elizabeth was always against it; and it was prohibited by the statutes of Jesus-college. A more ridiculous reason has been traditionally assigned for Mrs. Dorothy Wadham’s injunction against marriage; she is said to have been refused by the first warden; but she was at this time seventy-five years old, and he considerably advanced, which renders this story highly improbable. As Mr. Wadham died before this design could be carried into execution, he bequeathed the management of it to his wife, the daughter of siv William Petre, secretary of state, who so often occurs as a benefactor to the university of Oxford. This lady, assisted by trustees, and with a zeal proportioned to her husband’s spirited design, completed the necessary purchases, buildings, and endowment. She survived her husdand nine years, died May 16, 1618, aged eighty-four, and was buried with her husband in the north transept of the church of Ilminster in Somersetshire, under a stately monument of alabaster, on which are their figures on brass plates; but the whole is considerably decayed.

Mrs. Wadham first endeavoured to purchase the site of Gloucester-hall, now Worcester-college, but Dr. Hawley, then principal, refusing to give up his interest in that property, unless she would appoint him her first governor or warden, she declined the condition, and made proposals to the city of Oxford, for the site of the priory of Austin Friars.

This was once a place of great fame in the university, and may be traced to very high antiquity. In 1251, pope Innocent IV. granted a power to the friars eremites of St. Austin, to travel into any countries, build monasteries, and celebrate divine service. With this permission, they first established a house in London, but deputed some of their number to go to Oxford, where they hired an obscure bouse near the public schools. Acquiring some reputation for their skill in philosophy and divinity, or at least what were then so called, they attracted the attention of sir John Handlove, or Handlow, of Burstall in Buckinghamshire, a very opulent gentleman, who purchased for them a piece of ground, enlarged afterwards by a gift from Henry III. On this tney built a house and chapel in a sumptuous form, and held schools for divinity and philosophy of such reputation, that, before the divinity school was built, the university acts were kept, and the exercises in arts were performed in this place. It was in particular enjoined that every bachelor of arts should once in ea^h year dispute, and once answer, at this house, and this continued until the dissolution, when the disputations were removed to St. Mary’s, and afterwaids to the schools. Alter the dissolution, the premises were let, on a lease of twenty-one years, at 3l. yearly, to Thomas Carwarden, or Carclon, esq. who appears to have demolished the whole, and carried off the materials. In 1552, king Edward VI. sold the site to Henry duke of Suffolk, and Thomas Duport, gentleman, who almost immediately conveyed it to Henry Baylie, M. D. formerly a fellow of New college, for forty-five shillings yearly. In 1553, Baylie sold it to his father-in-law, Edward Freere, of Oxford, who left it to his son William, by whom, in 1587, it was again sold to the mayor, bailiffs, and commonalty of Oxford lor the principal sum of 450l.

The king’s licence, bearing date Dec. 20, 1611, empowered Mrs. Wadham to found a college for the studies of divinity, canon and civil law, physic, the arts and sciences, and classical languages; the society to consist of a warden, sixteen fellows, and thirty scholars, graduate or not graduate, or more or less, as the statutes might prescribe. The act of parliament for the confirmation of Wadham college was passed on the 16th of August, 1612. The statutes of the foundress, thus confirmed, specified the college to be for a warden, fifteen fellows, fifteen scholars, two chaplains, two clerks, with college servants. The warden was to be a native of Great Britain, master of arts at least, and be incapacitated from holding his situation, either if he married, or was promoted to a bishopric; but the condition respecting marriage was annulled by act of parliament, July 1806. The fellows, after completing eighteen years from the expiration of their regency, are to resign their fellowships. The scholars, from whom the fellows are to be chosen, are to be, three of the county of Somerset, three of Essex, and the rest of any other county in Great Britain.

Among these are, 1. “A Letter to the author of the late Letter out of the country, occasioned by a former Letter to a member of the House of Commons, concerning the bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension.” 2. “An Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation Book: with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance,” London, 1690. 3. “An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication of the Case of allegiance due to sovereign powers, which he made in reply to an Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance, &c,” London, 1692. 4. “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Sherlock written in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, wtiicb gives the account of Jaddas’s submission to Alexander, against the Answer to the piece entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government,” Lond. 1692. 5. “A Letter out of Suffolk to a friend in London, giving some account of the late sickness and death of Dr. William Sancroft late lord archbishop of Canterbury,” London, 1694. 6. “A Letter out of Lancashire to a friend in London, giving some account of the tryals there. Together with some seasonable and proper remarks upon it; recommended to the wisdom of the Lords and Commons assembled in parliament,” London, 1694. 7. “A Letter to a gentleman elected a knight of the shire to serve in the present parliament,” London, 1694. 8. “Remarks on some late Sermons, and in particular on Dr. Sherlock’s sermon at the Temple December the 30th, 1694, in a letter to a friend. The second edition, with additions. Together with a letter to the author of a pamphlet entitled A Defence of the archbishop’s Sermon, &c. and several other Sermons, &c.” London, 1695. 9. “An account of the proceedings in the House of Commons, in relation to the recoining the clipped money, and falling the price of guineas. Together with a particular list of the names of the members consenting and dissenting; in answer to a Letter out of the country,” London, 1696. 10. “A Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; proving that his majesty was the author of ' Eixav BawiAjw, against a memorandum said to be written by the earl of Anglesey, and against the exceptions of Dr. Walker and others. To which is added a preface, wherein the bold and insolent assertions published in a passage of Mr.JBayle’s Dictionary relating to the present controversy are examined and confuted. The third edition, with large additions together with some original letters of king Charles the First, &c.” Lond. 1711, in 4to. The two former editions were in 8vo, the first printed in 1693, and the second in 1697. 11. “A Defence of the Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; justifying his majesty’s title to Efxcuv 'BacriMw, in answer to a late pamphlet entitled Amyntor,” London, 1699. Mr. Wagstaffe also wrote prefaces before, I. “Symmons’s Restitutus: containing two epistles, four whole sections or chapters, together with a postscript, and some marginal observations, &c. which were perfectly omitted in the first edition of Mr Symmons’s book, entitled” A Vindication of king Charles I. and republished by Dr Hollingworth,“London, 1693. 2.” The devout Christian’s Manual, by Mr. Jones,“London, 1703. 3.” A Treatise of God’s Government, and of the justice of his present dispensations in this world. By the pious, learned, and most eloquent Sulvian, a priest of Marseilles, who lived in the fifth century. Translated from the Latin by R. T. presbyter of the church of England,“London, 1700. These two pamphlets are also of Mr. Wagstaffe’s writing, 1.” The present state of Jacobitism in England,“ibid. 1700;” A second part in answer to the first“which was written by the bishop of Salisbury, &c. &c. Wagstaflfe derived most credit from his endeavours to prove the” Eikon Basilike“to be the genuine production of king Charles; but on this subject we must refer our readers to the life of bishop Gauden, and especially the authorities there quoted. Mr. Wagstaffe had a son who resided at Oxford in the early part of his life, but afterwards went abroad, and resided at Rome many years in the character of protestant chaplain to the chevalier St. George, and afterwards to his son. He was there esteemed a man of very extensive learning. Dr. Townson was acquainted with him at Rome, both on his first and second tour in 1743 and 1768. He lived in a court near a carpenter’s shop, and upon Dr. Townson’s inquiring for him, the carpenter knew of no such person.” He did live somewhere in this yard some years ago.“” I have lived here these thirty years, and no person of such a name has lived here in that time.“But on farther explanation, the carpenter exclaimed,” Oh, you mean // Predicatore; he lives there,“pointing to the place. This Mr. Wagstaffe died at Rome, Dec. 3, 1770, aged seventy-eight. Mr. Nichols has preserved some jeux d‘esprits, and some epitaphs written by him, and there is a letter of his to Tom Hearne, in the ’.' Letters written by Eminent Persons,” lately published at Oxford, 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.

While in France he is said to have made a considerable figure in the learned world, and was applied to by Dr., now bishop Fell, to procure the collation of some valuable Greek Mss. of the New Testament at Paris, for the use of Dr. Mill, whose edition Dr. Fell patronised. In the beginning of the reign of James II. he returned home with lord Preston, and was soon after chosen preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s Inn. This, it would appear, was against the wish of the king, who, on the death of his predecessor, Dr. Claget, sent a message to the society, desiring them not to proceed to an election until they heard from him, but they returned an answer that they bad already chosen Dr. Wake. During his residence in France an incident occurred which occasioned his first appearance as an author, and his being known as an able writer both at home and abroad. Bossuet, the bishop of Meaux (See Bossuet) had now published his very artful “Exposition of the Roman Catholic Faith,” a copy of which came into the hands of Mr. Wake, who, in the preface to his Answer, gives a very curious account of the different alterations the work had undergone, in order to answer the real purposes for which it was written. He observes, that “the first design of monsieur de Meaux’s book was either to satisfy or to seduce the late mareschal de Turenne. How far it contributed thereunto I am not able to say, but am willing to believe that the change that honourable person made of his religion was upon somewhat better grounds than the bare Exposition of a few articles of the Roman faith; and that the author supplied either in his personal conferences with him, or by some other papers to us unknown, what was wanting to the first draught, which we have seen of this. The manuscript copy which then appeared, and for about four years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause, wanted all those chapters of the Eucharist, Tradition, the Authority of the Church and Pope, which now make up the most considerable part of it; and in the other points which it handled, seemed so loosely and favourably to propose the opinions of the church of Rome, that not only many undesigning persons of that communion were offended at it, but the protestants, who saw it, generally believed that monsieur de Meaux durst not publicly own what in his Exposition he privately pretended to be their doctrine. And the event shewed that they were not altogether mistaken. For in the beginning of 1671 the Exposition being with great care, and after the consideration of many years, reduced into the form in which we now see it, and to secure all, fortified with the approbation of the archbishop of Rheims, and nine otheV bishops, who profess that ‘ having examined it with all the care which the importance of the matter required, they found it conformable to the doctrine of the church, and as such recommended it to the people which God had committed to their conduct,’ it was sent to the press. The impression being finished and just ready to come abroad, the author, who desired to appear with all advantage to himself and his cause that was possible, sent it to some of the doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation to he joined to that of the bishops, that so no authority, ordinary or extraordinary, might be wanting to assert the* doctrine contained in it to be so far from the suspicion the Protestants had conceived of it, that it was truly and without disguise Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. But, to the great surprise of monsieur de Meaux, and those who had so much cried up his treatise before, the doctors of the Sorbonne, to whom it was communicated, instead of the approbation that was expected, confirmed what the Protestants had said of it; and, as became their faculty, marked several of the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition by the too great desire of palliating had absolutely perverted the doctrine of their church. To prevent the open scandal, which such a censure might have caused, with great industry and all the secrecy possible the whole edition was suppressed, and the several places, which the doctors had marked, changed; and the copy so speedily sent back to the press again, that in the end of the same year another much altered was publicly exposed, as the first impression that had at all been made of it. Yet this could not be so privately carried on, but that it soon came to a public knowledge; insomuch that one of the first answers that was made to it, charged monsieur de Meaux with this change. I do not hear, that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the relation, either in the advertisement prefixed to the later editions of his book, wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same treatise, or in any other vindication: whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of, or that it was too true to be denied, let the reader judge. But certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the design and genius of the whole book, but to be a plain demonstration, how improbable soever monsieur de Meaux would represent it, * that it is not impossible for a bishop of the Church of Rome, either not to be sufficiently instructed in his religion to know what is the doctrine of it; or not sufficiently sincere, as without disguise to represent it.' And since a copy of that very book so marked, as has been said, by the doctors of the Sorbonne, is fallen into my hands, I shall gratify the reader’s curiosity with a particular view of the changes that have been made, that so he may judge whether of the two was the cause of those great advances which the author in that first edition had thought fit to make towards us.” Such was part of the preface to Mr. Wake’s “Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” 1686, 4to, which he was induced to undertake, by having observed that the French catholics with whom he had conversed, had, from ignorance, or the misrepresentations of their instructors, entertained very false notions of the points in controversy between the Churches of Rome and England.

In 1701, two years before the publication of the lastmentioned work, he was installed dean of Exeter, whence in 1705, he was promoted to the bishopric of Lincoln. In the House of Peers he first distinguished himself by a long and learned speech in favour of a comprehension with the dissenters, a measure which other well-meaning divines of the church had fondly adopted; and expressed himself with equal zeal against the intemperate writings of Sacheverell. In Jan. 1715-16, on the death of archbishop Tenison, he was translated to the metropolitan see, and as he had lived to see the folly of giving way to the enemies of the hierarchy by way of reconciling them to it, he both voted and spoke in the House of Lords against the repeal of the schism and conformity bill in 1718. Among other things, he remarked, that “the acts, which by this bill were to be repealed, were the main bulwark and supporters of the established church; that he had all imaginable tenderness for all the well-meaning conscientious dissenters; but he could not forbear saying, that some amongst them made a wrong use of the favour and indulgence that was shewn them upon the revolution, though they had the least share in that event.” From the same experience he was led to oppose the design entered into by some very powerful persons, the year following, to repeal the corporation and test acts. It was well known that Hoadly was at the bottom of this design, and that his famous sermon on “The nature of Christ’s kingdom” was a preparatory step. The archbishop therefore thought it proper to declare his dislike of the measure, as Hoadly had proposed it, in an indirect way, and wrote a Latin letter addressed to the superintendant of Zurich, which was published there under the title of “Oratio historica de beneficiis in ecclesiam Tigurinum collatis.” In this he took occasion to remark, that “The church of England, broken in pieces with divisions, and rent with schisms, is distracted with so many and such various sorts of separatists from her communion, that they want proper names to distinguish themselves from one another, and to describe themselves to other men. And I wish this was our greatest matter of complaint. But that which the spirit of God foretold should come to pass, must be fulfilled,” Even among ourselves men have arisen, speaking perverse things,“But why do I say men? Even pastors and bishops themselves pull down with their own hands the church, in which they minister, and to whose doctrine they have more than once subscribed. They, to whom the preservation of the church is committed, and whose duty it is to watch against her enemies, and to reprove, restrain, and punish them according to their demerits; even these endeavour to overthrow the authority of that church, for which they ought not only to contend, but upon occasion even to lay down their lives. What the pleas and tenets of these innovators are, you may in some measure know from two pamphlets lately written in the French tongue. Let it here suffice to s.ay in a word, that these men are highly displeased with all confessions of faith, and with all subscriptions to articles; and would have a liberty, or rather a license granted for all men, not only to believe^ but to speak, write, and preach, whatsoever they think fit, though the grace of the holy spirit, the divinity of Christ, and all other fundamental articles of our religion should thereby be overturned. What Christian is not amazed, that those things should be said of any men that bear but the name of Christians? Who can but lament, that those grievous wolves are not only not driven away from the sheepfold, but received even within the walls of the church, and admitted to her honours, offices, and government? But so it is, that while we regard only the things of this world, we wholly forget those that concern another. And because by the toleration and advancement of such men, some (who have nothing more at heart than to keep themselves in their places and power) hope to ingratiate themselves with the populace, they are not at all solicitous what becomes of the church, of the faith, of religion, or in short of Jesus Christ himself and his truth. Pardon me, most worthy sir, that giving way to a just grief, I express rny resentment against these enemies of our religion more sharply than my manner is. 1 should think myself guilty of betraying the faith, if I did not, whenever occasion serves, anathematize these heretics.”

That for which archbishop Wake appears to have been most blamed, was the share he had in a scheme of union between the English and Gallican churches; but in this, as in other parts of his conduct, the blame seems to have arisen principally from misrepresentation, at the same time that we are willing to allow that the scheme itself was a weak one, and never likely to produce any good. The outline of the affair, which is related more at large in the Appendix to the last edition of Mosheim’s History, No IV. is this. In 1717 some mutual civilities had passed between the archbishop and the celebrated ecclesiastical historian Dupin, as men of letters, by means of the rev. Mr. Beauvoir, then chaplain to lord Stair, the English ambassador at Paris. In the course of these civilities, Dupin wrote to the archbishop a Latin letter in Jan. 1718, in which, having congratulated the church of England on the enjoyment of so eminent a prelate for its metropolitan, he took occasion to express his desire for an union between the two churches of England and France, and wished to enter into a correspodence with his grace with that view. The archbishop, in return, after thanking him for his compliment, observed, that it was full time both for himself (Dupin) and the rest of his brethren of the Sorbonne, to declare openly their true sentiments of the superstition and ambition of the court of Rome; that it was the interest of all Christians to unmask that court, and thereby reduce it to those primitive limits and honours which it enjoyed in the first ages of the church. In some farther correspondence, the archbishop explained the belief, tenets, and doctrine of the chuch of England, the manner of its beginning to reform and shake off all foreign power and superstition both in church and state, and its acknowledgment that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only founder, source, and head of the church. In all his letters both to Dupin and others, he insisted constantly on this article, and always maintained the justice and orthodoxy of every individual article of the church of England, without making the least concession towards any approbation of the ambitious pretensions of the church of Rome. Some of the doctors of the Sorbonne readily concurred in this scheme, and Dupin drew up an essay towards an union, which was to be submitted for approbation to the cardinal de Noailles, and then to be transmitted to his grace. This essay, which was called a “Commonitorium,” was read by, and had the approbation of the Sorbonne, and in it was ceded the administration of the sacrament in both kinds, the performing of divine service in the vulgar tongue, and the marriage of the protestant clergy; and the invocation of saints was given up as unnecessary. The project engrossed the whole conversation of the city of Paris, and the Engiish ambassador was congratulated upon it by some great personages at court. The regent duke of Orleans himself, and the abbe Du Bois, minister of foreign affairs, and De Fleury, the attorney general, at iirst seemed to acquiesce, or at least not to interfere; but, after all, no considerate person could expect much from the scheme, which was entirely prevented by the Jesuits, who sounded the alarm, and represented the cardinal de Noailles and his friends the Jansenists as about to make a coalition with the heretics.

The author of No. IV. of Mosheim’s Appendix deduces from the whole of this transaction, and particularly from the entire correspondence given in that Appendix, that Wake was invited to this correspondence by Dupin, the most moderate of all the Roman jcatholic divines; that he entered into it with a view to improve one of the most favourable opportunities that could be offered, of withdrawing the church of France from the jurisdiction of the pope; a circumstance which must have immediately weakened the power of the court of Rome, and, in its consequences, offered a fair prospect of a farther reformation in doctrine and worship, as the case happened in the church of England, when it happily threw off the papal yoke; that he did not give any of the doctors of the Sorbonne the smallest reason to hope that the church of England wpuld give up any one point of belief or practice to the church of France; but insisted, on the contrary, that the latter should make alterations and concessions, in order to be reconciled to the former; that he never specified the particular alterations which would be requisite to satisfy the rulers and doctors of the church of England; but only expressed a general desire of an union between the two churches, if that were possible, or at least of a mutual toleration: that he never flattered himself that this union could be perfectly accomplished, or that the doctors of the Gallican church, would be entirely brought over to the church of England; but thought that every advance made by them, and every concession, must have proved really advantageous to the. protestant cause.

Thus much it has been thought necessary to advance, in vindication of the character of Dr. Wake, which, after long enjoying the good opinion of mankind, was at last, with equal fury and falsehood, attacked by the author of the “Confessional,” who does not scruple to say, speaking of the archbishop, that “this pretended champion of the Protestant religion had set on foot a project for union with a Popish church, and that with concessions in favour of the grossest superstition and idolatry.” Nothing could be farther from Wake’s purpose, and nothing more at variance with the whole tenour of his public life or private sentiments; and, in truth, the whole of the above correspondence with the popish doctors was a matter of private sentiment, and neither party appears to have been authorized by, or to have consulted the church to which they respectively belonged. Had that been done, it is not quite clear that the plan, even as far as it has been divulged, would have been more acceptable in England than in France. The best part of it, the best object at which it aimed, was the separation of the church of France from the jurisdiction of the pope.

Wake was of a pacific spirit: this appears in all his correspondence; and his correspondence appears to have extended to the leading men of every ecclesiastical community in Europe. He shewed a great regard to the foreign protestant churches, notwithstanding the difference of their discipline and government from that of the church of England; and blames those who would not allow their religious assemblies the denomination of churches, and who deny the validity of their sacraments. He declared, on the contrary, those churches to be true Christian churches, and expresses a warm desire of their union with the church of England. We must particularly notice his correspondence in 1719 with Mr. Jablonski of Poland, be-' cause it has a direct reference to that part of his character which the author of the “Confessional” has so unwarrantably misrepresented. Jablonski, from a persuasion of Dr. Wake’s great wisdom, discernment, and moderation, had consulted him as to a proposed union between the Lutherans and the church of Rome. In his answer, the archbishop gives the strongest cautions to the Polish Lutherans against entering into any treaty of union with the Roman catholics, except on a footing of perfect equality, and in consequence of a previous renunciation, on the part of the latter, of the tyranny, and even of the superiority and jurisdiction of the church of Rome and its pontiff; and as to what concerns points of doctrine, he exhorts them not to sacrifice truth to temporal advantages, or even to a desire of peace.

