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

, a famous English botanist, was contemporary with Plukenet; but the exact time of his birth is not known, nor is much intelligence concerning him at present to be obtained. His profession was that of an apothecary, to which he was apprenticed under Mr. Feltham, then apothecary to St. Bartholomew’s hospital. When he entered into business for himself, he settled in Aldersgatestreet, and there continued for the remainder of his life. He obtained considerable business, and after a time became apothecary to the Charter-house. After the Tradescants, he appears to have been the only person, except Mr. Courten, and sir Hans Sloane, who made any considerable collection in Natural History, previous to those of the present day. He engaged the captains and surgeons of ships to bring him home specimens, and enabled them to select proper objects by printed directions which he distributed among them. By these means his collection became so valuable, that, some time before his death, sir Hans Sloane offered him four thousand pounds for it. After his death, it was purchased by the same collector, and now makes part of the British Museum, where they are frequently resorted to for the sake of ascertaining obscure synonyms, his plates being so generally cited by Linnæus, and in many instances so insufficient to express the precise object intended. He was elected into the royal society, and becoming acquainted with Ray, assisted him in arranging the second volume of his History of Plants. He died April 20, 1718, and much honour was shewn to him at his funeral, by the attendance of sir Hans Sloane, and other eminent men, as pall-bearers, &c.

, one of the most celebrated characters in literary history, was born in Tuscany, in 1304. His father was a notary at Florence, who having taken part with the Ghibellin faction, shared their fate, and was banished, after which he took up 'his residence at Pisa. Here, his infant son discovering marks of genius, his father destined him for a learned profession; and having recommended him to study the law, he passed several years at Montpellier and Bologna, listening to the ablest professors in that science, but much more inclined to peruse the writings of the classical authors. He relates himself, that his father, incensed at what he thought a misapplication of time, seized at once every classical author of which, he was possessed, and threw them into the fire; but the frantic grief which Petrarch expressed at that sight, so mollified the old man, that he hastily rescued Cicero and Virgil from the flames, and gave them back to his son; remarking, that it was only the immoderate attachment to these authors which he blamed, and that the works of Cicero, if rightly used, were the best preparative to the study of the law. Petrarch acknowledges that the struggle between the strong propensity of his nature, and the will of a respected parent, was the cause of many unhappy hours: but his father’s death, which happened when he was about the age of twenty-two, put an end to the contest; and left him at liberty to pursue his inclinations.

The pope’s court being then at Avignon, Petrarch, who had while at college contracted a strict intimacy with the bishop of Lombes, of the illustrious family of Colonna, and had passed a summer with him at his bishopric in Gascony, was afterwards kindly solicited to reside with him in the house of his brother, the cardinal Colonna, then at Avignon. This invitation he accepted. His shining talents, says his late apologist, joined to the most amiable manners, procured him the favour and esteem of many persons in power and eminent stations: and he found in the house of the cardinal an agreeable home, where he enjoyed the sweets of an affectionate society, with every convenience he could desire for the indulgence of his favourite studies.

“At length,” continues lord Woodhouselee, “comes into the field, a hardy but most uncourteous knight, who, with a spirit very opposite to that of the heroes of chivalry, blasts at once the fair fame of the virtuous Laura, and the hitherto unsullied honour of her lover; and, proudly throwing down his gauntlet of defiance, maintains that Laura was a married woman, the mother of a numerous family; that Petrarch, with all his professions of a pure and honourable flame, had no other end in his unexampled assiduity of pursuit, than what every libertine proposes to himself in the possession of a mistress; and that the lovely Laura, though never actually unfaithful to her husband’s bed, was sensible to the passion of her Cicisbeo, highly gratified by his pursuit, and while she suffered on his account much restraint and severity from a jealous husband, continued to give him every mark of regard, which, without a direct breach of her matrimonial vow, she could bestow upon him.” Such is the hypothesis of M. de Sade, in his “Memoires pour la Vie de Petrarque,” 3 vols. 4to, which he published at Amsterdam, in 1764 67. He also asserts that Laura was the wife of one of his own predecessors, Hugh de Sade, and the mother of eleven children; that she was the daughter of Audibert de Noyes, was born in 1307 or 1308, at Avignon, and died there in 1348, having been married in 1325.