, a distinguished classical scholar and critic, was born at Nottingham, Feb. 22, 1756, in the parsonage-house of St. Nicholas, of which church his father, the rev. George Wakefield, was then rector. An uncommon solidity and seriousness of disposition marked him from infancy, together with a power of application, and thirst after knowledge, which accelerated his progress in juvenile studies. At the age of seven he went to the free school in Nottingham, where the usher, Mr. Beardmore (afterwards master of the Charter-house), threatened upon one occasion to flog him, which Mr. Wakefield speaks of with great indignation. At the age of nine, he exchanged this school for that of Wilford near Nottingham, then under the direction of the rev. Isaac Pickthall, and afterwards was placed under the tuition of his father’s curate at Richmond, whom he characterises with great contempt. At the age of thirteen he was placed under the rev. Richard Woodeson, at Kingston-upon-Thames, to which parish his father was then removed; but we are told he was used to lament that he had not possessed the advantages of an uniform education at one of those public schools which lay a solid foundation for classical erudition in its most exact form. About the age of sixteen he was admitted of Jesus college, Cambridge. Here he resumed his classical studies, but the lectures on algebra and logic were, he tells us, “odious to him beyond conception;” and he is perhaps not far wrong in thinking that “logic and metaphysics are by no means calculated for early years.” Few incidents occurred during the first two years of his residence at college. He pursued his mathematical and philosophical studies with a stated mixture of classical reading, through the whole of this interval, except when interrupted by fastidiousness, which he thus describes: “A strange fastidiousness, for which I could never account, and which has been a great hindrance to my improvement through my whole life, took a bewildering possession of my faculties. This impediment commonly recurred in the spring of the year, when I was so enamoured of rambling in the open air, through solitary fields, or by a river’s side, of cricket and of fishing, that no self-expostulations, no prospect of future vexation, nor even emulation itself, could chain me to my books. Sometimes, for a month together, and even a longer period, have I been disabled from reading a single page, though tormented all the time with the reflection, without extreme restlessness and impatience.”

In the third year of his residence at college he was a candidate for one, or all, of Dr. Browne’s medals. His Latin ode was allowed to possess merit, but was unsuccessful, from partiality, as he insinuates; but he allowed that his Greek and his epigrams were deservedly rejected. In his life he introduces the Latin ode with “variations,” which, although he calls them “trivial,” give a suspicious alteration of character to the production. In 1776 he took his degree, and had the honour of nomination to the second post. About the same time he gained the second of the duke of Newcastle’s classical medals. Dr. Forster gained the first; Mr. Wakefield allows him superior merit, buf still endeavours to insinuate partiality in the allotment of the prizes.

In 1779 he vacated his fellowship by marrying Miss Watson, niece of the rector of Stockport. This was soon followed by an invitation to undertake the post of classical tutor at the dissenting academy at Warrington, with which he complied; and he was regarded as a very valuable acquisition to this institution. He was exemplary in the discharge of his duty, and equally gained the attachment of his pupils, and the friendship and esteem of his colleagues; but the academy was at this time on the decline, and Mr. Wakefield, though accused of precipitating its downfall, has assigned sufficient reasons for that event without his agency. While here, he began his career as a theological controversialist, with an acrimony of style which was lamented by his friends, and which laid him open to the reproach of his enemies, or it would be more proper to say, created those enemies. Among his tracts now published were, “A plain and short account of the nature of Baptism according to the New Testament, with a cursory remark on Confirmation and the Lord’s Supper;” “An Essay on Inspiration;” and “A new translation of the first epistle of Paul the apostle to the Thessalon'tans.” This was followed in the next year by “A new translation of St. Matthew, with notes, critical, philological, and explanatory,” 4to; a work which displayed the extent of his reading, and the facility with which his memory called up its reposited stores for the purpose of illustration or parallelism. At this time he likewise augmented his fund for“Scripture interpretation by the acquisition of various oriental dialects. After quitting Warrington, at the dissolution of the academy, he took up his residence successively at Bramcote in Nottinghamshire, at Richmond in Surrey, and at Nottingham, upon the plan of taking a few pupils, and pursuing at his leisure those studies to which he became continually more attached. While in the first of these situations, he published the first volume of” An enquiry into the opinions of the Christian writers of the three first centuries concerning the person of Jesus Christ, 1 * which did not meet with encouragement sufficient to induce him to proceed in the design. A painful disorder in his left shoulder, with which he was attacked in 1786, and which harassed him for two years, interrupted the course of his employments; and he did no more during that period, than to draw up some remarks upon the Georgics of Virgil and the poems of Gray, which he published with editions of those respective works. As his health relumed, his theological pursuits were resumed, and he again engaged in the field of controversy. He also, in 1789, made a commenceaient of a work, which was to exhibit “Au union of theological and classical learning, illustrating the Scriptures by light borrowed from the philology of Greece and Rome.” Under the title of “Silva Critica,” three parts of this performance issued from the university press of Cambridge.

“Further, in the progress of his speculations, he had been led to form notions concerning the expediency and propriety of public worship, extremely different from those of every body of Christians, whether in sects or establishments; and as he was incapable of thinking one thing and practising another, he had sufficiently made known his sentiments on this subject, as well in conversation, as by abstaining from attendance upon every place of religious assembly. They who were well acquainted with him, knew that in his own breast piety was one of the most predominant affections; but the assembling for social worship had for so many ages been regarded as the most powerful instrument for the support of general religion, that to discourage it was considered as of dangerous example, especially in a person engaged in the education of youth. Notwithstanding, therefore, his classical instructions in the college were received by the students almost with enthusiastical admiration, and conferred high credit on the institution, a dissolution of his connection with it took place in the summer of 1791.”

"Gilbert Wakefield was a diligent, and, we believe, a sincere inquirer after truth but he was unhappily so framed in temper and habits of mind, as to be nearly certain of missing it, in almost every topic of inquiry. Knowing his own assiduity, and giving himself ample credit for sagacity, he thought that he was equal to the decision of every possible question. Conscious also of integrity, he never suspected that he could be biassed by any prejudices, and, therefore, had no doubt that his conclusions were always right. But unfortunately he had prejudices of the most seductive kinds. He was prejudiced, in the first instance, against every established opinion, merely because it was established; and, very sparingly allowing to others the qualities for which he thought himself distinguished, he was always perfectly ready to believe, that all inquirers, who formed different conclusions, were either weak or dishonest. In this strange error he was invincibly confirmed by the very sacrifices he had made, early in life, to his own opinions. He must be honest, he thought, because he had sacrificed his interest to his judgment: others must be dishonest because their interest happened to coincide with their opinions. He loved a notion the more, for having made himself a martyr to it; and would probably have given it up, if ever it had become the opinion of the majority. He never seems to have suspected that his mind might be biassed to maintain these notions, for which he had once solemnly pledged his sagacity, or sacrificed his advantages; and thus he became bigotted to almost every paradox which had once possessed his very eccentric understanding. This was not only the case in religious questions, but equally so in critical doctrines. He was as violent against Greek accents, as he was against the Trinity; and anathematized the final v, as strongly as Episcopacy; though in these questions he stood in opposition to professou Person, and all the best Greek scholars of modern as well as ancient times; no less than in his faith, or rather lack of faith, he contradicted the majority of the profoundest theologians and wisest men.

“That he was strictly and enthusiastically honest, ought, we think, to be allowed, in the fullest sense of the terms; and his mind, naturally ardent, soon became so enamoured with this consciousness (which is undoubtedly, to a mind capable of relishing it, abundantly delightful) that he seems to have acquired even a passion for privations; as witnessing to himself an integrity which could cheerfully sacrifice inclination to conviction. These feelings, added to his pride of independent thinking, led him, we doubt not, to abstain from wine; to have relinquished in part, and to be tending entirely to give up, the use of animal food; with various other instances of peculiarity. Not even the Creator, who ordained that animals should afford sustenance to each other, could obtain credit with him, against his private opinions: nor would he see even the obvious truth, that if the use of animal food were abandoned, a small number would be produced, to die by miserable decay, while whole classes and genera would gradually become extinct. In all things it was the same with G. W. Whatever coincided not with his ideas of rectitude, justice., elegance, or whatever else it might be, was to give way at once, and be rescinded at his pleasure, on pain of the most violent reprehension to all opponents: whether it were an article of faith, a principle of policy, a doctrine of morality, or a reading in an ancient author, still it was equallycut and slash, away it must go, to the dogs and vultures. These exterminating sentences were also given with such precipitancy, as not to allow even a minute for consideration. To the paper, to the press, to the world, all was given at once, frequently to the incurring of most palpable absurdity. Thus the simple elegance of” O beate Sexti“in Horace, was proposed, in an edition of that author, to be changed to” O bea Te, Sexti," though the alteration, besides being most bald and tasteless, produced a blunder in quantity so gross, that no boy even in the middle part of a public school could have been thought pardonable in committing it. It may easily be judged, whether a man of such precipitance, and so blind a self-confidence, was likely to be successful as an investigator of truth. So very far was he from it, that though no man of common sense perhaps ever literally exemplified the latter part of Dryden’s famous line on Zimri——

“But why, it may be asked, should we thus mark the character of a man, who can no longer offend, and of whom therefore, as a trite maxim of candour pretends, nothing but good should be said. The folly of the maxim has been recognized by many men of sense; because if ever a man’s character can with propriety be scrutinized, it is when any exposure of his faults can no longer injure his interests, or wound his feelings. In the present instance, it becomes necessary, because, in the volumes now before us, (his Life in 2 vols. 8vo), an attempt is made to hold him up to an admiration, which might be hoped to give currency to some of his most pernicious opinions. The admirers oi him and of his notions are complimented as the only lovers of truth and freedom; and he is endeavoured to be represented as a martyr, of which character, if he had much of the constancy, he had proportionably little of the other estimable qualities. Instead of exhibiting him as a model, we should rather lament him as a strong example of human imperfection; in which some great qualities of soul and understanding were rendered pernicious to himself and others, by faults original or habitual, which perverted them in almost every exertion. Thus his sincerity became offensive, his honesty haughty and uncharitable, his intrepidity factious, his acuteness delusive, and his memory, assisted by much diligence, a vast weapon which his judgment was totally unable to wield. In such a picture, notwithstanding some fine features, there is more to humble than to flatter the pride of man; and to hold it up to almost indiscriminate admiration is neither prudent nor useful.”

, a learned divine in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in the north of England, and educated at the university of Cambridge, whence, after taking his degrees in arts, he went abroad to study the Oriental languages. In a few years he made a considerable progress in the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac; and taught those languages both in Paris and in Germany. In 1519 he was Hebrew professor at Louvain, but after holding that office only a few months, he returned home, and became chaplain to Dr. Pace, then dean of St. Paul’s, who recommending him to the king as an able linguist, he was sent to Cambridge, and there honoured with the degree of B. D. which qualified him for ecclesiastical preferments. When the controversy relating to king Henry VIII.'s divorce commenced, Wakefield is said to have been of the queen’s party, and thought the divorce unjustifiable, but was afterwards induced to be of the king’s opinion. Dodd says that the reason he gave for changing sides was the circumstance of prince Arthur’s having consummated the marriage, of which he was not before aware; and Dodd adds, that “as the world is apt to judge the worst of things of this nature, Mr. Wakefield was represented as a mercenary writer, especially by those that maintained the queen’s cause.” We have, however, the evidence of another Roman catholic biographer that the world was not much to blame for its unfavourable opinion. Phillips, in his Life of cardinal Pole, assures us, that a letter is extant, “to Wakefield’s eternal infamy,” addressed by secretary Pace to the king, in which he informs him, that “he had treated with Dr. Wakefield of the divorce, and that the doctor was ready to solve the question, either in the negative or affirmative, just as the king thought proper, and in such a manner as all the divines in England should not be able to make any reply.” This letter is dated 1526. Accordingly he soon after wrote a work in favour of the divorce; and in 1530, the king sent him to Oxford, and made him public professor of Hebrew; by which means he had an opportunity of being more serviceable to his majesty. In 1532, he was made a canon of Wolsey’scollege, and incorporated bachelor of divinity. He appears to have been a lover of learning, and when, in 1536, the lesser monasteries were dissolved, he took care to save from destruction several valuable books and Mss. especially such as were in Greek and Hebrew; and, among others, several curious Mss. in Ramsay-abbey, particularly a Hebrew dictionary, which had been lodged there by Robert Holbeach, a monk of that monastery in the reign of Henry IV. Wakefield died at London, Oct. 8, 1537. He left some learned works, as, 1, “Oratio de laudibus et militate trium linguarum, Arabics, Chaidaicae, et liebraicae, atque id -viaicis qua- ii utfoque Testajnr- io niveniuntur,” 15^4, 4to. Thepmuei w. Wynix lie Worde; and the author complains, that he was obliged to omit his whole third part, because the printer had no Hebrew types. Some few Hebrew and Arabic characters, however, are introduced, but extremely rude, and evidently cut in wood. They are the first of the sort used in England. 2. “Koster Codicis,” &c. the same mentioned by Bale and Pits, with the title “De non ducenda fratria,” and is the book he wrote in favour of king Henry’s -divorce, Lond. 1628, 4to. Tanner and Wood attribute other pieces to him, but they are probably in ms. except “Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum incorruptione,” 4to, without date; and " Paraphrasis in Hbrum Koheleth (Ecclesiasticen) succincta, clara, et fidelis, 4to.

, a Carmelite monk of great learning in the fourteenth century, was born at Walden in Essex, about 1367. His father’s name was John Netter, but he chose to be denominated, as indeed was very commoil then, from the place of his nativity. He was educated among the Carmelites in London, whence he removed for the farther prosecution of his studies to Oxford. Here he continued some years, and received the degree of doctor in divinity, after which he returned to London, and took the habit of the Carmelites. Being introduced at the court of Henry IV. he became a favourite with the king, and was appointed the principal champion of the church against heretics, and especially those who had adopted the tenets of Wickliff, Huss, or Jerome of Prague. In 1409 he was sent by the king to the grand council at Pisa, where he is said to have been much admired for his eloquence and learning. After his return to England, he was made provincial of his order; and Henry V. admitted him of his privy-council, and appointed him his confessor. In 1415 he was sent to the council of Constance, and about 1419, was employed to negociate peace between Uladislaus, king of Poland, and Michael, general of the Teutonic order. In 1422 the king died in the arms of Waldensis, at Vincennes in France. He became afterwards a favourite with the young king Henry VI. and was appointed his confessor. In 1430 he attended the king to France, and at Roan was seized with an acute disease, of which he died Nov. 2, and was buried in the convent of Carmelites in that city. He appears to have been a man of abilities; Pits says that he was master of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and in general a polite scholar. His principal work, the only one printed, is his “Doctrinale antiquum fidei ecclesias catholicse,” Paris, 1521—1523, 3 vols, folio, and reprinted at Saumur, Venice, and Paris. Mr. archdeacon Churton, in his valuable Lives of the founders of Brasenose-college, informs us, that the bishop of Lincoln, Russel, being harassed and fatigued, as he feelingly complains, with the multitude of heretics at Oxford in 1491, met with this book of Waldensis, and resolved to make extracts from it (vol. III. “de sacramentalibus”), for the more speedy and effectual refutation of the “insane dogmas, with which, he says, so many of his countrymen were infected.” Having framed his compendium with great care, by a written injunction under his own hand he ordered it to be preserved in the registry of the see, for the benefit of his successors in their examinations of “heretical depravity;” pronouncing an anathema at the same time against any one who should obliterate the title, expressive of the design of the performance and the name of the compiler. The original copy of this “touchstone of error,” which was completed at Woburn on the feast of the Epiphany 1491-2, is still extant in the library of University-college, Oxford.

, one of the earliest reformers of the church from Popery, but erroneously said to be the founder of that body of reformed Christians called the Waldenses, was an opulent merchant of Lyons in the twelfth century. The first time when he appears to have opposed the errors of the religion in which he was educated, was about 1160, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was confirmed by pope Innocent III. with the addition that men should fall down before the consecrated wafer and worship it as God. The absurdity of this forcibly struck the mind of Waldo, who opposed it in a very courageous manner. It does not appear, however, that he had any intention of withdrawing himself from the communion of the Romish church, or that in other respects he had any very serious notions of religion. The latter appears to have been produced first by the sudden death of a person with whom he was in company. This^lett very serious impressions on his mind, and he betook himself to reading the scriptures. At that time the Latin vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures in Europe; but that language was accessible to few. Waldo, however, from his situation in life, had had a good education, and could read this volume. “Being somewhat learned,” says Reinerius, “he taught the people the text of the New Testament.” He was also now disposed to abandon his mercantile pursuits, and distributed his wealth to the poor as occasion required, and while the latter flocked to him to partake of his alms, he also attended to their spiritual instruction, and either translated, or procured to be translated the four gospels into French; and thus the inhabitants of Europe were indebted to him for the first translation of the Bible into a modern tongue, since the time that the Latin had ceased to be a living language.

But pope Alexander III. had no sooner heard of these proceedings than he anathematized the reformer and his adherents, commanding the archbishop to proceed against them with the utmost rigour. Waldo was now compelled to quit Lyons; his flock, in a great measure, followed their pastor, and hence, say the ecclesiastical historians, a dispersion took place not unlike that which arose in the church of Jerusalem on the occasion of the death of Stephen. The effects were also similar. Waldo himself retired into Dauphiny, where he preached with abundant success; his principles took deep and lasting root, and produced a numerous body of disciples, who were denominated Leonists, Vaudois, Albigenses, or Waldenses; for the very same class of Christians is designated by these various appellations at different times, and according to the different countries, or quarters of the same country in which they appeared. From the name Waldenses, a corruption of Vallenses, or Vaudois, i. e. those xvho inhabited the valleys of Piedmont, occasion was taken to prove that these ancient churches had no existence till the time of Waldo. Waldo appears to have visited Picardy, propagating his doctrines, and finally, according to Thuanus, settled in Bohemia, where de died in 1179.

, author of the “History of Independency,” was born at Clifte in Dorsetshire, and is said to have been educated at Christ’s church, Oxford, in which however, Wood could find no memorial of him. Afterwards leaving the university without a degree, he retired to an estate he had at Charterhouse near Wells in Somersetshire, where he lived in good repute especially for his loyalty and hatred of the puritans, in both which respects he appears soon after to have changed his mind. Before the civil wars, he had been made usher of the exchequer, but, says Wood, when “the puritans or presbyterians were like to carry all before them, he closed with them,” and was elected member of parliament for the city of Wells in 1640. Afterwards he became a zealous covenanter, and had a considerable share in the violent measures of the times, until the independents began to acquire the superiority, whom he resisted as much as lay in his power, especially in his “History” of that sect, which had a very considerable influence, as he was not only a man of abilities, but had acquired a character for disinterestedness. When the second part of this work was published in 1649, he was discovered to be the author, and imprisoned by Cromwell in the Tower. There having allowance of pen, ink, and paper, he wrote the third part of his history, but was never released. He died in the Tower in Oct. 1651, to the great grief, Wood says, of the presbyterian party. He was interred in Allhallows Barking, near the Tower. Walker wrote several temporary pamphlets, enumerated by Wood, arising out of the circumstances of the times, but none of any consequence, unless what he has incorporated in his “History of Independency,” published in three parts, 1648 1651, 4to, to which a fourth part by T. M. was added in 1660. “It is written,” says Warbnrton, “in a rambling vvay, and with a vindictive presbyterian spirit, full of bitterness but it gives an admirable idea of the character of the times, parties, and persons.” Within the last tweitty years, the price of this work, when complete, has risen from shillings to guineas.

, an useful historical writer and herald, was son of Edward Walker, of Roobers, in Neiherstowey in Somersetshire, gent by Barbara, daughter of Edward Salkerid, of Corby-Castle in Cumberland, esq.; and his grandfather, John Walker, was son of Edward, second son of Humphrey Walker, of Staffordshire, esq. He was originally a domestic servant to the earl of Arundel, and was appointed by him secretary at war, in the expedition into Scotland in 1639. There is little doubt but that his father’s being a Roman catholic recommended him to that nobleman’s notice. From this peer’s service it is easy to suppose he went into that of the sovereign, because he had shewn himself equally faithful and dexterous. Charles I. gave him the same post, to which, in June 1644, he added that of clerk extraordinary of the privy council. He steadily adhered to the king in all his misfortunes. After the battle of Cropredy Bridge, in 1644, being desired to wait upon sir William Waller, one of the parliament generals, with a message of grace, he requested that a trumpet might first be sent for a pass, because “the barbarity of that people was notorious, so that they regarded not the law of arms or of nations.” His precaution was not unnecessary, the trumpeter being sent back with the most marked eontempt.

Whilst he remained at Oxford with his majesty, the university conferred upon him the degree of master of arts, November 1, 1644. He received the honour of knighthood, February 2, 1644-5, in that city. In 1648, he sent a letter to the parliament, during the conference for peace, requesting more persons might be permitted to attend upon the king; but the House declined doing any thing in it, unless his maje’sty, or their commissioners, wrote for that purpose. As he had been true to the father, so he was equally faithful to the son, whoso court he joined at Brussels. He attended his royal master into Scotland, in 1651: but the covenanters refused their permission for him to come near the person of his sovereign. After the unfortunate event of that expedition, and Charles’s subsequeat escape to the continent, he again joined the exiled monarch, serving him in the same capacities he had the late king. He was so odious to the commonwealth and the protectors, that he was accounted, on this side the channel, “a pernicious man.” His abilities, and the office he filled, made him so great an object of jealousy, that he had spies placed over his conduct. From these wretches we learn, that June '26, 1654, he was at Amsterdam, probably upon some public service: in 1656, he was at Bergen, within six leagues of Calais, mustering the king’s little arrny, which did not amount to 700 men. These, however, were with difficulty kept together, mutinies happening every day; nor can it be wondered at, the privates having only four, the gentlemen no more than six stivers a day. As garter king at arms, in which he succeeded sir William Dusfdale, after holding other offices in the heralds’ college, we must suppose he had not much employment during the usurpation; but as the only herald in Charles’s little court, he was sometimes applied to as such. In 1658, he granted an honourable augmentation to the arms of Stephen Fox, esq. afterwards knighted.- Sir Stephen is well known for his distinguished abilities as a statesman, for his longevity, and as progenitor of the Foxes earls of llchester and barons Holland. At the restoration he received the reward of his distinguished loyalty, and was, among other promotions, made one of the clerks of the privy council. He died suddenly, at Whitehall, February 19, 1676-7, deservedly lamented as a man of tried integrity and very considerable abilities. He published “Iter Carolinum, being a succinct account of the necessitated niarches, retreats, and sufferings of his majesty, king Charles I. from January 10, 1641, to the time of his deatli in 1618, collected by a daily attendant upon his sacred majesty during all that time.” Much of this work may be made more useful by comparing it with Oudart’s diary in Peck’s “Desiderata,” which supplies sir Edward’s omissions. His “Military Discoveries” were printed in 1705, in folio. He assisted lord Clarendon in that part of his History of the Rebellion which relates to military transactions. He was buried in the chapel of the blessed Virgin, in Stratford upon Avon church, where is an inscription to his memory.

, an eminent Puritan divine, was born at Hawkshead in Lancashire, in 1581, and was educated at St. John’s-college, Cambridge. After completing his studies there he went to London, and in 1614 became rector of St. John’s the Evangelist in Watling-street, where he continued nearly forty years, refusing every other offer of preferment. About the same time he became chaplain to Dr. Felton, bishop of Ely, who made choice of him the very morning of his consecration. He distinguished himself in the popish controversy; and, in 1623, held a public disputation with a priest of the name of Smith, before a very large assembly, and by consent of both parties, an account of it was afterwards published. He had likewise some encounters with Fisher, the celebrated Jesuit, and others who were deemed the most able disputants on the side of the church of Rome. In 1635 he was brought into trouble, for having preached a sermon in favour of the sacred observance of the Sabbath; archbishop Laud was so unwise as to admonish him for thjs, and afterwards had hitn prosecuted in the Star-chamber, fined and imprisoned. The parliament reversed this sentence, and condemned the whole proceedings against Mr. Walker, and he was restored to his living of St. John’s. In 1643, he was chosen one of the assembly of divines, and was also one of the witnesses against archbishop Laud, and one of those who took upon them to swear that the unfortunate prelate had endeavoured to introduce popery. In his sermons, too, before the parliament, he made use of those expressions, which tended to lessen the king in the eyes of the people; and although he was one of those who afterwards petitioned against his majesty’s death, he was also one of those who did not reflect how much their violent harangues and sermons had contributed to that event. He died in 1651, aged seventy years, and was interred in his own church in Watling-street. Fuller gives him a high character, as a man “well skilled in the Oriental languages, and an excellent logician and divine. He was a man of a holy life, an humble spirit, and a liberal ham!, who well deserved of Zion college library and who, by his example and persuasion, advanced a thousand pounds for the maintenance of preaching ministers in his native country.” He published, 1. “The sum of a Disputation between Mr. Walker, pastor of St. John the Evangelist, and a Popish priest, calling himself Mr. Smith, but indeed Norris,” 1623. 2. “Fisher’s folly unfolded, or the vaunting Jesuit’s challenge answered,” 1624. 3. “Socinianism in the fundamental point of Justification discovered and confuted.” 4. “The doctrine of the Holy Weekly Sabbath,” 1641. 5. “God made visible in all his Works,” 1644; besides several sermons preached before the parliament. We shall have occasion to mention another publication of Mr. Walker’s, when we come to speak of Anthony Wotton.

, an Irish divine, celebrated for his military courage, was born of English parents in the county of Tyrone in Ireland, and educated in the university of Glasgow in Scotland. He became afterwards rector of Donoghmore, not many miles from the city of London* derry. When king James II. after the revolution, landed in Ireland, Mr. Walker, alarmed at the danger of the prctestaut religion, raised a regiment at his own expence to defend the cause he was bound to espouse. Apprehensive that James would visit Londonderry (for he had taken Coleraine and Kilmore), he rode full speed to Lundee, the governor, to apprize him of the danger. That officer at first slighted the information, but was soon convinced h'ow much he was indebted to him. Walker, returning to Lifford, joined colonel Crafton, and by Lunclee’s direction, took post at the Long Causeway, which he defended a whole night; but at length, obliged to give way to a superior force, he retreated to Londonderry, where he endeavoured to inspire the panic-struck governor with -courage to brave the storm, but in vain; he left the place either through fear or treachery. Walker, however, bravely united with major Baker to defend the place, which would have appeared bordering upon rashness, if they had been able generals. James commanded a numerous army in person, which was well supplied with every requisite for a siege. The besieged had no means for a long defence; they were men who, flying from their houses, had taken shelter in this place; they had not more than twenty cannon, nor more than ten days’ provision, and had no engineers, nor horses for foraging parties or sallies. Still resolved to suffer the greatest extremities rather than yield, they did all that desperate men could effect. They sent to king William to inform him of then-determination, imploring speedy relief. Major Baker dying, the command devolved chiefly on Walker, who exercised it with a stoic philosophy that has few parallels. Horses, dogs, cats, rats, and mice, were devoured by the garrison, and even salted hides were used as food. Mr. Walker suffered in common with his men, and even prompted them to make several sallies; and as the Irish constantly fled, the officers suffered dreadfully. Londonderry having a good harbour, he hoped that the king might be enabled to raise the siege that way, for by land there were no hopes of succour. But the fatality which frustrated every attempt of James, prevented him from storming the place, which might at any time have been done; on the contrary he determined on a blockade, and to starve the garrison into a surrender. With this view he had a bar made across the arm of the sea, which, as be supposed, would prevent vessels from entering the town. This succeeded, and all hope to the besieged seemed to be destroyed. Walker, perceiving the danger of a general defection, assembled his wretched garrison in the cathedral, and endeavoured to inspire them with a reliance on Providence. In this he was so successful, that they returned to their labours invigorated, and immediately had the happiness to discover three ships, under the command of major-general Kirk, who had sent a message to Walker before, intimating that when he could hold out no longer, he would raise the siege at the hazard of himself, his men, and his vessels. Whilst both parties were preparing for the dreadful trial, Kirk sailed round the bar, under a heavy discharge from the enemy, and succeeded in crossing it, by which the siege was raised in the night of July 21, 1689.

Mr. Walker published “A true Account of the Siege of Londonderry,” London, 1689, 4to; and some attacks being made on it, he published the same year, “A Vindication,” while an anonymous writer produced “An Apology for the failures charged on the rev. G. Walker’s printed account of the late siege of Derry, &c.” same year, 4 to. One John Mackenzie, chaplain to a regiment at Derry during the siege, wrote “A Narrative of the siege, &c. or, the late memorable transactions of that city faithfully represented, to rectify the mistakes, and supply the omissions of Mr. Walker’s account,” Lond. 1690, 4to, which was answered by a friend of Mr. Walker’s, in a pamphlet entitled “Mr. John Mackenzie’s narrative a false libel,” ibid, same year.

, an able mathematician, was born about 1735 at Newcastle upon Tyne, and descended from a family of considerable antiquity. He received the rudiments of his education at the grammar-school of Newcastle under the care of the rev. Dr. Moises, a clergyman of the church of England. At the age of ten he was removed from Newcastle to Durham, that he might be under the immediate direction of his uncle, a dissenting minister; and having decided in favour of the ministry among the dissenters, he was in 1749 sent to one of their academies at Kendal. In 1751 he studied mathematics at Edinburgh under the tuition of Dr. Matthew Stewart, and made a very great progress in that science. In 1752 he studied theology for two years at Glasgow. Returning home, he began to preach, and in 1757 was ordained minister of a congregation of dissenters at Durham. While here he was a frequent contributor to the “Ladies’ Diary,” in which, as we have recently had occasion to notice, most of the mathematicians of the last and present age, tried their skill; and here also he finished his valuable work on the sphere, which was not, however, published until 1775, when it appeared under the title of the “Doctrine of the Sphere,” in 4to. In the end of 1761, or the beginning of 1762, he accepted of an invitation to become pastor at Great Yarmouth, where he carried on his mathematical pursuits, and having contributed some valuable papers to the Royal Society, he was in 1771 elected a fellow of that learned body. In the same year he accepted an invitation from a congregation at Birmingham, but was induced to recede from this engagement, and accept the office of mathematical tutor to the dissenting academy at Warrington, from which he again removed in 1774 to Nottingham, being chosen one of the ministers of a congregation in that town. Here he entered with great zeal into all the political disputes of the times, and always against the measures of government. After a residence of twenty-four years at Nottingham, Mr. Walker went to Manchester, where he undertook the office of theological tutor in the dissenting academy of that town, to which the duties of mathematical and classical tutor being likewise added, he was soon obliged to resign the whole, in consideration of his age and infirmities. He continued after this to reside for nearly two years in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and was for some time president of the Literary and Philosophical Society of that town, a society which has published several volumes of valuable memoirs, some contributed by Mr. Walker. He then removed to the village of Wavertree near Liverpool, and, in the spring of 1S07, died in London, at the age of seventythree. He was a man of very considerable talents, which appeared to most advantage in the departments of philosophy and the belles lettres, as may be seen in his “Essays on Various Subjects,” published in 1809, 2 vols. 8vo, to which a copious life is prefixed. Some volumes of his “Sermons” have also been published, which probably were suited to the congregations over which he presided, but contain but a very small portion of doctrinal matter, and that chiefly of what is called the liberal and rational kind.

, author of some valuable and popular works on the English language, was born March 18, 1732, at Colney-hatch, a hamlet in the parish of Friern-Barnet. Of his parents little is known, and it does not appear that he was enabled to receive a liberal education. He was intended for some trade, but had a reluctance to every effort of that kind, and went when young upon the stage, on which he had some, although no brilliant success. He continued, however, to accept various theatrical engagements until 1768, when he finally quitted the stage; and in January 1767 joined Mr. James Usher (see Usher) in forming a school at Kensington Gravel-pits, but their partnership lasted only about two years, after which Mr. Walker began to give those instructions on elocution, which formed the principal employment of his future life, and procured him a very just fame. About the same time he instituted his inquiries into the structure of language, and the rationale of grammar, and particularly directed his attention to the orthoepy of the English language, in which he endeavoured, by tracing it to its principles, to form a consistent and analogical theory. The unwearied attention he bestowed upon the subject, enabled him to accomplish this end, and to demonstrate the errors, inconsistencies, and affectations which had crept into pronunciation, and which had been propagated, rather than corrected, By many or' those who had hitherto professed to teach it. He therefore resolved to make the public participators in the result of his researches; and in 1772 he published, by way of prospectus, a quarto pamphlet entitled, “A general idea of a Pronouncing Dictionary of the English language,” a work which, though an imperfect attempt had been made by Dr. Kenrick, in his “Rhetorical Dictionary,” might yet be considered as a desideratum. But as he found it impossible to proceed on tiiis without farther encouragement than was then offered, he compiled an English Dictionary on a smaller scale, and on a plan not hitherto attempted, in which the words should be arranged according to their terminations; a mode of arrangement which, though not calculated for general use, possesses many peculiar advantages. This he published in 1775, under the title of “A Dictionary of the English language, answering at once the purposes of rhyming, spelling, and pronouncing;” it has since been republisheu under the shorter title of “A Rhyming Dictionary.”

While these repeated offers of the mastership show in what estimation he was held by the college on account of his learning, it seems rather singular that the change in his principles should be either not known, or disregarded, for at this time, we are told, ^he was assistant to his tutor Abraham Woodhead, who kept a popish seminary at Hoxton. It was not long, however, before his conduct attracted the notice of parliament, partly on account of his assisting in this popish seminary at Hoxton, and partly on account of the “Life of Alfred,” then published, by which he evidently appeared to be popishly affected. We do not find that any proceedings followed this notice of his conduct, and when king James II. came to the throne, and measures were openly taking for the establishment of popery, Walker thought it no longer necessary to conceal his sentiments, but went to London in July 1685, in order to be consulted, and employed in such changes as it was hoped might be brought about in the university. On his return to college, he absented himself from the chapel^and in the beginning of March following, openly declared himself a Roman catholic, which exposed him to every kind of insult, popery being at this time, as ^lagdalen college soon shewed, the utter aversion of the university. Disregarding this, he had mass privately in his lodgings, until he could fit up a chapel within the limits of the college. Ii 1687, by virtue of letters patent from king James, he set up a press, for the avowed purpose of printing books against die reformed religion. The patent specifies the names of the books (many of which were written by his friend Abraham Woodhead), and exempts him from any penalties to which he might be subject by the statutes against popery. The number of copies to be published of each work is limited to 20,000 within the year. He procured also other letters patent, by which he, and some fellows of his college, were excused from attending the public service of the church. Under this authority he opened his new chapel for mass. This, says Smith, he did by seizing “the lower half of a side of the quadrangle, next adjoining to the college chapel, by which he deprived us of two low rooms, their studies and their bed-chambers: and after all the partitions were removed, it was some way or other consecrated, as we suppose, to divine services: for they had mass there every day, and sermons at least in the afternoon on the Lord’s days.” He also procured a mandate from rhe king to sequester the revenue of a fellowship towards the maintenance of his priest. He put up a statue of James II. over the inside of the gate, and when the king came to Oxford, he entertained him at vespers in this new chapel.

After lying in prison till 1689, he was brought by habeas corpus to Westminster-hall, and sued for bail, but instead of obtaining it, he was brought to the bar of the House of Commons, and charged with the following offences: 1. For changing his religion. 2. For seducing 1 others to it; and 3. For keeping- a mass-house in the university of Oxford. His defence was more artful than honourable to his candour. “I cannot say that I ever altered my religion, or that my principles do now wholly agree with those of the church of Rome. Mr. Anderson was my governor and director, and from him in my youth I learned those principles which I have since avowed. If they were popish, I have not changed my religion and they will not be found to be wholly agreeable with the doctrine of the Roman catholic church. 2. I never seduced others to the Romish religion. All my books and precepts tend only to make men good moralists and good Christians; nor did I ever interest myself in persuading any body to this or that party. This will be plain to every body that reads my books of” The Life of Christ,“my book” Of Education,* my book of *' Benefits,“&c. &c.” These arguments, if they may be so called, being delivered, he was, in Jan. 1690, brought again from the Tower to the bar of the king’s bench, and having given bail, was set at liberty; but in May following he was excepted out of the act of pardon of William and Mary.

, the able defender of infant-baptism, was born in 1646, but where educated, or any further particulars of his early life, are not upon record. He was vicar of Shoreham in Kent, where he died in 1728, at the age of eighty-two, and was considerably advanced when he slept forth as the champion of infant baptism, in opposition to Dr. John Gale, the ablest writer of his time on the baptist side. Mr. Wall published his “History of Infant Baptism” in 1707; and Dr. Gale, in 1711, published “Reflections” on it (See Gale.) In 1719, a friendly conference was held on the subject between him and Mr. Wall, which ended without any change of opinion on either side. Mr. Wall, in the same year, published his “Defence of the History of Infant Baptism,” which was accounted a performance of such ability and so decisive on the question, that the university of Oxford, to mark their high opinion of the book, and of the talents of the author, conferred on him the degree of D. D. in the following year. After his death were published “Critical Notes on the Old Testament, wherein the present Hebrew text is explained, and in many places amended, from the ancient versions, more particularly from that of the LXX. To which is prefixed, a large introduction, adjusting the authority of the Masoretic Bible, and vindicating it from the objections of Mr. Whiston, and the author of the ‘ Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion.’ By the late learned William Wall, D. D. author of the” History of Infant Baptism," 1733, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a celebrated warrior and patriot, was born, according to the account of his poetical biographer Henry, or Blind Harry, in 127G. He was the younger son of sir Malcolm Wallace of Ellerslie, near Paisley, in the shire of Renfrew, Scotland, and in his sixteenth year was sent to school at Dundee. In 1295, he was insulted by the son of Selby, an Englishman, constable of the port and castle of Dundee, and killed him; on which he fled, and appears to have lived a roving and irregular life, often engaged in skirmishes with the English troops which then bad invaded and kept Scotland under subjection. For his adventures, until he became the subject of history, we must refer to Henry. Most of them appear fictitious, or at least are totally unsupported by any other evidence. Wallace, however, is represented by the Scotch historians as being about this time the model of a perfect hero; superior to the rest of mankind in bodily stature, strength, and activity; in bearing cold and heat, thirst and hunger, watching and fatigue; and no less extraordinary in the qualities of his mind, beirrg equally valiant and prudent, magnanimous and disinterested, undaunted in adversity, modest in prosperity, and animated by the most ardent and inextinguishable love of his county. Having his resentment against the English sharpened by the personal affront abovementioned, and more by the losses his family had sustained, he determined to rise in defence of his country, and being joined by many of his countrymen, their first efforts were crowned with success; but the earl of Surrey, governor of Scotland, collecting an army of 40,000 men, and entering Annandale, and marching through the South-west of Scotland, obliged all the barons of those parts to submit, and renew the oaths of fealty. Wallace, with his followers, uuable to encounter so great a force, retired northward, and was pursued by the governor and his army.

When the English army reached Stirling they discovered the Scots encamped near the abbey of Cambuskeneth, on the opposite banks of the Forth. Cressingham, treasurer of Scotland, whose covetousness and tyranny had been one great cause of this revolt, earnestly pressed the earl of Surrey to pass his army over the bridge of Stirling, and attack the enemy. Wallace, who observed all their motions, allowed as many of the English to pass as he thought be could defeat, when, rushing upon them with an irresistible impetuosity, they were all either killed, drowned, or taken prisoners. li> the heat of the action, the bridge, which was only of wood, broke down, and many perished in the river; and the earl of Surrey, with the other part of his army, were melancholy spectators of the destruction of their countrymen, without being able to afford them any assistance: and this severe check, which the English received on Sept. 11, 1297, obliged them to evacuate Scotland. Wallace, who after this great victory was saluted deliverer and guardian of the kingdom by his followers, pursuing the tide of success, entered England with his army, recovered the town of Berwick, plundered the counties of Cumberland and Northumberland, and returned into his own country loaded with spoils and glory.

The news of these surprising events being carried to king Edward I. who was then in Flanders, accelerated his return, and soon after he raised a vast army of 80,000 foot and 7000 horse, which the Scots were now in no condition to resist. Their country, for several years, had been almost a continued scene of war, in which many of its inhabitants had perished. Some of their nobles were in the English interest, some of them in prison; and those few who had any power or inclination to defend the freedom of their country, were dispirited and divided. In particular, the ancient nobility began to view the power and popularity of William Wallace with a jealous eye: which was productive of very fatal consequences, and contributed to the success of Edward in the battle of Faikirk, fought July 22, 12D8, in which the Scots were defeated with great slaughter.

We hear little of Wallace after this until 1303-4, when king Eo!ward had made a complete conquest of Scotland, and, appointing John de Segrave governor of that kingdom, returned to England about the end of August. But Wallace, even after this, and although he had been excluded by the jealousy of the nobles from commanding the armies or influencing the councils of his country, still continued to assert her independency, This, together with the remembrance of many mischiefs which he had done to his English subjects, and perhaps some apprehension that he might again rekindle the flames of war, made Edward employ various means to get possession of his person; and at length he was betrayed into his hands by sir John Monteith, his friend, whom he had made acquainted with the place oi his concealment. The king immediately ordered Wallace to be carried in chains to London: to be tried as a rebel and traitor, though he had never made submission, or sworn fealty to England, and to be executed on Towerhill, which was accordingly done, Aug. 23, 1305. This, says Hume, was the unworthy fate of a hero, who, through a course of many years, had, with signal conduct, intrepidity, and perseverance, defended, against a public and oppressive enemy, the liberties of his native country.