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

The duration and intensity of Petrarch’s passion for Laura, whether single or married, afford also other subjects for dispute; and it seems to be agreed upon by those sober critics who wish to strip his history from romance, that although his passion was so sincere as to give him uneasiness for a time, it was not of a permanent and overwhelming nature, and must have been diverted, if not extinguished, by the multiplicity of studies, travels, and > political employments, which form his public life, to which we shall now advert. It is said that one of the methods he took to combat his passion was travelling; and it is certain that his frequent removals form a very great part of the incidents which compose his life. In 1333 he travelled through Paris into Flanders, and thence to Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne, returning by Lyons to Avignon. After another ramble into Italy, he resolved to retire from the world. Those who contend that Laura was a single lady, and think that she received him on his return with reserve and coyness, attribute part of his dissatisfaction with the world to this cause; but they add, likewise, that his fortunes novr wore an unpromising aspect: the best years of his life were wearing fast away; and the friendship of the great, though soothing to his self-love, had yet produced no beneficial consequence. Disgusted, therefore, with the splendid delusions of ambition, and feeling no solid enjoyment but in the calm pursuits of literature and philosophy, he resolved at once to bid adieu to the world; and at the early age of thirty-four he retired to the solitude of Vaucluse, about fifteen miles from Avignon, where he purchased a small house and garden, the humble dwelling of a fisherman: a lonely but beautiful recess, which he has celebrated in many parts of his works, and indeed in which he wrote many of those works, particularly his Italian poetry; many of his Latin epistles, in prose and verse; his eclogues; his treatises on a “Solitary Life,” and on “Religious Tranquillity;” and part of his poem on Africa.

From Rome Petrarch went to Parma, where he passed some time with his protectors, the lords of Corregio, and employed himself in finishing his “Africa.” It was probably from that family that he obtained the dignity of archdeacon in the church of Parma; and in 1342, when he wai sent to compliment Clement VI. on his accession, in the name of the senate and people of Rome, a priory in the diocese of Pisa was given him by this pope. In the following year he composed his curious “Dialogue with St. Augustine,” in which he confesses the passion for Laura, which still held dominion over his soul. In 1348 he had the misfortune to lose this object of his affections, who died of the universal pestilence which ravaged all Europe. The same pestilence deprived him of his great friend and patron, cardinal Colonna. From Padua, where he appears to have been when these misfortunes befell him, he travelled, for a year or two, to Parma, Carpi, and Mantua; and in 1350 he again visited Padua, where he obtained a canonry, and wrote a very eloquent letter to the emperor Charles IV. exhorting him to come into Italy for the purpose of remedying the many evils with which that country was oppressed. After various other removals, he went to Milan, where the kindness and pressing solicitation of John Visconti, its archbishop and sovereign, induced him to settle for some time. Here he vvas admitted into the council of state; and in 1354 was sent to Wnice, to make another effort for pacifying the two hostile republics, but his eloquence proved fruitless. In the same year he went to Mantua to meet the emperor, who having at length come to Italy, gave him a most gracious reception; and although no advantages resulted to his country from this interview, the emperor afterwards sent him a diploma, conferring the title of count palatine. In 1360 Petrarch was sent to Paris, to congratulate king John on his liberation from English captivity; and his reception in that capital was answerable to the celebrity of his name.

In 1535, when a general visitation of the monasteries was determined upon, Cromwell, who considered him as a very fit person for this business, caused his name to be inserted in the commission, in which he is styled one of the clerks in chancery; and he appears also to have been, at this time, master of the requests. Having acquitted himself in this employment to the satisfaction of the king, who was determined on the dissolution of these religious houses, he was not only rewarded, in 1538 and 1539, with very large grants of abbey-lands, but rveceived the honour of knighthood. In 1543, having become still more acceptable at court, he was sworn of the privy-council, and appointed one of the principal secretaries of state; and accordingly we find his name signed to every act of council during this reign. In 154J-, such was his consequence, that he was not only appointed one of the regency in the absence of Henry VIII. in France, but obtained special licence to retain twenty men, besides his own menial servants, and to give them liveries, badges, and cognizances.