He was educated, by the care of his mother, at Eton; and removed afterwards to King’s college in Cambridge. He was sent to parliament in his eighteenth, if not in his sixteenth year, and frequented the court of James the first. His political and poetical life began nearty together. In his eighteenth year he wrote a poem that appears first in his works, on the prince’s escape at St. Andero; apiece which shewed that he attained, by a felicity like instinct, a style which perhaps will never be obsolete; and that, <c were we to judge only by the wording, we could not know what was wrote at twenty, and what at fourscore." His versification was, in his first essay, such as it appears in his last performance. He had already formed such a system of metrical harmony as he never afterwards much needed, or much endeavoured, to improve.

From his twenty-eighth to. his thirty-fifth year, he wrote his pieces on the reduction of Sallee on the reparation of St. Paul’s; to the King on his navy the panegyric on the Queen mother; the two poems to the earl of Northumberland; and perhaps others, of which the time cannot be discovered. When he had lost all hopes of Sacharissa, he looked round him for an easier conquest, and gained a lady of the family of Bresse, or Breaux. The time of his marriage is not exactly known. It has not been discovered that his wife was won by his poetry; nor is any thing told of her, but that she brought him many children, He doubtless, says Johnson, praised some whom he would have been afraid to marry, and perhaps married one whom he would have been ashamed to praise. Many qualities contribute to domestic happiness, upon which poetry has no colours to bestow; and many airs and sallies may delight imagination, “which he who flatters them never can approve. There are charms made only for distant admiration. No spectacle is nobler than a blaze. Of this wife, however, his biographers have recorded that she gave him five sons and eight daughters, aud Aubrey says that she was beautiful and very prudent. During the long interval of parliament, he is represented as living among those with whom it was most honourable to converse, and enjoying an exuberant fortune with that independence of liberty of speech and conduct which wealth ought always to produce. Being considered as the kinsman of Hampden, he was therefore supposed by the courtiers not to favour them; and when the parliament was called in 1640, it appeared that, his political character had not been mistaken. The king’s demand of a supply produced from him a speech full” of complaints of national grievances, and very vehement; but while the great position, that grievances ought to be redressed before supplies are 'granted, is agreeable enough to law and reason, Waller, if his biographer may be credited, was not such an enemy to the king, as not to wish his distresses lightened; for he relates, “that the king sent particularly to Waller, to second his demand of some subsidies to pay off the army; and sirHenry Vane objecting against first voting a supply, because the king would not accept unless it came up to his proportion, Mr. Waller spoke earnestly to sir Thomas Jermyn, comptroller of the household, to save his master from the effects of so bold a falsity: c for,‘ he said, ’ I am but a country gentleman, and cannot pretend to know the king’s mind:' but sir Thomas durst not contradict the secretary; and his son, the earl of St. Alban’s r afterwards told Mr. Waller, that his father’s cowardice ruined the king.”

Waller had a brother-in-law, Tomkyns, who was clerk of the queen’s council, and had great influence in the city. Waller and he, conversing with great confidence, told both their own secrets and those of their friends: and, surveying the wide extent of their conversation, imagined that they found in the majority of all ranks great disapprobation of the violence of the Commons, and unwillingness to continue the war. They knew that many favoured the king, whose fear concealed their loyalty: and they imagined that, if those who had these good intentions could be informed of their own strength, and enabled by intelligence to act together, they might overpower the fury of sedition, by refusing to comply with the ordinance for the twentieth part, and the other taxes levied for the support of the rebel army, and by uniting great numbers_in a petition for peace. They proceeded with great caution. Three only met in one place, and no man was allowed to impart the plot to more than two others; so that, if any should be suspected or seized, more than three could not be endangered.

Lord Conway joined in the design, and, Clarendon imagines, incidentally mingled, as he was a soldier, some martial hopes or projects, which however were only mentioned, the main design being to bring the loyal inhabitants to the knowledge of each other; for whicn purpose there was to be appointed one in every district, to distinguish the friends of the king, the adherents to the parliament, and the neutrals. How far they proceeded does not appear; theresuit of their inquiry, as Pym declared, was, that within the walls, for one that was for the royalists, there were three against them; but that without the walls, for one that was against them, there were five for them. Whether this was said from knowledge or guess, was perhaps never inquired.

It is the opinion of Clarendon, that in Waller’s plan no violence or sanguinary resistance was comprised; that he intended only to abate the confidence of the rebels by pifblie declarations, and to weaken their power by an opposition to new supplies. This, in calmer times, and more than this, is done without fear; hut such was the acrimony of the Commons, that no method of obstructing them was safe. About the same time another design was formed by sir Nicholas Crispe, an opulent merchant in the city, who gave and procured the king- in his exigencies an hundred thousand pounds, and when he was driven from the royal exchange, raised a regiment and commanded it. His object appears to have been to raise a military force, but his design and Waller’s appear to have been totally distinct.

The plot was published in the most terrific manner. On the 31st of May (1643), at a solemn fast, when they were listening to the sermon, a messenger entered the church, and communicated his errand to Pym, who whispered it to others that were placed near him, and then went with them out of the church, leaving the rest in solicitude and amazement. They immediately sent guards to proper places, and that night apprehended Tomkyns and Waller; having yet traced nothing but that letters had been intercepted, from which it appeared that the parliament and the city were soon to be delivered into the hands of the cavaliers. They perhaps yt*l knew little themselves, beyond some general and indistinct notices. “But Waller,” says Clarendon, “was so confounded with fear and apprehension, that he confessed whatever he had said, heard, thought, or seen; all that he know of himself, and all that he suspected of others, without concealing any person of what degree or quality soever, or any discourse that he had ever, upon any occasion, entertained with them: what such and such Jadies of great honour, to whom, upon the credit of his wit and great reputation, he had been admitted, had spoken to him in their chambers upon the proceedings in the Houses, and how they had encouraged him to oppose them; what correspondence and intercourse they had with some ministers of state at Oxford, and how they had conveyed all intelligence thither.” He accused the earl of Portland and lord Con way as co-operating in the transaction; and testified that the earl of Northumberland had declared himself disposed in favour of any attempt that might check the violence of the parliament, and reconcile them to the king.

Of the plot, thus combined, they took care to make the most. They sent Pym among the citizens, to tell them of their imminent danger, and happy escape; and inform them, that the design was, “to seize the lord mayor and all the committee of militia, and would not spare one of them.” They drew up a vow and covenant, to be taken by every member of either House, by which he declared his detestation of all conspiracies against the parliament, and his resolution to detect and oppose them. They then appointed a day of thanksgiving for this wonderful delivery; which shut out, says Clarendon, all doubts whether there had been such a deliverance, and whether the plot was real or fictitious.

In consequence of this letter, the Lords ordered Portland and Waller to be confronted; when the one repeated his charge, and the other his denial. The examination of the plot being continued (July 1,) Thinn, usher of the House of Lords, deposed, that Mr. Waller having had a conference with the lord Portland in an upper room, lord Portland said, when he came down, “Do me the favour to tell my lord Northumberland, that Mr. Waller has extremely pressed me to save my own life and his, by throwing the blame upon the lord Conway and the earl of Northumberland.” Waller, in his letter to Portland, tells him of the reasons which he could urge with resistless efficacy in a personal conference; but he overrated his own oratory; his vehemence, whether of persuasion or intreaty, was returned with contempt. One of his arguments with Portland is, that the plot is already known to a woman. This woman was doubtless lady Aubigny, who, upon this occasion, was committed to custody; but who, in reality, when she delivered the commission of array, knew not what it was. The parliament then proceeded against the conspirators, and Tom,kyns*and Chaloner were hanged. The earl of Northumberland, being too great for prosecution, was only once examined before the Lords. The earl of Portland and lord Conway, persisting to deny the charge, and no testimony but Waller’s yet appearing against them, were, after a long imprisonment, admitted to bail. Hassel, the king’s messenger, who carried the letters to Oxford, died the night before his trial. Hampden escaped

not that of his sister’s husband; or his disgrace now inflicted on hi* family. death, perhaps by the interest of his family, but was kept in prison to the end of his life. They whose names were inserted in the commission of array were not capitally punished, as it could not be proved that they had consented to their own nomination: but they were considered as mali^nauts, and their estates were seized.

Cromwell, now protector, received Waller, as his kinsman, to familiar conversation. Waller, as he used to relate, found him sufficiently versed in ancient history; and when any of his enthusiastic friends came to advise or consult him, could sometimes overhear him discoursing in the cant of the times but, when he returned, he would say, “Cousin Waller, I must talk to these men in their own way,” and resumed the common style of conversation. He repaid the Protector for his favours, in 1654, by the famous panegyric, which has been always considered as the first of his poetical productions. His choice of encomiastic topics is very judicious; for he considers Cromwell in his exaltation, without inquiring how he attained it; there is consequently, says Johnson, no mention of the rebel or the regicide. All the former part of his hero’s life is veiled with shades; and nothing is brought to view but the chief, the governor, the defender of England’s honour, and the enlarger of her dominion. The act of violence by which he obtained the supreme power is lightly treated, and decently justified. In the poem on the war with Spain are some passages at least equal to the best parts of the panegyrick; and, in the conclusion, the poet ventures yet a higher flight of flattery, by recommending royalty to Crom^ well and the nation. Cromwell was very desirous, as appears from his conversation, related by Whitlock, of adding the title to trie power of monarchy, and is supposed to have been withheld from it partly by fear of the army, and partly by, fear of the laws, which, when he should govern by the name of king, would have restrained his authority. The poem on the death of the Protector seems to have been

Soon afterwards the restoration supplied him with another subject; and he exerted his imagination, his elegance, and his melody, with equal alacrity, for Charles II. It is not possible, says Johnson, to read without some contempt and indignation, poeius of the same author ascribing the highest degree of power and piety to Charles I. then transferring the same power and piety to Oliver Cromwell; now inviting Oliver to take the crown, and then congratulating Charles II. on his recovered right. Neither Cromwell nor Charles could value his testimony as the effect of conviction, or receive his praises as effusions of reverence; they could consider them but as the labour of invention, and the tribute of dependence. The “Congratulation,” however, was considered as inferior in poetical merit to the Panegyrick; and it is reported, that, when the king told Waller of the disparity, he answered, “Poets, sir, succeed better in fiction than in truth.” The Congratulation is, indeed, not inferior to the Panegyrick, either by decay of genius, or for want of diligence but because Cromwell had done much, and Charles had done little. Cromwell wanted nothing to raise him to heroic excellence but virtue and virtue his poet thought himself at liberty to supply. Charles had yet only the merit of struggling without success, and suffering without despair. A life of escapes and indigence could supply poetry with no splendid images.

nable drunke at Somerset House, where, company without drinking but Ned Waller.“The praisegiven him by St. Evremond is a proof of his reputation; for it was only by his reputation that he could be known, as a writer, to a man who, though he lived a great part of a long life upon an English pension, never condescended ta understand the language of the nation that maintained him. In parliament, Burnet says, Waller was the delight of the house, and though old, said the- liveliest things of any among them. 1 * His name as a speaker often occurs in Grey’s” Debates," but Dr. Johnson, who examined them, says he found no extracts that could be more quoted as exhibiting sallies of gaiety than cogency of argument. He was, however, of strch consideration, that his remarks were circulated and recorded; nor did he suffer his reputation to die gradually away, which might easily happen in a long life; but renewed his claim to poetical distinction, as occasions were offered, either by public events, or private incidents; and contenting himself with the influence of his* muse, or loving quiet better than influence, he never accepted any office of magistracy. He was not, however, without some attention to his fortune; for he asked from the king (in 1665) the provostship of Eton college, and obtained it; but Clarendon refused to put the seal to the grant, alleging that it could be held only by a clergyman. It is known that sir Henry Wotton qualified himself for it by deacon’s orders.

The character of Waller, both moral and intellectual, has been drawn by Clarendon, to whom he was familiarly known, with nicety, which certainly none to whom he was not known can presume to emulate. “Edmund Waller,” says that excellent historian, “was born to a very fair estate, by the parsimony or frugality of a wise father and mother; and he thought it so commendable an advantage, that he resolved to improve it with the utmost care, upon which in his nature he was too much intent; and, in order to that, he was so much reserved and retired, that he was scarcely ever heard of till by his address and dexterity he had gotten a very rich wife in the city, against all the recommendation, and countenance, and authority, of the court, which was thoroughly engaged on the behalf of Mr. Crofts; and which used to be successful in that age against any opposition. He had the good fortune to have an alliance and friendship with Dr. Morley, who had assisted and instructed him in the reading many good books, to which his natural parts and promptitude inclined him, especially the poets; and, at the age when other men used to give over writing verses (for he was near thirty years of a&Q when he first engaged himself in that exercise, at least that he was known to do so), he surprized the town with two or three pieces of that kind; as if a tenth Muse had been newly born to cherish drooping poetry. The doctor at that time brought him into that company which was most celebrated for good conversation; where he was received and esteemed with great applause and respect. He was a very pleasant discourser, in earnest and in jest; and therefore very grateful to all kind of company, where he was not the less esteemed for being very rich. He had been even nursed iti parliaments, where he sat when he was very young; and so, when they were resumed again (after a long intermission), he appeared in those assemblies with great advantage; having a graceful way of speaking, and by thinking much upon several arguments (which his temper and complection, that had much of melancholic, inclined him to) he seemed often to speak upon the sudden, when the occasion had only administered the opportunity of saying what he had thoroughly considered, which gave a great lustre to all he said, which yet was rather of delight than weight. There needs no more be said to extol the excellence and power of his wit, and pleasantness of his conversation, than that it was of magnitude enough to cover a world of very great faults that is, so to cover them that they were not taken notice of to his reproach viz. a narrowness in his nature to the lowest degree; an abjectness and want of courage to support him in any virtuous undertaking an insinuating and servile flattery, to the height the vainest and most imperious nature could be contented with; that it preserved and won his life from those who were most resolved to take it, and on an occasion in which he ought to have been ambitious to have lost it; and then preserved him again from the reproach and contempt that was due to him for so preserving it, and for vindicating it at such a price, that it had power to reconcile him to those whom he had most offended and provoked; and continued to his old age with that rare felicity, that his company was acceptable when his spirit was odious; and he was at least pitied, where he was most detested.”

The care of his fortune, which Clarendon imputes to him in a degree little less than criminal, was either not constant or not successful; for, having inherited a patrimony of three thousand five hundred pounds a year in the time of James the First, and augmented it at least by one wealthy marriage, he left, about the time of the revolution, an income of not more than twelve or thirteen hundred; which, when the different value of money is reckoned, will be found perhaps not more than a fourth part of what he once possessed. Of this diminution, part was the consequence of the gifts which he was forced to scatter, and the fine which he was condemned to pay at the detection of his plot; and if his estate, as is related in his Life, was sequestered, he had probably contracted debts when he lived in exile; for we are told, that at Paris he lived in splendor, and was the only Englishman, except the lord St. Alban’s, that kept a table. His unlucky plot compelled him to sell a thousand a year; of the waste of the rest there is no account, except that he is confessed by his biographer to have been a bad ceconomist. He seems to have deviated from the common practice; to have been a hoarder in his first years, and a squanderer in his last. Of his course of studies, or choice of books, notbing is known more than that he professed himself unable to read Chapman’s translation of Homer without rapture. His opinion concerning the duty of a poet is contained in his declaration, that “he would blot from his works any line, that did not contain some motive to virtue.” For his merit as a poet, we may refer with confidence to Johnson, whose life of Waller we have generally followed in the preceding sketch, and on which he appears to have bestowed more than usual pains, and is in his facts more than usually accurate. English versification, it is universally allowed, is greatly indebted to Waller, and he is every where elegant and gay. To his contemporaries he must have appeared more rich in invention, than modern critics are disposed to allow, because, as Johnson observes, they have found his novelties in later books, and do not know or inquire who produced them first. Dr. Warton thinks it remarkable that Waller never mentions Milton, whose Comus, and smaller poems, preceded his own; and he ae* counts for this by Milton’s poetry being unsuitable to the French taste on which Waller was formed *.

the preface: much conversant in or beholding to

Ben Jonson and Fletcher he commends (who yet was far from being a perfect in good earnest; their dramatic works master of him). As for his cloud-corngave him no pain; that sort of writing pel/ing, and two or three more comhe never pretended to. Denham’s high pound words, I believe he went not to

Hill“deserved some return. translation, perhaps Chapman’s.” select a few more particulars of Waller. Speaking of his plot, he says, “He had much ado then to save his life; and in order to it, sold his estate, in Bedfordshire, about 1300l. per aim. to Dr. Wright, M. D. for 10,000l. (much under value) which was procured in twenty-fours time, or else he had been hanged. With this money he bribed the House, which was the. first time a House of Commons was ever bribed” “His intellectuals are very good yet (1680), but he growes feeble. He is somewhat above a middle stature, thin body, not at all robust: fine thin skin, his face somewhat of an olwaster: his hayre frized, of a brownish colour; full eie, popping out and workinge, ovall faced, his forehead high and full of wrinkles. His head but small, braine very hott, and apt to be cholerique. Quanta doctius, eo iracundior. Cic. He is somewhat magisteriall, and hath received a great mastership of the English language. He is of admirable elocution, and graceful, and exceeding ready.” “Notwithstanding his great witt and maisteresse in rhetorique, &c. he will oftentimes be guilty of mispelling in English, H v e writes a lamentable hand, as bad as the scratching of a hen.”

Sir Wilfem Waller was elected a member of the long parliament for Andover; and having suffered under the severity of the star-chamber, on the occasion of a private quarrel with one of his wife’s relations, as well as imbibed in the course of his foreign service early and warm prejudices in favour of the presbyterian discipline, he became a determined opponent of the court. While employed at the head of the parliamentary forces, under the earl of Essex, he was deputed to the command of the expedition against Portsmouth, when colonel Goring, returning to his duty, declared a resolution of holding that garrison for his majesty. In this enterprise, sir William conducted himself with such vigour and ability, that he reduced the garrison in a shorter time and upon better terms than could have been expected; and afterwards obtained the direction of several other expeditions, in which he likewise proved remarkably successful. After many signal advantages, however, he sustained some defeats by the king’s, forces, particularly at Roumlway Down near the Devizes, and at Cropready-bridge in Oxfordshire. On each or those occasions, the blame was thrown by him on the jealousy of other officers; and neither the spirit nor the judgment of his own operations were ever questioned. The independents, who weie becoming the strongest party, both in the army and the parliament, had wished him to become their general, on terms which, either from conscience or military honour, he could not comply with. By the famous self-denying ordinance he was removed from his command, but still maintained so great an influence and reputation in the army, as rendered him not a little formidable to the rising party; and he was thenceforth considered as a leader of the presbyterians against the designs of the independents. He was one of the eleven members impeached of high treason by the army. This forced him to withdraw for some time; but he afterwards resumed his seat in parliament, until, in 1648, with fifty others, he was expelled by the army, and all of them committed to ifferent prisons, on suspicion of attachment to the royal cause. He was afterwards committed to custody on suspicion of being engaged in sir George Booth’s insurrection, m Aug. 1658, but in November was released upon bail. In Feb. 1659 he was nominated one of the council of state, and was elected one of the representatives of Middlesex, in the parliament which began April 25, 1660. He died at Osterley-park in Middlesex, Sept. 19, 1668, and was buried in the chapel in Tothill-street, Westminster. Mr. Seward very erroneously says he was buried in the Abbey-chnrch at Bath. It is his first wife who was buried there, but there is a monumental statue of sir William, as well as of the lady, which perhaps occasioned the mistake. There is a tradition that when James II, visited the Abbey, he defaced the nose of sir William upon this monument, which Mr. Warner in his “History of Bath” allows to be defaced, but Mr Seward asserts that “there appear at present no traces of any disfigurement.” Of a circumstance so easily ascertained, it is singular there should be two opinions. Anthony Wood gives, as the literary performances of sir William Waller, some of his letters and dispatches respecting his victories, but the on,ly article which seems to belong to that class is his “Divine meditations upon several occasions; with a daily directory,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. These were written during his retirement, and give a very faithful picture of his honest sentiments, and of his frailties and failings. Wood also mentions his “Vindication for taking up arms against the king,” left behind in manuscript, in which state it remained until 17y3, when it was published under the title of “Vindication of the Character and Conduct of sir William Waller, knight; commander in chief of the parliament forces in the West: explanatory of his conduct in taking up arms against king Charles I. Written by himself And now first published from the original manuscript. With an introduction by the editor,” 8vo. The ms. came from one of the noble families descended from him. It appears to be written with great sincerity, as well as precision, and contains many interesting particulars, relative to the democratical parties which struggled for superiority after the king had fallen into their power. The style seems to bear a stronger resemblance to that of the age of James the First, or his immediate predecessor, than to the mode of composition generally practised in England about the middle of the last century. If any thing can confirm the declaration that sir William was actuated solely by disinterested motives, it is the veneration which he professes to entertain for the constitution of his country. He avows himself a sincere friend to the British form of government, consisting of king, lords, and commons; and it appears, that, from the beginning, his imputed apostacy from the cause of public freedom, or rather of democratical tyranny,- ought justly to he ascribed to the cabals of the republican leaders, and not to any actual change which had ever taken place in his own sentiments. The volume, indeed, is not only valuable as an ingenuous and explicit vindication, but as a composition abounding with shrewd observation’s, and rendered interesting by the singular manner, as well as the information of the author, who seems to have been no less a man of vivacity and good sense, than of virtue and learning.

, an eminent English mathematician, was born Nov. 2S, 1616, at Ashford in Kent, of which place his father of the same names was then minister, but did not survive the birth of this his eldest son above six years. He was now left to the care of his mother, who purchased a house at Ashford for the sake of the education of her children, and placed him at school there, until the plague, which broke out in 1625, obliged her to remove him to Ley Green, in the parish of Tenterden, under the tuition of one James Movat or Mouat, a native of Scotland, who instructed him in grammar. Mr. Movat, says Dr. Wallis, “was a very good schoolmaster, and his scholar I continued for divers years, and was by him well grounded in the technical part of grammar, so as to understand the rules and the grounds and reasons of such rules, with the use of them in such authors, as are usually read in grammar schools: for it was always my affectation even from a child, in all parts of learning or knowledge, not merely to learn by rote, which is soon forgotten, but to know the grounds or reasons of what I learn, to inform my judgment as well as furnish my memory, and thereby make a better impression on both.” In 1630 he lost this instructor, who was engaged to attend two young gentlemen on their travels, and would gladly have taken his pupil Wallis with them; but his mother not consenting on account of his youth, he was sent to Felsted school in Essex, of which the learned Mr. Martin Holbeach was then master. During the Christmas holidays in 1631, he went home to his mother at Ashford, where finding that one of his brothers had been learning to cypher, he was inquisitive to know what that meant, and applying diligently was enabled to go through all the rules with success, and prosecuted this study at spare hours on his return to Felsted, where also he was instructed in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, and in the rudiments of logic, music, and the French language.

In 1632 he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of Emanuel college, under the tuition first of Mr. Anthony Burgess, afterwards rector of Sutton Colfield; next of Thomas Horton, afterwards master of Queen’s college, and lastly of the celebrated Benjamin Whichcot. It is not improbable that he had his divinity from the first two, and somewhat of his style from the last of these tutors. At his first entrance upon academical studies, he was reconciled to having staid a year or two longer at school than appeared necessary, or than he liked, since he found that owing to the knowledge he had accumulated in that time, he was now able to keep pace with those who were some years his seniors. “I found,” he says, “that beside the improvement of what skill I had in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages (which I pursued with diligence) and other philologic studies, my first business was to be the study of logic. In this I soon became master of a syllogism, as to its structure and the reason of its consequences, however cryptically proposed, so as not easily to be imposed on by fallacious or false syllogisms, when I was to answer or defend; and to manage an argument with good advantage, when I was to argue or oppose; and to distinguish ambiguous words or sentences, as there was occasion; and was able to hold pace with those, who were some years my seniors, and had obtained the reputation of a good disputant. And indeed I had the good hap all along, both at school and in the university, to be reputed (if not equal) not much inferior to those of the best of my rank. From logic I proceeded to ethics, physics, and metaphysics (consulting the schoolmen on such points), according to the methods of philosophy then in fashion in that university. And I took into the speculative part of physic and anatomy, as parts of natural philosophy; and, as Dr. Glisson (then public professor of physic in that university) hath since told me, I was the first of his sons, who, in a public disputation, maintained the circulation of the blood, which was then a new doctrine, though I had no design of practising physic. And I had then imbibed the principles of what they now call the new philosophy; for I made no scruple of diverting from the common road of studies then in fashion to any part of useful learning; presuming that knowledge is no burthen; and, if of any part thereof I should afterwards have no occasion to make use, it would at least do me no hurt; and what of it I might or might not have occasion for, I could not then foresee. On the same account I diverted also to astronomy and geography, as parts of natural philosophy, and to other parts of mathematics; though at that time they were scarce looked upon with us as academical studies then in fashion. As to divinity, on which I had an eye from the first, I had the happiness of a strict and religious education all along from a child. Whereby I was not only preserved from vicious courses, and acquainted with religious exercises, but was early instructed in the principles of religion and catechetical divinity, and the frequent reading of scripture and other good books, and diligent attendance on sermons: and whatever other studies I followed, I was careful not to neglect this: and became timely acquainted with systematic and polemic divinity, and had the repute of a good proficient therein.” The length of this extract we trust will be excused, as it is but seldom we attain that interesting part of biography, the progress of early studies.

Being designed for the church, he had studied divinily with great care, and now was admitted to holy orders by Dr. Walter Curie, bishop of Winchester. In 1641 he left college to be chaplain to sir William Darley, at Bustercramb in Yorkshire. In the following year he acted in the same capacity to lady Vere, widow of sir Horatio Vere. It was during her occasional residence in London that he was enabled to discover his surprising talent in decypheringj and as this had an important effect on his future life and fame, it may be necessary to give his own account of the discovery. “About the beginning of our civil wars, in th* year 1642, a chaplain of sir William Waller’s, one evening as we were sitting down to supper at the lady Vere’s in London, with whom I then dwelt, shewed me an intercepted letter written in cypher. He shevyed it me as a curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in cyphers), and asked me, between jest and earnest, whether I could make any tiling of it; and he was surprized, when I said, upon the first view, perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new alphabet. It was about ten o'clock, when we rose from supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider it; and by the number of different characters therein (not above 22 or 23) I judged, that it could not be more than a new alphabet, and in about two hours time, before I went to bed, I had decyphered it; and I sent a copy of it. so decyphered the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at decyphering. This unexpected success on an easy cypher was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was somewhile after pressed to attempt one of another nature, which was a letter of Mr. secretary Windebank, then in France, to his son in England, in a cypher hard enough, and not unbecoming a secretary of state. It was in numeral figures, extending in number to above seven hundred, with many other characters intermixed; but not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate; but after some months resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it. Being encouraged by this success beyond expectation, I afterwards ventured on many others, some of more, some of less difficulty; and scarce missed of any that I undertook for many years, during our civil wars, and afterwards. But of late years the French, methods of cypher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many, tho' I have mastered divers of them. Of such decyphered letters there be copies of divers remaining in the archives of the Bodleian library in Oxford, and many more in my own custody, and with the secretaries of state.” The copies of decyphered letters, mentioned by Dr. Wallis to be in the archives of the Bodleian library, were reposited by him there in 1653, and are in the doctor’s own hand-writing, with a memorandum at the beginning, to this purpose: “A collection of several letters and other papers, which were at several times intercepted, written in cypher,' decyphered by John Wallis, professor of geometry in the university of Oxford; given to the public library there,” anno domin‘t 1653. This part of our author’s skill gave him afterwards no small trouble, and might possibly have been of very bad consequences to him, had he not had some friends in power, particularly the earl of Clarendon and sir Edward Nicholas secretary of state, who valued him for his great learning and integrity, and were sensible of his affection for the royal family, and his loyalty to the king, and the many good services he had done his majesty before the restoration. The doctor’s enemies soon after the restoration eiH deavoured to represent him as an avowed enemy to the royal family; and to prove this they reported, that he had during the civil wars decyphered king Charles I.’s letters taken in his cabinet at Naseby; and that the letters so decyphered by him were to be seen in the books of cyphers, which our author had given to the university. This report being revived upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, the doctor wrote a letter in his own vindication to his great friend Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford/dated April 8, 1685 which was as follows

“I understand there have of late been complaints made of me, that I decyphered the late king’s letters, meaning those taken in the late king’s cabinet at Naseby- fight, and after printed. As to this, without saying any thing, whether it be now proper to repeat what was done above forty years ago, the thing is quite otherwise. Of those letters and papers (whatever they were) I never saw any one of them but in print; nor did those papers, as I have been told, need any decyphering at all, either by me or anybody else, being taken in words at length just as they were printed, save that some of them were, I know not by whom, translated out of French into English. ‘Tis true, that afterwards some other letters of other persons, which had been occasionally intercepted, were brought to my han’ds; some of which 1 did decypher, and some of them I did not think fit to do, to the displeasing of some, who were then great men. And I managed my selfe in that whole busi^ ness by such measures, as your lordship, I think, would not bee displeased with. I did his majesty who then was (king Charles the first) and his 'friends many good offices, as I had opportunity both before and after that king’s death; and ventured farther to do them service, than perhaps some, of those, who now complaine of mee, would have had the courage to do, had they been in my circumstances. And I did tp his late majesty, k. Charles the second, many good services both before and since his restauration, which himselfe has been pleased divers times to profess to mee with great kindnes. And if either my lord chancellor Clarendon, or Mr. secretary Nicholas, or his late majesty, were now alive, they would give mee a very different character from what, it seemes, some others have done. And I thinke his majesty that now is kn<Mves somewhat of it, and some other persons of honour yet -alive, &c.”

In our authorities are other proofs of his innocence in this matter; but we presume it cannot be denied that he had been of service to the republican government by this peculiar talent. He had always joined with them, and in 1653 he had the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- street, granted to him. The same year he published in 4to, Truth tried; or, Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise of the nature of Truth'.“His mother dying this year, he became possessed of a handsome fortune. In 1644 he was appointed one of the scribes or secretaries to the assembly of divines at Westminster, to whose conduct and views he gives a very different colouring from what we meet with in most of the publications of that time.” The parliament,“he asserts,” had a great displeasure against the order of bishops, or rather not so much against the order, as the men, and against the order for their sakes; and had resolved upon the abolition of episcopacy as it then stood, before they were agreed what to put instead of it; and did then convene this assembly to consult of some other form to be suggested to the parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it, or so far as they should like it. The divines of this assembly were, for the generality of them, conformable, episcopal men, and had generally the reputation of pious, orthodox, and religious protestants; and (excepting the seven independents, or, as they were called dissenting brethren) I do not know of any nonconformist among them as to the legal conformity then required. Many of them were professedly episcopal, and, I think, all of them so episcopal, as to account a well-regulated episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable and advisable; yet so as they thought the present constitution capable of reformation for the better. When I name the divines of this assembly, I do not include the Scots commissioners, who, though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the debates, as they saw occasion, yet were no members of that assembly, nor did vote with them, but acted separately in behalf of the church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scots presbytery, but could never prevail with the assembly to declare for it. On the other hand, the independents were against all united church government of more than one single congregation, holding that each single congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a church, and choose their own officers, were of themselves independent, and not accountable to any other ecclesiastical government, but only the civil magistrate, as to the public peace; admitting indeed that messengers from several churches might meet to consult in common, as there might be occasion, but without any authoritative jurisdiction* Against these, the rest of the assembly was unanimous, (and the Scots commissioners with them) that it was lawful by the word of God for divers particular congregations (beside the inspection of their own pastor and other officers) to be united under the same common government; and such communities to be further subordinate to provincial and national assemblies; which is equally consistent with episcopal and presbyterian principles. But whether with or without a bishop or standing president of such assemblies, was not determined or debated by them. When any such point chanced to be suggested, the common answer was, that this point was not before them, but was precluded by the ordinance by which they sat; which did first declare the abolition of episcopacy (not refer it to their declaration), and they only to suggest to the parliament somewhat in the room of that so abolished, And this is a true account of that assembly as to this point (and when as they were called presbyterians, it was not in the sense of anti-episcopal, but anti-independents), which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living who can give a better account of that assembly than I can. To this may be objected their agreement to the covenant, which was before I was amongst them. But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said. The covenant, as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the parliament to the assembly, seemed directly against all episcopacy, and for setting up the Scots presbytery just as among them. But the assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms, being so worded as, to preserve the government of the church of Scotland, and to reform that of England, and so to reduce it to the nearest uniformity. But before the assembly could agree to it, it was thus mollified, to preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common enemy; and to reform that of England (not so as it is in Scotland, but) according to the word of God, and the exarnpleof the best reformed churches; and to endeavour the nearest uniformity; which might be as well by reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both. And whereas the covenant, as first brought to them, was against popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, profaneness, &c. they would by no means be persuaded to admit the word prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of reformation for the better in divers things, yet to engage indefinitely against all prelacy, they would not agree. After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the parliament, who then pressed it, suggested this expedient, that by prelacy they did not understand all manner of episcopacy or superiority, but only the present episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of archbishops, bishops, and their several courts and subordinate officers, &c. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an abolition of the present prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a reformation of the present episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this it was agreed to be expressed with this interpretation; prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, arch-deacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy. And with this interpretation at length it passed; and the Scots commissioners in behalf of their church agreed to those amendments. I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that interpretation; but this was the true intendment of the assembly, and upon this occasion."

In March of this year, 1644, he married Susanna, daughter of John and Rachel Clyde of Northiam, Northamptonshire. In 1645, the weekly meetings, which gave birth to the Royal Society, being proposed, he attended them along with Dr. John Wilkins (afterwards bishop of Chester), Dr. Jonathan Goddard, Dr. George Ent, Dr. Giisson, Dr. Merret, doctors in physic, Mr. Samuel Foster, then professor of astronomy at Gresham college, Theodore Haak, a German of the palatinate, and then resident in London, who is said to have first suggested those meetings, and many others. These meetings were held sometimes at Dr. Goddard’s lodgings in Wood-street, sometimes in Cheapside, and sometimes at Gresham college, or some place near adjoining.

Notwithstanding this opposition to the ruling powers, he was in June following appointed by the parliamentary visitors, Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford, in room of Dr. Peter Turner, who was ejected; and now quitting his church, he went to that university, entered of Exeter college, and was incorporated master of arts. Acceptable as this preferment was, he was not an inattentive observer of the theological disputes of the time; and when Baxter published his “Aphorisms of Justification and the Covenant,” our author published some animadversions on them, which Baxter acknowledged were very judicious and moderate. Before the end of this year, Wallis, in perusing the mathematical works of Torricelli, was particularly struck with what. he found there of Cavalleri’s method of indivisibles, this being the first time he had heard or seen any thing of that method, and conceived hopes of attaining by it some assistance in the problem concerning the quadrature of the circle. He accordingly spent a very considerable time in studying it, but found some insuperable difficulties, which, with what he had accomplished, he communicated to Mr. Seth Ward, then Savilian professor of astronomy, Rook, professor of astronomy at Gresham college, and Christopher Wren, then fellow of All Souls, and several other eminent mathematicians at that time in Oxford, but not meeting with the assistance he wished, he desisted from the farther pursuit. In 1653, he published a grammar of the English tongue, for the use of foreigners in Latin, under this title: “Grammatica Linguse Anglicanae, cum Tractatu de Loquela seu Sonorum Formatione,” in 8vo. In the piece “De Loquela,” &c. he tells us, that “he has philosophically considered the formation of all sounds used in articulate speech, as well of our own as of any other language that he knew; by what organs, and in what position, each sound was formed; with the nice distinctions of each, which in some letters of the same organ are very subtle: so that by such organs, in such position, the breath issuing from the lungs will form such sounds, whether the person do or do not hear himself speak.” This we shall find he afterwards endeavoured to turn to an important practical use. In 1654, he was admitted to the degree of D.D. after performing the regular exercise, which he printed afterwards, and in August of that year, made some observations on the solar eclipse, which happened about that time. About Easter, 1655, the proposition in his “Arithmetica Infinitorum,” containing the quadrature of the circle, being printed, he sent it to Mr. Oughtred; and soon after, in the same year, he published that treatise in 4to, dedicated to the same eminent mathematician. To this he prefixed a treatise on conic sections, which he sdtin a new light, considering them as absolute planes, constituted of an infinite number of parallelograms, without any relation to the cone, and demonstrated their properties from his new method of infinites.

About the same time, Hobbes published his “Elementorum Philosophise sectio prima, de corpore,” in which he pretended to give an absolute quadrature of the circle. This pretence Dr. Wallis confuted the same year, in a Latin tract, entitled “Elenchus Geometrise Hobbianse; 17 which being written with some asperity, so provoked Hobbes, that in 1656 he published it in English, with the addjtion of what he called” Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics in Oxford,“4to. Upon this Dr. Wallis wrote an answer in English, entitled,” Due Correction for Mr. Hobbes; or, School Discipline for not saying his Lessons right,“1656, in 8vo; to which Mr. Hobbes replied in a pamphlet, with the title of” 2TIFMAI, &c. or, Marks of the absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish Church Politics, and Barbarisms, of John Wallis,“c. 1657, 4to. This was immediately rejoined to by Dr. Wallis in” Hob* biani Puncti Dispunctio,“1657; and here this controversy seems to have ended at this time: but four years after, 1661, Mr. Hobbes printed” Examinatio & emendatio Matheoiaticorum hodiernorum, in sex Dialogis;“which occasioned Dr. Wallis to publish, the next year,” Hobbius Heautontimorumenos," in 8vo, addressed to Mr. Boyle. Although Dr. Wallis was universally allowed to have the best of the argument in this controversy, Hobbes being notoriously deficient in mathematical science, yet none or* his answers to Hobbes were inserted in the collection of his mathematical works, published in 1699, 3 vols.'fol. because, as he says himself, he had no inclination to trample on the ashes of the dead, although it was his duty to expose the fallacious reasoning of Hobbes when alive*.

We have already mentioned his Grammar of the English tongue, published in 1653. By some observations in & that work, he had been led to suppose it possible to teach the deaf and dumb to speak. On this it is probable he had wade many experiments; and communicated what he had tried to his friends, who now were desirous to bring the matter to the test. Accordingly he was persuaded to employ his skill on one Daniel Whalley of Northampton, who had been deaf and dumb from a child. About January, 1661-2, he began to teach this person, and with such success, that in little more than a year, he taught him to pronounce distinctly even the most difficult words, and to express his mind in writing. He was likewise able to read distinctly the greater part of the Bib!e, could express himself intelligibly in ordinary affairs, understand letters written to him, and write answers to them, if not elegantly, yet so as to be understood. This being known, attracted the curiosity of the public in no common degree. Whalley was brought to the Royal Society, May the 21st, 1662, and to their great satisfaction, pronounced 'distinctly enough such words as were proposed to him by the company; and though not altogether with the usual tone or accent, yet so as easily to be understood. He did the like several times at Whitehall in the presence of his “majesty, prince Rupert, and others of the nobility; and the doctor was desired to try his skill on Alexander Popham, esq. a son of lady Wharton, by her former husband, admiral Popham. His mother, it is said, when she was big with him, received a sudden fright, in consequence of which his head and face were a little distorted, the whole right side being somewhat elevated, and the left depressed, so that the passage of his left ear was quite shut up, and that of the right ear proportionally distended and too open. However Dr. Holder says, that he was not so deaf, but that he could hear the sound of a lute string, holding one end of it in his teeth; and when a drum was beat fast and loud by him, he could hear those, who stood behind him, calling him gently by his name. When he was of the age of ten or eleven years, he was recommended to the care of Dr. William Holder, then rector of Blechindon in Oxfordshire, and taken by him into his house in 1659, where he learned to speak and pronounce his name, and some other words. Of this Wood gives us the following account; that Dr. Holder” obtained a great name for his most wonderful art in making a young gentleman, Alexander Popham, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak; that he was the first that is remembered ever to have succeeded therein in England, or perhaps in the world; and because it was a wonderful matter, many, curious scholars went from Oxford to see and hear the person speak.“However this be, three years after, viz. in 1662, this young gentleman was sent by his relations to Dr. Wallis, for him to teach him to speak, as he had taught Mr. Whalley. Wood owns, that Mr. Popham being called home by his friends, he began to lose what he had been taught by Dr. Holder. And Dr. Wallis observes, that both Mr. Whalley and Mr. Popham, notwithstanding the proficiency they had made under him in learning to speak, were apt to forget, after their departing from him, much of that nicety, which before they had, in the distinct pronouncing some letters, which they would recover, when he had been occasionally with them to set them right, they wanting the help of an ear to direct their speaking, as that of the eye directs the hand in writing. 14 For which reason,” says he, “a man, who writes a good hand, would soon forget so to do, if grown blind. And therefore one, who thus learns to speak, will, for the continuance and improvement of it, need somebody continually with him, who may prompt him, when he mistakes.” Dr. Wallis remarks likewise, that Dr. Holder had attempted to teach Mr. Popham to speak, “but gave it over.” This seems very likely to be true, because his friends did not send him again to Dr, Holder, but desired Dr. Wallis to teach him. However that be, a dispute took place between the two doctors. A letter of Dr. Wallis concerning this cure was inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions” of July 1670. This was represented, as if he had vainly assumed to himself the glory of teaching this young gentleman to speak, without taking any notice of what had been before done to him by Dr. Holder, who therefore published in 1678 at London in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wallis’ s Letter there inserted.” To this Dr. Wallis replied the very same year, entitling his papers, which were directed to the lord viscount Brouncker, president of the Roya.1 Society, “A Defence of the Royal Society, and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder,” London, 1673, in 4to. To this Dr. Holder made no reply. The reverend and learned Mr. John Lewis of ?crgate observes, in a ms life by him of Dr. Wallis communicated to the authors of the General Dictionary, that without lessening Dr. Holder’s great abilities, it is a plain and certain fact, that Dr. Wallis had, in his tract `De Loquela,' discovered the theory of this by considering very exactly, what few attended to, the accurate formation of all sounds in speaking; without which it were in vain to set about this task. This tract was printed no less than six years before Dr. Holder undertook to try his skill of teaching a dumb man to speak on Mr. Popham. And it is no disingenuous reflection to suppose, that Dr. Holder had seen it, and profited by it; whereas it does not appear, that Dr. Wallis could have the least hint from him, when he at first taught Mr. Whalley. But Wood, to shew how just and equitable a judge he was of this difference, tells us, that he knew full well, that Dr. Wallis at any time could make black white, and white black, for his own ends, and had a ready knack of sophistical evasions. Base reflections, which confute themselves, and expose their inventor 1“However, Dr. Wallis published his method of instructing persons deaf and dumb to speak and understand a language, which was printed in the Philosophical Transactions. And” I have,“says he,” since that time, upon the same account, taught divers persons (and some of them very considerable) to speak plain and distinctly, who did before hesitate and stutter very much; and others to pronounce such words or letters, as before they thought impossible for them to do, by teaching them how to rectify such mistakes in the formation, as by some impediment or acquired customs they had been subject to."