, a Roman satirist, was a favourite of Nero, supposed to be the same whom Tacitus mentions in book xvi. of his Annals, and was proconsul of Bithynia, and afterwards consul. He is said to have discovered a capacity for the highest offices; but abandoning himself to voluptuousness, Nero made him one of his principal confidants, and the superintendant of his licentious pleasures, nothing being agreeable or delightful to that prince but what Petronius approved. This raised the envy of Tigellinus, another of Nero’s favourites, who accused him of being engaged in a conspiracy against the emperor. Upon this, Petronius was arrested; and, being condemned to death, he caused his veins to be opened and shut, from time to time, while he conversed with his friends on verses and poetry. He afterwards sent Nero a book, sealed up by his own hand, in which he described that emperor’s debaucheries under borrowed names, and died about the year 66. His “Satiricon,” and some other pieces, are written in elegant Latin, bat filled with such obscenities, that he has been called autor purissimte impuritatis. A fragment of his works was found in the seventeenth century at Traou, a city of Dalmatia, in the duchy of Spalatro, which contains “The Supper of Trimalcion,” one of his most indelicate pieces. Many disputes have arisen concerning its authenticity, which however now seems to be admitted; but some other fragments, taken from a manuscript found at Belgrade in 1688, and published at Paris by M. Nodot, in 1694, are yet under suspicion of being forgeries. There is a great deal of uncertainty, both about the works and personal history of Petronius; and in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum” are verses by five different poets named Petronius. Although no English critic has disgraced himself by employing his time in illustrating this abominable author, Chalderius, Sambucus, Goldast, and other foreign scholars, have been less scrupulous. Burman’s edition of 1709 and 1743, 4to, is usually reckoned the best; but some prefer that of Antonius, printed at Leipsic in 1781, 8vo.

, a singular instance of an almost universal genius, and of learning, mechanical ingenuity, and ceconomy, applied to useful purposes, was the eldest son of Anthony Petty, a clothier at Rumsey, in Hampshire, and was born May 16, 1623. It does not appear that his father was a man of much property, as he left this son none at his death, in 1641, and contributed very little to his maintenance. When young, the boy took extraordinary pleasure in viewing various mechanics at their work, and so readily conceived the natjure of their employment, and the use of their tools, that he was, at the age of twelve, able to iiandle the latter with dexterity not much inferior to that of the most expert workmen in any trade which he had ever seen. What education he had was first at the grammar-school at Rum?ey, where, according to his own account, he acquired, before the age of fifteen, a competent knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and French languages, and became master of the common rules of arithmetic, geometry, dialling, and the astronomical part of navigation. With this uncommon fund of various knowledge he removed, at the above age of fifteen, to the university of Caen in Normandy. This circumstance is mentioned among those particulars of his early life which he has given in his will, although, by a blunder of the transcriber, Oxford is put for Caen in Collir.s’s Peerage. Wood says that, when he went to Caen, “with a little stock of merchandizing which he then improved, he maintained himself there, learning the French tongue, and at eighteen years of age, the arts and mathematics.” Mr. Aubrey’s account is in these not very perspicuous words: “He has told me, there happened to him the most remarkable accident of life (which he did not tell me), and which was the foundation of all the rest of his greatness and acquiring riches. He informed me that about fifteen, in March, he went over to Caen, in Normandy, in a vessel that went hence, with a little stock, and began to play the merchant, and had so good successe that he maintained himselfe, and also educated himselfe: this I guesse was that most remarkable accident that he meant. Here he learned the French tongue, and perfected himself in Latin, and had Greeke enough to serve his turne. At Caen he studyed the arts. At eighteen, he was (I have heard him say) a better mathematician than he is now; but when occasion is, he knows how to recurre to more mathematical knowledge.” These accounts agree in the main points, and we may learn from both that he had at a very early period begun that money-making system which enabled him to realize a vast fortune. He appears to have been of opinion, that “there are few ways in which a man can be more harmlessly employed than in making money.” On his return to his native country, he speaks of being 1 preferred to^the king’s navy, but in what capacity is not known. This he attributes to the knowledge he had acquired, and his “having been at the university of Caen.” In the navy, however, before he was twenty years of age, he got together about 60l. and the civil war raging at this time, he determined to set out on his travels, for further improvement in his studies. He had now chosen medicine as a profession, and in the year 1643, visited Leyden, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Paris, at which last city he studied anatomy, and read Vesalixis with the celebrated Hobbes, who was partial to him. Hobbes was then writing on optics, and Mr. Petty, who had a turn that way, drew his diagrams, &c. for him. While at Paris, he informed Aubrey that “at one time he was driven to a great streight for money, and told him, that he lived a week or two on three pennyworths of walnuts.” Aubrey likewise queries whether he was not some time a prisoner there. His ingenuity and industry, however, appear to have extricated him from his difficulties, for we have his own authority that; he returned home in 1646, a richer man by IQl. than he set out, and yet had maintained his brother Anthony as well as himself.