Dr. Wallis had become one of the first members of the Royal Society, and was a very considerable contributor to their early stock of papers, particularly on mathematical subjects. In 1663, at the request of sir Robert Moray, he wrote his “Cono-cunseus, or Shipwright’s circular wedge,” and a treatise “De Proportionibus,” in vindication of Euclid’s definition in the fifth book of his Elements. This he dedicated to lord Brouncker, with whom he lived in the most friendly communication of studies till his lordship’s death. In the same year, he gave the first demonstration of that most important and useful problem, concerning “the laws of motion in the collision of bodies.” In 1666, he framed a new hypothesis to solve the phaenoinena of the tide, of which no tolerable account had then appeared. This, after further investigation, he published in 1668, under the title of “De ystu maris hypothesis nova;” and the next year, the first part of his treatise “De motu,” which was generally esteemed his master-piece. The whole was completed in 1671, under the title of “Mechanic, sive de motu tractatus geometric us.” In 1673, he published in Latin “Horqccii opera posthuma” (see Horrox), to which he subjoined Flamsteed’s “Discourse of the equation of time.” He also employed some of his leisure hours in correcting, for his own private use, and supplying the defects found in all the manuscript copies of Archimedes’s “Arenarius t Dimensio Circuli.” This he printed in 1676, at dean Fell’s request, to-convince the public of the necessity of publish! tig a collection of the ancient mathematicians; a scheme which, a few. years before,- had been dropped for want of encouragement.

The last affair in which Dr. Wallis appears to have been consulted was on the scheme for altering the style, which he opposed on various reasons, and it was accordingly laid aside; but has since been established without any of the inconveniences either in astronomical'calculations, or otherwise, of which he was afraid. Towards the end of his life the curators of the university-press made a collection of his mathematical works, which were printed at Oxford 1699, in three -volumes in folio, with this title, “Johannis Wallis S. T. P. Gedmetriae Professoris Saviliani in celeberrima Academia Oxoniensi, Opera Mathematica, tribus Voluminibus -contenta.” This edition was dedicated to king William III. Dr. Wallis died at the Savilian professor’s house in New" college lane, Oxford, Oct. 28, 1703, in his eighty-eighth year, and was interred in St. Mary’s, where a monument was erected by his son, John Wallis, esq. a barrister. This son was born December the 26th, 1650, and placed by his father in Trinity college, in Oxford, and afterwards admitted of the Inner Temple, London, where he proceeded barrister-at-law February 1, 1681-2. He married Elizabeth daughter of John and Mary Harris, of Soundels, or Soundess, by Nettlebed, in Oxfordshire, afterwards heiress to her brother Taverner Harris, whose mother descended from Richard Taverner, a learned lawyer in king Henry VlII/s time, and high sheriff of the county of Oxford. By this match Mr. Wallis became possessed of a good estate called Soundess. His wife died August the 8th, 1693, leaving three children surviving her, viz. John, Mary, and Elizabeth.

, a worthy English divine, and botanical writer, was born in 1714, in or near the parish of Ireby, in Cumberland. He was of Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1740, and acquired some reputation as a sound scholar. Though possessed of good natural abilities, and no small share of acquired knowledge, he lived and died in an humble station. His disposition was so mild, and his sense of duty so proper, that he passed through life without a murmur at his lot. Early in life he married a lady near Portsmouth, where he at that time resided on a curacy. For fifty-six years they enjoyed the happiness of their'matrimonial connexion an happiness that became almost proverbial in their neighbourhood. After spending a few years in the south of England, he became curate of Simonburn, in Northumberland; and while here, indulged his taste for the study of botany, and filled his little garden with curious plants. This amusement led him gradually into deeper researches into natural history; and, in 1769, he published a “History of Northumberland,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which, containing an account of minerals, fossils, &c. found in that country, is reckoned the most valuable. In other respects, as to antiquities, &c. it is rather imperfect, and unconnected. His fortune, however, did not improve with the reputation which this work brought him, and a dispute with his rector occasioned him to leave his situation, when he and his wife were received into the family of a clergyman who had formerly been his friend at college. He was curate for a short time at Haughton, near Darlington, in 1775, and soon afterwards removed to Billingham, near Stockton, where he continued until increasing infirmities obliged him to resign. He then removed to the village of Norton, where he died July 23, 1793, in the seventyninth year of his age. About two years before his death a small estate fell to him by the death of a brother; and to the honour of the present bishop of Durham (but certainly not to the surprize of any one that knows that munificent prelate), when the circumstances and situation of Mr. Wallis were represented to him, he allowed him an annual pension from the time of his resigning his curacy. From a sense of gratitude, Mr. Wallis, just at the close of life, was employed in packing up an ancient statue of Apollo, found at Carvoran, a Roman station on the wall, on the confines of Northumberland, as a present to the learned Daines Barrington, brother to the bishop. In the earlier part of his life Mr. Wallis published a volume of letters to a pupil, on entering into holy orders.

, earl of Orford, grandson of sir Edward Walpole, K. B. and third son of Robert Waipole, M. P. for Castle-Rising, in Norfolk, was born at Houghton, in Norfolk, Aug. 26, 1676. He received the first rudiments of learning at a private seminary at Massingham, in Norfolk, and completed his education on the foundation at Eton, Walpole was naturally indolent, and disliked application, but the emulation of a public seminary, the alternate menaces and praises of his master, Mr. Newborough, the maxim repeatedly inculcated by his father, that he was a younger brother, and that his future fortune in life depended solely upon his own exertions, overcame the original inertness of his disposition. Before he quitted Eton, he had so considerably improved himself in classical literature, as to bear the character of an excellent scholar. In April 1696 he was admitted a scholar of King’s college, Cambridge. On the death of his elder surviving brother in 1698, becoming heir to the paternal estate, he resigned his scholarship. Singular as it may appear, he had been designed for the church; but on his destination being altered by the death of his brother, he no longer continued to prosecute his studies with a view to a liberal profession. His father, indeed, appears to have been in a great measure the cause of this dereliction of his studies, for he took him from the university to his seat at Houghton, where his mornings being engaged in farming, or in the sports of the field, and his evenings in convivial society, he had no leisure, and soon lost the inclination, for literary pursuits. In July 1700, he married Catherine, daughter of sir John Shorter, lord mayor of London, and his father dying, he inherited the family estate of somewhat more than 2000l. a year.

In two years time a misunderstanding appeared amongst his majesty’s servants; and it became evident that the interest of secretary Stanhope and his adherents began to outweigh that of the exchequer, and that Wai pole’s power was visibly on the decline. King George had purchased of the king of Denmark the duchies of Bremen and Verden, which his Danish majesty had gained by conquest from Charles XII. of Sweden. The Swedish hero, enraged to see his dominions publicly set to sale, conceived a resentment against the purchaser, and formed a design to gratify his revenge on the electorate of Hanover. Upon a message sent to the House of Commons by the king, secretary Stanhope moved fora supply, to enable his majesty to concert such measures with foreign princes and states as might prevent any change or apprehensions from the designs of Sweden for the future. This occasioned a warm debate, in which it was remarkable that Walpole kept a profound silence. The country-party insisted that such a proceeding was contrary to the act of settlement. They insinuated that the peace of the empire was only a pretence, but that the security of the new acquisitions was the real object of this unprecedented supply; and they took occasion to observe too, that his majesty’s own ministers seemed to be divided. But Walpole thought proper, on this surmise, to speak in favour of the supply, which was carried by a majority of four voices only. In a day or two he resigned all his places to the king; and, if the true cause of his defection from the court had been his disapprobation of the measures then pursuing, his conduct would have been considered in this instance as noble and praiseworthy. But they who consider the intrigues of party, and that he spoke in favour of these measures, will find little room to suppose that his resignation proceeded from any attachment to liberty or love of his country. He resigned most probably with a view to be restored with greater plenitude of power; and the number of his friends, who accompanied him in his resignation, prove it to have been a mere factious movement. On the day of his resignation he brought in the famous sinking-fund bill: he presented it as a country-gentleman; and said he hoped it would not fare the worse for having two fathers; and that his successor (Mr. Stanhope) would bring it to perfection. His calling himself the father of a project, which has since been so often employed to other purposes than were at first declared, gave his enemies frequent opportunity for satire and ridicule; and it has been sarcastically observed, that the father of this fund appeared in a very bad light when viewed in the capacity of a nurse. In the course of the debates on this bill, a warm contest arose between Walpole and Stanhope on some severe reflections thrown upon him, the former lost his usual serenity of temper, and replied with great warmth and impetuosity. The acrimony on both sides produced unbecoming expressions, the betraying of private conversation, and the revealing a piece of secret history, viz. “the scandalous practice of selling places and reversions.” A member said on the occasion, “I am sorry to see these two great men fall foul of one another however, in my opinion, we must still look on them as patriots and fathers of their country and, since they have by mischance discovered their nakedness, we ought, according to the custom of the East, to cover it, by turning our backs upon them.”

In the next session of parliament Walpole opposed the ministry in every thing; and even Wyndham or Shippen did not exceed him in patriotism. Upon a motion in the House for continuing the army, he made a speech of above an hour long, and displayed the danger of a standing army in a free country, with all the powers of eloquence. Early in 1720 the rigour of the patriot began to soften, and the complaisance of the courtier to appear; and he was again appointed paymaster of the forces, and several of his friends were found soon after in the list of promotions. No doubt now remained of his entire conversion to courtmeasures; for, before the end of the year, we find him pleading as strongly for the forces required by the waroffice as he had before declaimed against them, even though at this time the same pretences for keeping them on foot did not exist.

It was not long before he acquired full ministerial power, being appointed first lord commissioner of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; and, when the king went abroad in 1723, he was nominated one of the lords justices for the administration of government, and was sworn sole secretary of state. About this time he received another distinguished mark of the royal favour; his eldest son, then on his travels, being created a peer, by the title of Baron Walpole of Walpole. In 1725 he was made knight of the bath; and, the year after, knight of the garter. Into any detail of the measures of his administration, during the Jong time he remained prime or rather sole minister, it would be impossible to enter in a work like this. They are indeed so closely involved in the history of the nation and of Europe, as to belong almost entirely to that department. His merit has been often canvassed with all the severity of critical inquiry and it is difficult to discern the truth through the exaggerations and misrepresentations of party. But this difficulty has been lately removed in a very great measure by Mr. Coxe’s elaborate “Memoirs of sir Robert Walpole,” a work admirably calculated to abate the credulity of the public in the accounts of party-writers. Although sir Robert had been called “the father of corruption” (which, however, he was not, but certainly a great improver of it), and is said to have boasted that he knew every man’s price *, yet, in 1742, the opposition

On Mr. Walpole’s return to England, he was chosen member for Callington, in the parliament which met in June 1741, and had soon an opportunity of evincing, that he was not likely to become either a silent or inactive member. On the 23d of March 1741-2, on a motion being made for an inquiry into the conduct of sir Robert Walpole for the preceding ten years, he opposed the proposition in a speech of some length, with great spirit, and greatly to the credit of his filial piety. He was not, however, a frequent speaker, and had no great relish for parliamentary duties. In 1747, he was chosen for the borough of Castle Rising, and for King’s Lynn, in 1754 and 1761. The tenor of his life was not much varied by accident or adventure; though about 1749 he narrowly escaped the pistol of a highwayman, the relation of which we shall give in his own words, in one of his “Worlds.” “An acquaintance of mine was robbed a few years ago, and very neat shot through the head by the going-off of the pistol of the accomplished Mr. Maclean; yet the whole affair was conducted with the greatest good-breeding on both sides. The robber, who had only taken a purse this way because he had that morning been disappointed. of marrying a great fortune, no sooner returned to his lodgings, than he sent the gentleman two letters of excuses, which with less wit than the epistles of Voiture, had ten times more natural and easy politeness in the turn of their expression. In the postscript he appointed a meeting at Tyburn at twelve at night, where the gentleman might purchase again any trities he had lost; and my friend has been blamed for not accepting the rendezvous, as it seemed liable to be construed by ill-natured people into a doubt of the honour of a man who had given him all the satisfaction in his power for having unluckily been near shooting him through the head.”

The same year, Mr. Walpole published his “Historic Doubts of the Life and Reign of King Richard III.” 4to. This performance endeavours to establish the favourable idea given of this monarch by sir George Buck, the historian; but this defence did not receive universal assent: it was controverted in various quarters, and generally considered as more ingenious than solid. It was answered by Frederick Guy Dickens, esq. in a 4 to volume; and the evidence from the wardrobe- roll was controverted by Dr. Milles and Mr. Masters, in papers read before the Society of Antiquaries; and now it was discovered that Mr. Walpole, who affected the utmost humility as an author, and most politely deferred to the opinion of others, could not bear the least contradiction, and one or both of these latter pieces gave him so much disgust, that he ordered his name to be struck out of the list of members, and renounced the honour annexed to it from his connection with the body of antiquaries. Yet in this plausible work, the character of Richard is in some measure cleared from many of the enormities charged upon him by historians and poets; and, particularly, the absurdity of representing him as a mass of personal deformity, is justly exposed.

From this period no circumstance of importance occurred in the course of Mr. Walpole’s life until 1791, when, by the death of his nephew, he succeeded to the title of earl of Orford. The accession of this honour, and of the fortune annexed to it, made no alteration, in any respect, in his manner of living, nor did he take his seat in the House of Peers. He still pursued the same unvaried tenor of life, devoting himself to the conversation of his friends and to the pursuits of literature. He had been early afflicted with the gout, which, as he advanced in years, acquired strength, though it did not disqualify him either for company or conversation. The same spirit of inquiry, and the same ardour of pursuit, prevailed almost to the latest period of his life. He was capable of enjoying the society of his friends until a very short time before his death, which happened on the 2d March 1797.

By his will, which contains twenty-two sheets, besides the addition of seven codicils, by one of which he directed that his body might be opened and afterwards privately interred, he bequeathed to Robert Berry, esq. and his two daughters, Mary and Agnes Berry, all his printed works and manuscripts, to be published at their discretion, and for their own emolument. To these two ladies he gives 4000l. each; and, for their lives, the house and garden late Mrs. Clive’s, with the long meadow before the same, and all the furniture there; after their deaths or marriages, to go to the same uses as Strawberry-hill; and with a restriction not to let the house for longer than a year. By the same codicil he also directs all the boxes containing his prints, books of prints, &c. to be conveyed to Strawberryhill, to remain as heir-looms appurtenant to that estate; and makes it a particular request to the person in possession of his favourite residence, that the books, and every article of furniture there, may be preserved with care, and not disposed of, nor even reuioved. But all the letters written to him by such of his friends as shall be living at the time of his death, are to be returned to the writers.

Mr. Walpole valued highly his talent for letter-writing, and many have regarded him as the best letter- writer of his day. If they had 'said the most lively, or the most witty, thev would have been nearer the truth. But whatever the particular merit of his correspondence, it has since proved fatal to his personal character in a very important feature. Letter-writing seems to have been with him a species of patronage, of grace and favour conferred upon his literary contemporaries, on whom he bestowed no other favours. Whatever else he might disappoint them in, they were sure to receive a letter full of praise, and Mr. Waipole’s praise was once thought of considerable importance. But since his printed correspondence has been compared with many hundred letters now extant that never were intended for the press, the evidence ofhis insincerity, of his extreme vanity, and duplicity towards those whom he most lavishly flattered, is too full and clear to admit of any hesitation in pronouncing that these degrading meannesses belonged to him in no common degree. One very gross instance of his treacherous correspondence may be seen in Stewart’s Life of Dr. Robertson; but more, and perhaps fuller, proofs exist in -his correspondence with the late Rev. William Cole of Milton, tiowin the British Museum.

, an Irish catholic of great learning liberality, was born at Moortown, in the county of Kildare, irr the early part of the seventeenth century. He was a friar of the Franciscan order, and was professor of divinity at Louvain, where he probably was educated. Returning to Ireland, he went to Kilkenny at the time the pope’s nuncio was there, but was not of his party. On the contrary, he made many endeavours to persuade the Ifish Roman catholics to the same loyal sentiments as he himself held; and after the restoration of Charles II. when he was procurator of the Romish clergy of Ireland, he persuaded many of them to subscribe a recognition or remonstrance, not only of their loyalty to the king, but of their disclaiming the pope’s supremacy in temporals. This drew upon him the resentment of many of his brethren, and particularly of the court of Rome. Such hopes, however, were entertained of this important change in the sentiment! of the Irish catholics, that in 1666 the court thought proper to permit their clergy to meet openly in synod at Dublin, in order, as was expected, to authorize the above remonstrance by a general act of the whole body. But this assembly broke up without coming to any decision, and the duke of Ormond, then lord lieutenant, considered it necessary to proceed against those who refused to give any security for their allegiance. But when, in 1670, lord Berkeley succeeded him, by some secret orders or intrigues of the popishly-affected party in England, Walsh, and those who had signed the remonstrance, were so persecuted as to be obliged to leave the country. Walsh came to London, and by the interest of the duke of Ormond, got an annuity of lOOl. for life. He had lived on terms of intimacy with the duke for nearly forty years, and had never touched much on the subject of religion until the reign of James II. when he made some overtures to gain the duke over to popery; but desisted when he found his arguments had no effect. Dodwell took some pains, although in vain, to convert Walsh, hoping, that as they had cast him out of the communion of the church of Rome, he might be persuaded to embrace that of the church of England. Walsh died in September 1687, and was buried in St. Dun* stan’s in the West.

He wrote various controversial pamphlets, chiefly in vindication of his conduct as to the above remonstrance; and a history of it, under the title of “The History, &c. df the Loyal Formulary, or Irish Remonstrance, in 1661,” 1674, folio. He wrote also “A Prospect of the State of Ireland from the year of the world 1756 to the year of Christ 1652,” Lond. 1682, 8vo; but this he brought down no farther than 1172, his style and tedious digressions not being relished.

, an English critic and poet, was the son of Joseph Walsh of Abberley in Worcestershire, esq. and born about 1663, for the precise time does not appear. According to Pope, his birth happened in 1659; but Wood places it four years later. He became a gentleman-commoner of Wadham-college in Oxford in 1678, but left the university without a degree, and pursued his studies in London and at home. That he studied, in whatever place, is apparent from the effect; for he became, in Dryden’s opinion, “the best critic in the nation.” He was not, however, merely a critic or a scholar. He was likewise a man of fashion, and, as Dennis remarks, ostentatiously splendid in his dress. He was likewise a member of parliament and a courtier, knight of the shire for his native county in several parliaments, in another the re* presentative of Richmond in Yorkshire, and gentleman of the horse to queen Anne under the duke of Somerset. Some of his verses shew him to have been a zealous friend to the Revolution; but his political ardour did not abate his reverence or kindness for Dryden, to whom, Dr. Johnson says, he gave a Dissertation on Virgil’s Pastorals; but this was certainly written by Dr. Chetwood, as appears by one of Drydeu’s letters. In 1705 he began to correspond with Pope, in whom he discovered very early the power of poetry, and advised him to study correctness, which the poets of his time, he said, all neglected. Their letters are written upon the pastoral comedy of the Italians, and those pastorals which Pope was then preparing to publish. The kindnesses which are first experienced are seldom forgotten. Pope always retained a grateful memory of Walsh’s notice, and mentioned him in one of his latter pieces among those that had encouraged his juvenile studies.

In his “Essay on Criticism,” he had given him more splendid praise, and, in the opinion of his learned commentator, sacrificed a little of his judgment to his gratitude. He died in 1708, aged forty-six years. He is known more by his familiarity with greater men than by anything done or written by himself. His works are not numerous, nor of great merit. In 1691, he published, with a preface written by his friend and advocate Dryden, “A Diaipgue concerning Women, being a Defence of the Sex,” in 8vo and, the year after, “Letters and Poems, amorous and gallant,” published in what is called “Dryden’s Miscellany.” These were republished among the “Works of the Minor Poets,” printed in 1749, with other performanceSj consisting chiefly of elegies, epitaphs, odes, and songs, in which he discovers more elegance than vigour, and seldom rises higher than to be pretty.