Though this project therefore was not very profitable in itself, yet by this means he became acquainted with the leading men of those times. He next wrote some very sensible remarks on national education in useful branches of knowledge, in a pamphlet entitled “Advice to Mr. Hartlib for the Advancement of Learning,” and in 1648, went to Oxford, where having no scruples respecting the state of political parties, he taught anatomy to the young scholars, and became deputy to Dr. Clayton professor of anatomy, who had an insurmountable aversion to the sight of a mangled corpse. He also practised physic and chemistry with good success; and rose into such reputation, that the philosophical meetings which preceded the Royal Society, were first held (for the most part) at his lodgings: and by a parliamentary recommendation he obtained a fellowship of Brazen-nose college, in the place of one of the ejected fellows, and was created doctor of physic, March 7, 1649. He was admitted a candidate of the college of physicians, June 25, 1650. The same year, he was chiefly concerned in the recovery of a woman who had been hanged at Oxford, for the supposed murder of her bastard child*.

Some time after his settlement in Ireland, having observed, that the lands forfeited by the rebellion in 1641, which had been adjudged to the soldiers who suppressed it, were very insufficiently measured, he represented the matter to the persons then in power, who granted him a contract, dated Dec. 11, 1654, to make the admeasurements anew; and these he finished with such exactness, that there was no estate of 60l. per annum, and upwards, which was not distinctly marked in its true value, maps being likewise made by him of the whole. By this contract he gained a Very considerable sum of money. Besides 20s. a day, which he received during the performance, he had also a penny an acre by agreement with the soldiers: and it appears from an order of government, dated at the castle of Dublin, 19th March, 1655, that he had then surveyed 2,008,000 acres of forfeited profitable land. He was likewise one of the commissioners for setting out the lands to the army, after they were surveyed. When Henry Cromwell obtained the lieutenancy of that kingdom in 1655, he made the doctor his secretary, appointed him a clerk of the council there in 1657, and procured him to be elected a burgess for West Looe in Cornwall, in Richard CromweiPs parliament, which met Jan. 27, 1658. March the 25th following, sir Hierom Sankey, or Zanchy, member for Woodstock in Oxfordshire, impeached him for high crimes and misdemeanors, in the execution of his office. This brought him into England, when, appearing in the House of Commons, April 19, he answered to the charge on the 21st; to which his prosecutors replying, the matter was adjourned, but never came to an issue, that parliament being suddenly dissolved the next day. Henry Cromwell had written a letter to secretary Thurloe, dated the llth of that month, in his favour, as follows: “Sir, I have heretofore told you my thoughts of Dr. Petty, and am still of the same opinion: and, if sir Hierom Sankey do not run him down with numbers and noise of adventurers, and such other like concerned persons, I believe the parliament will find him as I have represented. He has curiously deceived me these four years, if he be a knave. I am sure the juntos of them, who are most busy, are not men of the quietest temper. I do not expect you will have leisure, or see cause, to appear much for him; wherefore this is only to let you understand my present thoughts of him. The activeness of Robert Reynolds and others in this business, shews, that Petty is not the only mark aimed at.”

Upon his return to Ireland soon after, some further endeavours being used to bring on a prosecution, Petty published the same year, “A Brief of the Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author, with the state of the controversy between them,” in three sheets; which was followed by “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. He then came again to England and brought a very warm application in his favour from the lord lieutenant, in these terms: “Sir, the bearer, Dr. Petty, hath been my secretary, and clerk of the council here in Ireland, and is one whom I have known to be an honest and ingenious man. He is like to fall into some trouble from some who envy him. I desire you to be acquainted with him, and to assist him, wherein he shall reasonably desire it. Great endeavours have been used to beget prejudice against him; but when you speak with him, he will appear otherwise.” Notwithstanding this, he was removed from his public employments in June.