His negociations and dispatches during the above embassy were collected by sir Dudley Digges, and published in 1655, folio, with this title, “The complete Ambassador; or, two Treatises of the intended Marriage of queen Elizabeth, of glorious memory; comprised in Letters of Negotiation of sir Francis Walsingham, her resident in France. Together with the answers of the lord Burleigh, the earl of Leicester, sir Thomas Smith, and others. Wherein, as in a clear Mirrour, may be seen the faces of the two Courts of England and France, as they then stood; with many remarkable passages of State, not at all mentioned in any history." These papers display WaUingham’s acuteness, discernment, and fitness for the trust that was reposed in him.

Walsingham had then an audience of the Scotch king, and after several other private conferences with him, set out again for England. But during his stay in Scotland he declined having any intercourse with the earl of Arran, < c for be esteemed the said earl,“says Melvit,” a scorner of religion, a sower of discord, and a despise* of true and honest men; and therefore he refused to speak with him, or enter into acquaintance; for he was of a contrary nature, religious, true, and a lover of all honest men.“Arran, in resentment, did every thing he could to affront Walsingham; but the latter, on his, return, made a very advantageous representation to Elizabeth, of the character and abilities of king James. Hume observes, that Elizabeth’s chief purpose in employing Walsingbam on an embassy” where so little business was to be transacted, was Ab Jearn, from a man of so much penetration and discernment, the real character of James. This young prince possessed very good parts, though not accompanied with that vigour and industry which his station required; and as he excelled in general discourse and conversation, Walsingham entertained a higher idea of his talents than he was afterwards found, when real business was transacted, to have fully merited.“Lloyd, who imputes universal genius to Walsingham, says, that he could ^ as well fit the humour of king James with passages out of Xenophon, Thucydides, Plutarch, or Tacitus, as he could that of Henry king of France with Rabelais’s conceits, or the Hollander with mechanic discourses.”

Sir Francis Walsingham was not only assiduous in the discharge of those important trusts which were immediately committed to him, or were connected with his office a’s secretary of statej but he was also zealous to promote every public-spirited design, especially what regarded trade and navigation, which the English were at this time extending with great success to all parts of the world. Among others he patronized the celebrated Hakluyt in his studies and discoveries, and also promoted sir Humphrey Gilbert’s voyage for the settling of Newfoundland, by procuring him a sum of money and two ships from the merchants of Bristol.

In 1586, that “the distance between the churches (of Rome and England) should be made wide enough,” Antony Wood informs us that a new divinity-lecture was founded at Oxford by sir Francis, <<a man of great abilities in the schools of policy, an extreme hater of the popes and church of Rome, and no less a favourer to those of the puritan party.“in the letters which sir Francis addressed to the chancellor of the university on this occasion, he ays, f. whereas it is found by good experience, that the learning in popery, and in superstition, whereof our Englishmen of late years trained in the seminaries beyond the sea o greatly glory, and so much hurt her majesty’s good subjects, when they come to this realm from thence, hath by no means grown and taken root so deeply in those seminaries as by certain public teachers in those seminaries that read and handle only common places of their false religion, which some call dictates, whereby the English Jesuits, and late made priests beyond sea, though in truth of small or no reading at all themselves, yet make a great shew of learning: I cannot but marvel, and much mislike, that, in our universities here at home, as great care is not had -for advancement of true religion of God here pro.­fessedy by some more lectures of divinity to be read, especially the handling the principal parts of our religion, whereby no doubt but that the ministry of the churches of this realm, which should spring from the university, would be not only better to deliver all true doctrine, but also to confute upon every occasion the contrary,” &c. The first lecturer nominated by sir Francis, was the celebrated Dr. John llainolds (See Rainolds, p. 494), but the lecture was only of the temporary kind, and is supposed to have ceased on the founder’s death. J Mcifmi

Sir Francis Walsingham was a puritan in his religious principles, and at first a favourer of them in some matters of discipline. To them he offered, in 1583, in the queen’s name, that provided they would conform in other points, the three ceremonies of kneeling at the communion, wearing the surplice, and the cross in baptism, should be expunged out of the Common-prayer. But they replying to these concessions in the language of Moses, that “they would not leave so much as a hoof behind,” meaning, that they would have the church-liturgy wholly laid aside, and not be obliged to the performance of any office in it; so unexpected an answer lost them in a great measure Walsingham’s affection. His general character has been thus summed up, from various authorities: “He was undoubtedly one of the most refined politicians, and most penetrating statesmen, that ever any age produced. He bad an admirable talent both in discovering and managing the secret recesses of human nature: he had his spies in most courts of Christendom, and allowed them a liberal maintenance; for his grand maxim was, that” knowledge is never too dear.“He spent his whole time and faculties in the service of the queen and her kingdoms; on which account her majesty was heard to say that” in diligence and sagacity he exceeded her expectation.“He is thought (but this, we trust, is unfounded) to have had a principal hand in laying the foundation of the wars in France and Flanders; and is said, upon his return from his embassy in France, when the queen expressed her apprehension of the Spanish designs against that kingdom, to have answered*” Madam, be content, and fear not. The Spaniard hath a great appetite, and an excellent digestion. But I have fitted him with a bone for these twenty years, that your majesty shall have no cause to dread him, provided, that if the fire chance to slack which I have kindled, you will be ruled by me, and cast in some of your fuel, which will revive the “flame.” He would cherish a plot some years together, admitting the conspirators to his own, and even the queen’s presence, very familiarly; but took care to have them carefully watched. His spies constantly attended on particular men for three years together; and lest they should not keep the secret, he dispatched -them into foreign parts, taking in new ones in their room. His training of Parry, who designed the murder of the queen; the admitting of him, under the pretence of discovering the plot, to her majesty’s presence; and then letting him go where he would, only on the security of a centinel set over him, was an instance of reach and hazard beyond common apprehension. The queen of Scots’ letters were all carried to him by her own servant, whom she trusted, and were decyphered for him by one Philips, and sealed up again by one Gregory; so that neither that queen, nor any of her correspondents ever perceived either the seals defaced, or letters delayed. Video et taceo, was his saying, before it was his mistress’s motto. He served himself of the court factions as the queen did, neither advancing the one, nor depressing the other. He was familiar with Cecil, allied to Leicester^ and an oracle to Hadcliffe earl of Sussex. His conversation was insinuating, and yet reserved. He saw every man, and none saw him. “His spirit,” says Lloyd, “was as public as his parts; yet as debonnaire as he was prudent, and as obliging to the softer but predominant parts of the world, as he was serviceable to the more severe; and no less dextrous to work on humours than to convince reason* He would say, he must observe the joints and flexures of affairs; and so could do more with a story, than others could with an harangue. He always surprized business, and preferred motions in the heat of other diversions; and if he must debate it, he would hear all, and with the advantage of foregoing speeches, that either cautioned or confirmed his resolutions, he carried all before him in conclusion, without reply. To him men’s faces spake as much as their tongues, and their countenances were in* dexes of their hearts. He would so beset men with questions, and draw them on, that they discovered themselves whether they answered or were silent. He maintained fifty-three agents and eighteen spies in foreign courts; and for two pistoles an order had all the private papers in Europe. Few letters escaped his hands; and he could read their contents without touching the seals. Religion was the interest of his country, in his judgment, and of his soul; therefore he maintained it as sincerely as he lived it. It had his head, his purse, and his heart. He laid the great foundation of the protestant constitution as to its policy, and the main plot against the popish as to its ruin.”

In “Cottoni Posthuma, or divers and choice pieces of sir Robert Cotton,” &c. is a short article entitled “Sir Francis Walsingham’s anatomising- of Honesty, Ambition, and Fortitude” but the book ascribed to him, entitled “Arcana Aulica; or, Walsyngham’s Manual, or prudential Maxims,” which has been printed several times, is of more doubtful authority.

, a learned English bishop, and editor of the celebrated Polyglott Bible* was born at Cleaveland in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1600. He was admitted sizer of Magdalen college, Cambridge, under Mr. John Gooch, but in 1616 removed to Peter-House college, where he took a master of arts degree in 1623. About that time, or before, he taught a school, and served as a curate in Suffolk, whence he removed to London, and lived for a little time as assistant or curate to Mr. Stock, rector of Allhallows in Bread-street. After the death of Mr. Stock, he became rector of St. Martin’s Orgar in London, and of Sandori in Essex; to the latter of which he was admitted in January 1635, and the same day to St. Giles’s-in-theFields, which he quitted soon after. The way to preferment lay pretty open then to a man of his qualities; for, he' had not only uncommon learning, which was more regarded then than it had been of late years, but he was also exceedingly zealous for the church and king. In 1639, he commenced doctor of divinity; at which time he was prebendary of St. Paul’s and chaplain to the king. He possessed also another branch of knowledge, which made him very acceptable to the clergy: he was well versed in the laws of the land, especially those which relate to the patrimony and liberties of the church. During the controversy between the clergy and inhabitants of the city of London, about the tithes of rent, he was very industrious and active in behalf of the former; and upon that occasion made so exact and learned a collection of customs, prescriptions, Jaws, orders, proclamations, and compositions, for many hundred years together, relating to that matter, (an abstract of which was after wards published,) that the judge declared, “there could be no dealing with the London ministers if Mr. Walton pleaded for them.” Such qualities, however, could only render him peculiarly obnoxious to the republican party, and accordingly, when they had assumed the iuperiority, he was summoned by the House of Commons as a delinquent; was sequestered from his living of St. Martin’s Orgar, plundered, and forced to fly; but whether be went to Oxford directly, or to his other living of Sandon in Essex, does not appear. It is, however, certain that he was most cruelly treated at that living likewise, being grievously harassed there and once, when he was sought for by a party of horse, was forced to shelter himself in a broom-field. The manner of his being sequestered from this living is a curious specimen of the principles of those who were to restore the golden age of political justice. Sir Henry Mild may and Mr. Ashe, members of parliament, first themselves drew up articles against him, though no way concerned in the parish, and then sent them to Sandon to be witnessed and subscribed. Thus dispossessed of botli his livings, he betook himself for refuge to Oxford, as according to Lloyd, he would otherwise have been murdered,

On August 12, 1645, he was incorporated in the university of Oxford. Here it was that he formed the noble scheme of publishing the Polyglott Bible; and, upon the decline of the king’s cause, he retired to the house of Dr. William Fuller, his father-in-law, in London, where, though frequently disturbed by the prevailing powers, he lived to complete it. The “Biblia Polyglotta” was published at London in 1657, in 6 vols. folio; wherein the sacred text was, by his singular care and oversight, printed, not only in the vulgar Latin, but also in the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, Arabic, Æ'thiopic, Persic, and Greek, languages each having its peculiar Latin translation joined therewith, and an apparatus fitted to each for the better understanding of those tongues. In this great work, so far as related to the correcting of it at the press, and the collating of copies, he had the assistance of several learned persons; the chief of whom was Mr. Edmund Castell, afterwards professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Among his other assistants were Mr. Samuel Clarke of Mertou college, and Mr. Thomas Hyde of Queen’s college, Oxford: he had also some help from Mr. Whelock, Mr. Thorndike, Mr. Edward Pocock, Mr. Thomas Greaves, &c. Towards printing the work, he had contributions of mqney from many noble persons and gentlemen, which were put intothe hands of sir William Humble, treasurer for the said work. The Prolegomena and Appendix to it were attacked in 1659, by Dr. John Owen, in “Considerations,” &c. who was answered the same year by Dr. Walton, in a piece under the title of “The Considerator considered: or, a brief View of certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena, and Appendix. Wherein, among other things, the certainty, integrity, and the divine authority, of the original text is defended against the consequences of Atheists, Papists, Ariti-Scripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations; the Biblia Polyglotta and translations therein exhibited, with the various readings, prolegomena, and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies; and the questions about the punctuation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character, briefly handJed,” 8vo. These prolegomena, which have always beeti admired, and afford indeed the principal monument of his learning, consist of sixteen parts: 1. Of the nature, origin, division, number, changes, and use of languages. 2. Of letters, or characters, their wonderful use, origin and first invention, and their diversity in the chief languages. 3. Of the Hebrew tongue, its antiquity, preservation, change, excellency, and use, ancient characters, vowel points, and accents. 4. Of the principal editions of the Bible. 5. Of the translations of the Bible. 6. Of the various readings in the Holy Scripture. 7. Of the integrity and authority of the original texts. 8. Of the Masora, Keri, and Ketib, various readings of the Eastern and Western Jews, Ben Ascher, and Ben Napthali, and of the Cabala. 9. Of the Septuagint, and other Greek translations. 10. Of the Latin Vulgate. 11. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the versions of the same. 12. Of the Chaldee language, and versions.13. Of the Syriac tongue, and versions. 14. Of the Arabic language and versions. 15. Of the Ethiopia tongue and versions; and, 16. Of the Persian language and versions. As these instructive prolegomena were highly valued by scholars on the continent, they were reprinted at Zurich in 1573, fol. by Heidegger, with Drusius’s collection of Hebrew proverbs; and about 1777 Dr. Dathe printed an edition at Leipsic in 8vo, with a preface containing many judicious and learned remarks on several of Dr. Walton’s opinions.

Nine languages, as we have observed, are used in this Polyglott, yet there is no one book in the whole Bible printed in so many. In the New Testament, the four evangelists are in six languages; the other books only in five; tnd those of Judith and the Maccabees only in three. The Septuagint version is printed from the edition at Rome in 1537. The Latin is the Vulgate of Clement VILI. But for these and many other particulars of the history and progress of this work, so great an honour to the English press, we must refer to Dr. Clark’s Bibliographical Dictionary, and that invaluable fund of information, Mr. Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes. The alterations in the preface to the Polyglott, in which the compliments to Cromwell are omitted or altered so as to suit Charles II. have been long the topic of curious discussion, which has had the effect to give a factitious value to the copies that happen to have the preface unaltered. This was a few years ago in some measure destroyed by Mr. Lunn, the bookseller, who printed a fac simile of the republican preface, as it has been called, which may be added by the possessors of the royal copies.

, a gallant naval officer, memorable for the brevity of his dispatches, appears to have been of obscure origin, nor is any thing known of his history until his appointment, in 1692, to be first lieutenant of the Devonshire, an eighty- gun ship. From this time we have only accounts of his removals from one ship to another, without any opportunity of particularly displaying his courage, until 1718, when he commanded the Canterbury of sixty guns, and was sent under the command of sir George Byng to the Mediterranean. On the 1 Ith of August, the British fleet, then off Sicily, which had during the preceding day^ and night, been in pursuit of the Spaniards, having come up so close to them as to render an engagement unavoidable, the marquis de Mari, one of their rear admirals, separated from the body of the fleet, and ran in for the Sicilian shore, with six ships of war, and all the gallies, store-ships, bomb-ketcbes, and fire-ships. Captain Walton was immediately detached after them with six ships of the line, by the commanderiri-chief, who himself pursued the remainder, and soon Jbegan the attack, the issue of which was, that he captured four Spanish ships of war, one of them mounting sixty guns, commanded by rear admiral Mari himself, one of fifty-four, one of forty, and one of twenty-four guns, with a bomb-vessel and a ship laden with arms; and burnt one ship of war mounting fifty-four guns, two of forty, and one of thirty, a fire-ship, and a bomb-ketch. It may admit of some dispute, whether this brave officer derived a greater degree of popular favour from the gallantry of his conduct, or the very singular account he rendered of it to his commander-in-chief, and to the world. The whole of his dispatches were comprised in the following laconic note "Sir, Canterbury, off Syracuse, Aug. 16, 1718.

, a celebrated writer on the art of angling, and the author of some valuable lives, was born at Stafford in August 1593. His first settlement in London, as a shopkeeper, was in the Royal Burse in Cornhill, built by sir T. Gresharn, and finished in 1567. In this situation he could scarcely be said to“have had elbow-room; for, the shops over the Burse were but seven feet and a half long, and five wide; yet he carried on his trade till some time before 1624, when” he dwelt on the north side of Fleet- street, in a house two doors west of the end of Chancery-lane, and abutting on a messuage known by the sign of the Harrow;“by which sign the old timber -house at the south-west corner of Chancery-lane, in Fleet-street, till within these few years, was known. A citizen of this age would almost as much disdain to admit of a tenant for half his shop, as a knight would to ride double; though the brethren of one of the most ancient orders of the world were so little above this practice, that their common seal was the device of two riding one horse. He married probably about 1632; for in that year he lived in a house in Chancery-lane, a few doors higher up on the left hand than the former, and described by the occupation of a sempster or milliner. The former of these might be his own proper trade; and the latter, as being a feminine occupation, might be carried on by his wife: she, it appears, was Anne, the daughter of Mr, Thomas Ken, of Furnival’s-inn, and sister of Thomas, afterwards Dr. Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells. About 1643 he left London, and, with a fortune very far short of what would now be called a eompetencv, seems to have retired altogether from business. While he continued in London, his favourite recreation was angling, in which he was the greatest proficient of his time; and, indeed, so great were his skill and experience in that art, that there is scarcely any writer on the subject since his time who has not made the rules and practice of Walton his very foundation. It is, therefore, with the greatest propriety that Langbaine calls him” the common father of all anglers." The river that he seems mostly to have frequented for this purpose was the Lea, which has it source above Ware in Hertfordshire, and falls into the Thames a little below Blackwall; unless we will suppose that the vicinity of the New River to the place of his habitation might sometimes tempt him out with his friends, honest Nat. and R. Roe, whose loss he so pathetically mentions, to spend an afternoon there. In 1662 he was by death deprived of the solace and comfort of a good wife, as appears by a monumental inscription in the cathedral church of Worcester.

Living, while in London, in the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, of which Dr. John Donne, dean of St. Paul’s, was vicar, he became of course a frequent hearer of that excellent preacher, and at length, as he himself expresses it, his convert. Upon his decease, in 1631, sir H. Wotton requested Walton to collect materials for a life of the doctor, which sir Henry had undertaken to write; but, sir Henry dying before he had completed the life, Walton undertook it himself; and in 1640 finished and published it, with a collection of the doctor’s sermons, in folio. Sir H. Wotton dying in 1639, Walton was importuned by King to undertake the writing of his life also and it was finished about 1644. The precepts of angling, that is, the rules and directions for taking fish with a hook and line, till Walton’s time, having hardly ever been reduced to writing, were propagated from age to age chiefly by tradition; but Walton, whose benevolent and communicative temper appears in almost every line of his writings, unwilling to conceal from the world those assistances which his long practice and experience enabled him, perhaps the best of any man of his time, to give, in 1653 published in a very elegant manner his K Complete Angler, or Contemplative Man’s Recreation,“in small 12mo, adorned with exquisite cuts of most of the fish mentioned in it. The artist who engraved them has been so modest as to conceal his name; but there is great reason to suppose they are the work of Lombart, who is mentioned in the” Sculptura“of Mr. Evelyn; and also that the plates were of steel.” The Complete Angler“came into the world attended with en. comiastic verses by several writers of that day. What reception in general the book met with may be naturally inferred from the dates of the subsequent editions; the second came abroad in 1655; the third in 1664; the fourth in 1668, and the fifth and last in 1676, Sir John Hawkins bad traced the several variations which the author from time to time made in these suhsequent editions, as well by adding new facts and discoveries as by enlarging on the more entertaining parts of the dialogue. The third and fourth editions of his book have several entire new chapters; and the fifth, the last of the editions published in his life-time, contains no less than eight chapters more than the first, and twenty pages more than the fourth. Not having the advantage of a learned education, it may seem unaccountable that Walton so frequently cites authors that have written only in Latin, as Gesner, Cardan, Aldrovandus, Rondeletius, and even Albertus Magnus; but it may be observed, that the voluminous history of animals, of which the first of these was author, is in effect translated into English by Mr. Edward Topsel, a learned divine, chaplain, as it seems, in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, to Dr. Neile, dean of Westminster: the translation was published in 1658, and, containing in it numberless particulars concerning frogs, serpents, caterpillars, and other animals, though not of fish, extracted from the other writers above-named, and others, with their names to the respective facts, it furnished Walton with a great variety of intelligence, of which in the later editions of his book he has carefully availed himself: it was therefore through the medium of this translation alone that he was enabled to cite the other authors mentioned above; vouching the authority of the original writers, as he elsewhere does sir Francis Bacon, whenever occasion occurs to mention his natural history, or any other of his works. Pliny was translated to his hand by Dr. Philemon Holland; as were also Janus Dubravius” de Piscinis & Piscium natura,“and Lebault’s” Maison Rustique,“so often referred to by him in the course of his work. Nor did the reputation of” The Complete Angler“subsist only in the opinions of those for whose use it was more peculiarly calculated; but even the learned, either from the known character of the author, or those internal evidences of judgment and veracity contained in it, considered it as a work of merit, and for various purposes referred to its authority. Dr. Thomas Fuller, in his” Worthies,“whenever he has occasion to speak of fish, uses his very words. Dr. Plot, in his” History ofMaffordshire,“has, on the authority of our author, related two of the instances of the voracity of the pike, and confirmed them by two other signal ones, that had then lately fallen out in that county. These are testimonies in favour of Walton’s authority in matters respecting fish and fishing; and it will hardly be thought a diminution of that of Fuller to say, that he was acquainted with, and a friend of, the person whom he thus implicitly commends. About two years after the restoration, Walton wrote the life of Mr. Richard Hooker, author of the” Ecclesiastical Polity:“he was enjoined to undertake this work by his friend Dr. Gilbert Sheldon, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, by the way, was an angler. Bishop King, in a letter to the author, says of this life,” I have often seen Mr. Hooker with my father, who was afterwards bishop of London, from whom, and others at that time, I have heard of the most material passages which you relate in the history of his life.“Sir William Dugdale, speaking of the three posthumous books of the” Ecclesiastical Polity,“refers the reader” to that seasonable historical discourse lately compiled and published, with great judgment- and integrity, by that much-deserving person Mr. Isaac Walton."

In 1670, these lives were collected and published in octavo, with a dedication to the above bishop of Winchester, and a preface, containing the motives for writing them; this preface is followed by a copy of verses, by his intiniate friend and adopted son, Charles Cotton, of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. the author of the second part of the Complete Angler.“The” Complete Angler“having, in the space of twenty. three years, gone through four editions, Walton, in 1676, and in the eighty-third year of his age, was preparing a fifth, with additions, for the press; when Cotton wrote a second part of that work. Cotton submitted the manuscript to Walton’s perusal, who returned it with his approbation, and a few marginal strictures; and in that year they were published together. Cottons book had the title of” The Complete Angler; being instructions how to angle for a trout or grayling, in a clear stream, Part II." and it has ever since been received as a second part of Walton’s book. In the title-page is a cipher, composed of the initial letters of both their names; which cipher, Cotton tells us, he had caused to be cut in stone, and set up over a fishing- house that he had erected near his dwelling, on the bank of the little river Dove, which divides the counties of Stafford and Derby.

had been admitted into the most am- “Barker’s Delight, or the Art of Abassadors kitchens that had come to giiug.” And, for that singular veia,of

he spent a great deal of time, and, it judge, or vhe state and degree of a

, a literary antiquary of great learning and accuracy, was the son of the rev. Nathanael Wanley, some time vicar of Trinity-church in Coventry. This Nathanael Wanley was born at Leicester in 1633, and died in 1680. Besides the vicarage of Trinity-church, it is probable that he had another in Leicestershire, from the following title-page, “Vox Dei, or the great duty of self reflection upon a man’s own wayes, by N. Wanley, M. A. and minister of the gospel at Beeby in Leicestershire,” London, 1658. He was of Trinity-college, Oxford, B. A. 1653, M. A. 1657, but is not mentioned by Wood. The work which now preserves his name is his “Wonders of the Little World,” 1678, fol. a work to be classed with Clark’s “Examples,” 2 vols. fol. or Turner’s “Remarkable Providences,” containing a vast assemblage of remarkable anecdotes, &c. many of which keep credulity on the stretch. As these were collected by Mr. Wanley from a number of old books, little known, or read, it is not improbable that such researches imparted to his son that taste for bibliographical studies which occupied his whole life. At least it is certain that Humphrey, (who was born at Coventry, March 21, 1671-2, and was bred first a limner, and afterwards some other trade), employed all his leisure time, at a very early period, in reading old books and old Mss. and copying the various hands, by which he acquired an uncommon faculty in verifying dates. Dr. Lloyd, then bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, sent him to Edmund-hall, Oxford, of which Dr. Mill was then principal, whom he greatly assisted in his collations of the New Testament. Hearne says, that during his stay in this hall, he attended but one lecture, which was in logic, which he swore he could not comprehend. Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, hearing of Wanley’s attention to matters of antiquity, induced him to remove to his own college, which he soon did, residing at the master’s lodgings, who, says Hearne, “employed him in writing trivial things, so that he got no true learning.” He certainly acquired the learned languages, however, although it does not appear that he attended much to the usual course of academic studies, or was ambitious of academic honours, as his name does not appear in the list of graduates. By Dr. Charlett’s means he was appointed an under-keeper of the Bodleian library, where he assisted in drawing up the indexes to the catalogue of Mss. the Latin preface to which he also wrote. Upon leaving Oxford, he removed to London, and became secretary to the society for propagating Christian knowledge; and at Dr. Hickes’s request, travelled ovor the kingdom, in search of Anglo-Saxon Mss. a catalogue of which he drew up in English, which was afterwards translated into Latin by the care of Mr. Thwaites, and printed in the “Thesaurus Ling. Vet. Septen.” Oxon. 1705, fol. He was soon after employed in arranging the valuable collections of Robert earl of Oxford, with the appointment of librarian to his lordship. In this employment he gave such particular satisfaction, that he was allowed a handsome pension by lord Harley, the earl’s eldest son and successor in the title, who retained him as librarian till his death. In Mr. Wanley’s Harleian Journal, preserved among the Lansdowne Mss. in the British Museum, are several remarkable entries, as will appear by the specimens transcribed below .

Wansleb left Alexandria in the beginning of 1-665, and arrived at Leghorn; but durst not return to his own country, because duke Ernest was greatly displeased with his conduct, in neglecting the chief object of his embassy, and employing in an improper manner the sums he had received. He went therefore to Rome, where he abjured Lutheranism, and entered into the order of St. Dominic in 1666. In 1670, he was sent to Paris, where being introduced to Colbert, he was commissioned by that minister to return to the East, and to purchase manuscripts and medals for the king’s library. He arrived at Cairo in 1672, continued in Egypt near two years, and in that time sent to France 334 manuscripts, Arabic, Turkish, and Persic. The Mahometans growing jealous of this commerce which Wansleb carried on, he removed from Egypt to Constantinople, and had promised to go from that place in search of manuscripts to mount Athos; but excused himself on pretence that Leo Allatius had taken away the best for the use of the Vatican. He was preparing to set out for Ethiopia, when he was recalled to France by Colbert; who, it seems, had just reason to be displeased with his conduct, as Ernest had been before him. He arrived at Paris in April 1676, and might have been advanced not only to the royal professorship of Oriental languages, but even to a bishopric, if his irregular life and manners had not stood in his way. He lived neglected for two or three years, and then died in June 1679.

, a heraldic writer and antiquary, was the son of Benjamin Warburton, of Bury in Lancashire, by Mary, his wife, eldest daughter, and at length heiress of Michael Buxton, of Buxton, in Derbyshire. He was born Feb. 28, 1681-2. According to Mr. Grose, he received no education, and was originally an exciseman; Mr. Grose adds that he was ignorant not only of the Latin, but of his native language, and so far from understanding mathematics, he did not even understand guaging, which, “like navigation, as practised by our ordinary seamen, consists only in multiplying and dividing certain numbers, or writing by an instrument, the rationale of both which they are totally ignorant of.” It appears from Mr. Brooke Somerset’s notes, that Toms, who owed his rise to him, told that gentleman that he had great natural abilities, but no education. Grose observes, that “his life was one continued scene of squabbles and disputes with his brethren, by whom he was despised and detested.” Toms remarks, that “though his conduct was faulty, yet he was extremely illused, especially by the younger Anstis, who was of a violent tyrannical disposition,” and there seems reason to suspect that his quarrelsome disposition, rather than his incapacity, has occasioned many of the discreditable reports which have accompanied his name. As a collector of antiquities he appears to have been indefatigable.

The first appearance he made in public was in 1716, when he published his map of Northumberland. In 1719 he was elected a fellow both of the Royal and Antiquary societies, and could not then, we presume, have been thought the ignoramus which he has since been represented. He remained a member of the Society of Antiquaries to the last, but was ejected from the Royal in June 1757, in consequence of not having made his annual payments for a great number of years. In June 1720 he was created Somerset herald, and appears to have been constantly at variance with the superiors of the college. In 1722-3 he published in four closely printed 4to pages, “A List of the Nobility and Gentry of the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and Hertford, who have subscribed, and ordered their coats of arms to be inscribed on a new map of those counties, which is now making by John Warburton, esq.” In August 1728, he gave notice, that “he keeps a register of lands, houses, &c. which are to be bought, sold, or mortgaged, in England, Scotland, or Wales, and if required, directs surveys thereof to be made: also solicits grants of arms, and performs all other matters relating to the office of a herald. For which purpose daily attendance is given at his chambers in the Heralds’ office, near Doctors Commons, London. He answers letters post-paid, and advertises, if required.” This quackery did not probahly raise him very high in the opinion of his brethren. In 1749, he published a map of Middlesex on two sheets of imperial atlas, with the arms of the nobility and gentry on the borders. But the earl marshal, supposing these to be fictitious, by his warrant commanded him not to take in any subscriptions for arms, nor advertise or dispose of any maps, till the right of such person respectively to such arms were first proved, to the satisfaction of one of the kings of arms. In his book of “London and Middlesex illustrated,” after observing the above injunction of the earl marshal, he subjoins, “which person’s (Anstis) partiality being well known to this author, he thought it best to have another arbitrator joined with him, and therefore made choice of the impartial public, rather than submit his performance wholly to the determination of a person so notoriously remarkable for knowing nothing at all of the matter. 7 ' After censuring the notion, that trade and gentility are incompatible, as a doctrine fitted only for a despotic government, and judiciously remarking the moral impossibility there would soon be of proving descents and arms for want of visitations, he returns to attack the heads of the college, by saying, that such proofs are obstructed by the exorbitant and unjustifiable fees of three heralds, called kings at arms, who receive each 30l. for every new grant. In his” London and Middlesex illustrated," he gave the names, residences, genealogy, and coat- armour of the nobility, principal merchants, and other eminent families, emblazoned in their proper colours, with references to authorities.

In 1753, Mr. Warburton published “Vallum Romanum, or the History and Antiquities of the Roman Wall, commonly called the Picts Wall, in Cumberland and Northumberland,” with plates and maps, 4to. These, with some prints, are the whole of his publications, but he had an amazing collection of Mss. books, prints, &c. relating to the history and antiquities of England, which were dispersed by auction after his death. He had also, but unfortunately lost, a large collection of old dramas, of which a catalogue, with remarks, appears in the Gentleman’s Magazine for September 1815. Mr. Warburton died at his apartments in the college of arms, May 11, 1759, aged seventy -eight, and was buried on the 17th in the south aisle of St. Bennet’s church, Paul’s Wharf. A peculiar circumstance attended his funeral. Having a great abhorrence to the idea of worms crawling upon him when dead, he ordered that his body should be inclosed in two coffins, one of lead, the other of oak: the first he directed should be filled with green broom, hather, or ling. In compliance with his desire, a quantity, brought from Epping forest, was stuffed extremely close round his body. This fermenting, burst the coffin, and retarded the funeral, until part of it was taken out.

, an English prelate of great abilities and eminence, was born at Newark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, Dec. 24, 1698. His father was George Warburton, an attorney and town-clerk of the place in which this his eldest son received his birth and education. His mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of William Hobman, an alderman of the same town; and his parents were married about 1696. The family of Dr. Warburton came originally from the county of Chester, where his great-grandfather resided. His grandfather, William Warburton, a royalist during the rebellion, was the first that settled at Newark, where he practised the law, and was coroner of the county of Nottingham. George Warburton, the father, died about 1706, leaving his widow and five children, two sons and three daughters, of which the second son, George, died young; but, of the daughters, one- survived her brother. The bishop received the early part of his education under Mr. Twells, whose son afterwards married his sister Elizabeth; but he was principally trained under Mr. Wright, then master of Okehamschool in Rutlandshire, and afterwards vicar of Campden in Gloucestershire. Here he continued till the beginning of 1714, when his cousin Mr. William Warburton being made head -master of Newark-school, he returned to his native place, and was for a short time under the care of that learned gentleman. During his stay at school, he did not distinguish himself by any extraordinary efforts of genius or application, yet is supposed to have acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin. His original designation was to the same profession as that of his father and grandfather; and he was accordingly placed clerk to Mr. Kirke, an attorney at East Markham in Nottinghamshire, with whom he continued till April 1719, when he was qualified to engage in business upon his own account. He was then admitted to one of the courts at Westminster, and for some years continued the employment of an attorney and solicitor at the place of his birth. The success he met with as a man of business was probably not great. It was certainly insufficient to induce him to devote the rest of his life to it: and it is probable, that his want of encouragement might tempt him to turn his thoughts towards a profession in which his literary acquisitions would be more valuable, and in which he might more easily pursue the bent of his inclination. He appears to have brought from school more learning than was requisite for a practising lawyer. This might rather impede than forward his progress; as it has been generally observed, that an attention to literary concerns, and the bustle of an attorney’s office, with only a moderate share of business, are wholly incompatible. It is therefore no wonder that he preferred retirement to noise, and relinquished what advantages he might expect from continuing to follow the law. It has been suggested by an ingenious writer, that he was for some time usher to a school, but this probably was founded on his giving some assistance to his relation at Newark, who in his turn assisted him in those private studies to which he was now attached; and his love of letters continually growing stronger, the seriousness of his temper, and purity of his morals, concurring, determined him to quit his profession for the church. In 1723 he received deacon’s orders from archbishop Dawes and his first printed work then appeared, consisting of translations from Cæsar, Pliny, Claudian, and others, under the title of “Miscellaneous Translations in Prose and Verse, from Roman Poets, Orators, and Historians,” 12mo. It is dedicated to hig early patron, sir Robert Sutton, who, in 1726, when Mr. Warburton had received priest’s orders from bishop Gibson, employed his interest to procure him the small vicarage of Gryesly in Nottinghamshire. About Christmas, 1726, he came to London, and, while there, was introduced to Theobald, Concanen, and other of Mr. Pope’s enemies, the novelty of whose conversation had at this time many charms for him, and he entered too eagerly into their cabals and prejudices. It was at this time that he wrote a letter to Concanen, dated Jan. 2, 1726, very disrespectful to Pope, which, by accident, falling into the hands of the late Dr. Akenside, was produced to most of that gentleman’s friends, and became the subject of much speculation. About this time he also communicated to Theobald some notes on Shakspeare, which afterwards appeared in that critic’s edition of our great dramatic poet. In 1727, his second work, entitled “A Critical and Philosophical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles, as related by Historians,” &c. was published in 12mo, and was also dedicated to sir Robert Sutton in a prolix article of twenty pages. In 1727 he published a treatise, under the title of “The Legal Judicature in Chancery stated,” which he undertook at the particular request of Samuel Burroughs, esq. afterwards a master in Chancery, who put the materials into his hands, and spent some time in the country with him during the compilation of the work. On April 25, 1728, by the interest of sir Robert Sutton, he had the honour to be in the king’s list of masters of arts, created at Cambridge on his majesty’s visit to that university. In June, the same year, he was presented by sir Robert Sutton to the rectory of Burnt or Brand Broughton, in the diocese of Lincoln, and neighbourhood of Newark, where he fixed himself accompanied by his mother and sisters, to whom he was ever a most affectionate relative. Here he spent a considerable part of the prime of life in a studious retirement, devoted entirely to letters, and there planned, and in part executed, some of his most important works. They, says his biographer, who are unacquainted with the enthusiasm which true genius inspires, will hardly conceive the possibility of that intense application, with which Mr. Warburton pursued his studies in this retirement. Impatient of any interruptions, he spent the whole of his time that could be spared from the duties of his parish, in reading and writing. His constitution was strong, and his temperance extreme; so that he needed no exercise but that of walking; and a change of reading, or study, was his only amusement.

Several years elapsed after obtaining this preferment, before Mr. Warburton appeared again in the world as a writer. In 1736 he exhibited a plan of a new edition of Velleius Paierculus, which he printed in the “Bibliotheque Britannique, ou Histoire des Ouvrages des Savans de la Grande Bretagne, pour les mois’ Juillet, Aout, & Sept. 1736. A la Haye.” The design never was completed. Dr. Middleton, in a letter to him dated April 9, 1737, returns him thanks for his letters, as well as the Journal, which, says he, “came to my hands soon after the date of my last. I had before seen theforce of your critical genius very successfully employed o'n Shakspeare, but did not know you had ever tried it on the Latin authors. I am pleased with several of your emendations, and transcribed them into the margin of my editions; though not equally with them all. It is a laudable and liberal amusement, to try now and then in our reading the success of a conjecture but, in the present state of the generality of the old writers, it can hardly be thought a study fit to employ a life upon, at least not worthy, I am sure, of your talents and industry, which, instead of trifling on words, seem calculated rather to correct the opinions and manners of the world.” These sentiments of his friend appear to have had their due weight; for, from that time, the intended edition was laid aside, and never afterwards resumed. It was in this year, 1736, that he may be said to have emerged from the obscurity of a private life into the notice of the world. The first publication, which rendered him afterwards famous, now appeared, under the title of “The Alliance between Church and State; or, the necessity and equity of an established religion and a test-law, demonstrated from the essence and end of civil society, upon the fundamental principles of the law of nature and nations.” In this acute and comprehensive work he discusses the obligation which lies upon every Christian community to tolerate the sentiments, and even the religious exercises of those who, in the incurable diversity of human opinion, dissent from her doctrines; and the duty which she owes to herself of prohibiting by some test the intrusion into civil offices of men who would otherwise endanger her existence by open hostility, or by secret treachery. His biographer, bishop Kurd, remarks, that this work was neither calculated to please the high church divines, nor the low but, he adds, that “although few at that time were convinced, all were struck by this essay of an original writer, and could not dissemble their admiration of the ability which appeared in the construction of it.” “There was, indeed,” continues Hurd, “a reach of thought in this system of church policy, which would prevent its making its way at once. It required time and attention, even in the most capable of its readers, to apprehend the force of the argumentation, and a more than common share of candour to adopt the conclusion, when they did. The author ha^i therefore reason to be satisfied with the reception of his theory, such as it was; and having thoroughly persuaded himself of its truth, as well as importance, he continued to enlarge and improve it in several subsequent editions; and in the last, by the opportunity which some elaborate attempts of his adversaries to overturn it, had afforded him, he exerted his whole strength upon it, and has left it in a condition to brave the utmost efforts of future criticism.” The late bishop Horsley, in his “Review of the case of the Protestant Dissenters” published in 1787, says that Warburton has in this work “shewn the general good policy of an establishment, and the necessity of a test for its security, upon principles which republicans themselves cannot easily deny. His work is one of the finest specimens that are to be found, perhaps, in any language, of scientific reasoning applied to a political subject.”

In the close of the first edition of the “Alliance” was announced the scheme of “The Divine Legation of Moses,” in which he had at this time made a considerable progress. The first volume of this work was published in January 1737-8, under the title of “The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated on the principles of a religious deist, from the omissions of the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments in the Jewish dispensation: in six books.” This was, as the author afterwards observed, fallen upon in so outrageous and brutal a manner as had been scarcely pardonable had it been “The Divine Legation of Mahomet.” It produced several answers, and so much abuse from the authors of “The Weekly Miscellany,” that in less than two months he was constrained to defend himself in “A Vindication of the Author of the Divine Legation of Moses, from the aspersions of the Country Clergyman’s Letter in the Weekly Miscellany of February 14, 1737-8,” 8vo. The principle of the “Divine Legation” was not less bold and original than the execution. That the doctrine of a future state of reward and punishment was omitted in the books of Moses, had been insolently urged by infidels against the truth of his mission, while divines were feebly occupied in seeking what was certainly not to be found there, otherwise than by inference and implication. But Warburton, with an intrepidity unheard of before, admitted the proposition in its fullest extent, and proceeded to demonstrate from that very omission, which in all instances of legislation, merely human, had been industriously avoided, that a system which could dispense with a doctrine, the very bond and cement of human society, must have come from God, and that the people to whom it was given must have been placed under his immediate superintendence. But it has been well observed, that although in the hands of such a champion, the warfare so conducted might be safe, the experiment was perilous, and the combatant a stranger: hence the timid were alarmed, the formal disconcerted; even the veteran leaders of his own party were scandalized by the irregular act of heroism; and he gave some cause of alarm, and even of dissatisfaction, to the friends of revelation. They foresaw, and deplored a consequence, which we believe has in some instances actually followed; namely, that this hardy and inventive champion has been either misconceived or misrepresented, as having chosen the only firm ground on which the divine authority of the Jewish legislator could be maintained; whereas that great truth should be understood to rest on a much wider and firmer basis: for could the hypothesis of Warburton be demonstrated to be inconclusive; had it even been discovered (which, from the universal knowledge of the history of nations at present is impossible) that a system of legislation, confessedly human, had actually been instituted and obeyed without any reference to a future state, still the divine origin and authority of the Jewish polity would stand pre-eminent and alone. Instituted in a barbarous age, and in the midst of universal idolatry, a system which taught the proper unity of the Godhead; denominated his person by a sublime and metaphysical name, evidently implying self-existence; which, in the midst of fanatical Bloodshed and lust, excluded from its ritual every thing libidinous or cruel, (for the permission to offer up beasts in sacrifice is no more objectionable than that of their slaughter for human food, and both are positively humane,) the refusal in the midst of a general intercommunity of gods, to admit the association of any of them with Jehovah: all these particulars, together with the purity and sanctity of the moral law, amount to a moral demonstration that the religion came from God.