In 1659, he had enough of the republican spirit as to become a member of the Rota Club at Miles’ s coffee-house in New Palace-yard, Westminster. The whimsical scheme of this club was, that all officers of state should be chosen by balloting, and the time limited for holding their places; and that a certain number of members of parliament should be annually changed by rotation. But he returned to Ireland not long after Christmas, and at the Restoration came into England, and was received very graciously by his majesty; and, resigning his professorship at Gresham, was made one of the commissioners of the court of claims. On April 11, 1661, he received the honour of knighthood, and the grant of a new patent, constituting him surveyor-general of Ireland; and was chosen a member of parliament there. Upon the foundation of the Royal Society, he was bne of the first members, and of the first council; and, though he had left off the practice of physic, yet his name appears in the list of the fellows in the new charter of the college of physicians in 1663. About this time he invented a double-bottomed ship, to sail against wind and tide, the model of which he gave to the Royal Society. In 1665, he communicated “A Discourse about the Building of Ships,” containing some curious secrets in that art. This was said to have been taken away by lord Brounker, president of the Royal Society, who kept it in his possession till 1682, and probably till his death, as containing matter too important to be divulged. Sir William’s ship performed one voyage from Dublin to Holyhead, into which narrow harbour she turned in against wind and tide, July 1663; but after that was lost in a violent storm.

In 1666, sir William drew up his treatise, called “Verbum Sapienti,” containing an account of the wealth and expences of England, and the method of raising taxes in the most equal manner; shewing likewise, that England can bear the charge of four millions per annum, when the occasions of the government require it! The same year, 1666, he suffered a considerable loss by the fire of London; having purchased, several years before, the earl of Arunders house and gardens, and erected buildings in the garden, called Token-house, which were for the most part destroyed by that dreadful conflagration. In 1667, he married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Hardresse Waller, knight, and relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. and afterwards set up iron works, and a pilchard-fishery, opened lead- mines, and commenced a timber trade in Kerry, which turned to very good account; and with all these employments he found time to consider other subjects of general utility, which he communicated to the Royal Society, He composed a piece of Latin poetry, and published it at London in 1679, in two folio sheets, under the name of ' Cassid. Aureus Manutius,“with the title of” Colloquium Davidis cum anima sua.“His patriotism had before led him to use his endeavours to support the expence of the war against the Dutch, and he felt it necessary also to expose the sinister practices of the French, who were at this time endeavouring to raise disturbances in England, increase our divisions, and corrupt the parliament at this time. With this vievr he published, in 1680, a piece called” The Politician Discovered,“&c. and afterwards wrote several essays in political arithmetic; in which, from a view of the natural strength both of England and Ireland, he suggests a method of improving each by industry and frugality, so as to be a match for, or even superior to, either of her neighbours. Upon the first meeting of the Philosophical Society at Dublin, after the plan of that at London, every thing was submitted to his direction; and, when it was formed into a regular society, he was chosen president, Nov. 1684. UpoiKthis occasion he drew up a” Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,“proper for the infant state of the society, and presented it to them; as he did also his” Supellex Philosophica," consisting of fortyfive instruments requisite to carry on the design of their institution. But, a few years after, all his pursuits were determined by the effects of a gangrene in his foot, occasioned by the swelling of the gout, which put a period to his life, at his house in Piccadilly, Westminster, Dec. 16, 1687, in his sixty-fifth year. His body was carried to Rumsey, and there interred, near those of his parents. There was laid over his grave only a flat stone on the pavement, with this short inscription, cut by an illiterate workman:

This singular composition bears date May 2, 1685, and runs thus: “In the name of God, Amen. I, sir William. Petty, knt. born at Rumsey, in Hantshire, do, revoking all other and former wills, make this my last will and testament, premising the ensuing preface to the same, whereby to express my condition, design, intentions, and desires, concerning the persons and things contained in, and relating to, my said will, for the better expounding any thing which may hereafter seem doubtful therein, and also for justifying, on behalf of my children, the manner and means of getting and acquiring the estate, which I hereby bequeath unto them; exhorting them to improve the same by no worse negociations. In the first place I declare and affirm, that at the full age of fifteen years I had obtained the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, the whole body of common Arithmetic, the practical Geometry and Astronomy conducing to Navigation, Dialling, &c. with the knowledge of several mathematical trades, all which, and having been at the university of Caen, preferred me to the king’s navy; where, at the age of twenty years, I had gotten up about threescore pounds, with as much mathematics as any of my age was known to have had. With this provision, anno 1643, when the civil wars between the king and parliament grew hot, I went into the Netherlands and France for three years, and having vigorously followed my studies, especially that of medicine, at Utrecht, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Paris, I returned to Rumsey, where I was born, bringing back with me my brother Anthony, whom I had bred, with about 10l. more than I had carried out of England. With this 70l. and my endeavours, in less than four years more, I obtained my degree of M. D. in Oxford, and forthwith thereupon to be admitted into the College of Physicians, London, and into several clubs of the Virtuous (Virtuosi); after all which expence defrayed, I had left 28l. and in the next two years being made Fellow of Brazen -Nose, and Anatomy Professor in Oxford, and also Reader at Gresham-college, I advanced my said stock to about 400l. and with 100l. more advanced and given me to go for Ireland, unto full 500l. Upon the 10th of September, 1652, I landed, at Waterford in Ireland, Physician to the army who had suppressed the rebellion begun in the year 1641, and to the general of the same, and the head quarters, at the rate of 20^. per diem, at which I continued till June 1659, gaining, by my practice, about 400l. a year above the said salary. About Sept. 1654, I perceiving that the admeasurement of the lands, furfrited by the aforementioned rebellion, and intended to regulate the satisfaction of the soldiers who hadsuppressed the same, was most insufficiently and absurdly managed; I obtained a contract, dated llth December, 1654, for making the said admeasurement, and, by God’s blessing, so performed the same, as that I gained about 9,000l. thereby, which, with the 500l. abovementioned, and my salary of 20s. per diem, the benefit of my practice, together with 600l. given me for directing an after survey of the adventurer’s lands, and 800l. more for two years’ salary as clerk of the council, raised me an estate of about 13,000l. in ready and real money, at a time when, without art, interest, or authority, men bought as much lands for ten shillings in real money, as in this year, 1685, yields 10s. per annum rent, above his majesty’s quit-rents. Now I bestowed part of the said 13,000l. in soldier’s debentures, part in purchasing the earl of Arundel’s house and garden in Lothbury, London, and part I kept in cash to answer emergencies. Hereupon I. purchased lands inIreland, with soldiers’ debentures , bought at the above market-rates, a great part whereof I lost by the Court of Innocents, anno 1663; and built the said garden, called Tokenhouse Yard, in Lothbury, which was for the most part destroyed by the dreadful fire, anno 1666. Afterwards, anno 1667, I married Elizabeth, the relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. I set up iron-works and pilchard-fishing in Kerry, and opened the lead -mines and timber-trade in Kerry: by all which, and some advantageous bargains, and with living under my income, I have, at the making this my will, the real and personal estate following: viz. a large house and four tenements in Rumsey, with four acres of meadow upon the causeway, and four acres of arable in the fields, called Marks and Woollsworths, in all about 30A per ann.; houses in Token-house Yard, near Lothbury, London, with a lease in Piccadilly, and the Seven Stars and Blazing Star in Birching-lane, London, worth about 500l. per annum, besides mortgages upon certain houses in Hoglane, near Shoreditch, in London, and in Erith, in Kent, worth about 20l. per annum. I have three fourth parts of the ship Charles, whereof Derych Paine is master, which I value at 80l. per annum, as also the copper-plates for the maps of Ireland with the king’s privilege, which I rate at lOOl. per annum, in all 730l. per annum. I have in Ireland, without the county of Kerry, in lands, remainders, and reversions, about 3,100l. per annum. I have of neat profits, out of the lands and woods of Kerry, above 1,100l. per annum, besides iron-works, fishing, and leadmines, and marble-quarries, worth 600l. per annum; in all 4,800l. I have, as my wife’s jointure, during her life, about 850l. per annum; and for fourteen years after her death about 2001. per ann. I have, by 3,300l. money at interest, 20l. per annum; in all about 6,700l. per annum. The personal estate is as follows, viz. in chest, 6,600l.; in the hands of Adam Loftus, 1,296l.; of Mr. John Cogs, goldsmith, of London, 1,2 5 1l.; in silver, plate, and jewels, about 3,000l.; in furniture, goods, pictures, coach-horses, books, and watches, 1,1 So/.; per estimate in all 12,000l. I value my three chests of original map and field -books, the copies of the Downe-survey, with the Barony-maps, and chest of distribution-books, with two chests of loose papers relating to the survey, the two great barony-books, and the book of the History of the Survey, altogether at 2,000l. I have due out of Kerry, for arrears of my rent and iron, before 24th June, 1685, the sum of 1,912l. for the next half year’s rent out of my lands in Ireland, my wife’s jointure, and England, on or before 24th June next, 2,000l. Moreover, by arrears due 30th April, 1685, out of all my estate, by estimate, and interest of money, 1,800l. By other good debts, due upon bonds and bills at this time, per estimate, 900l. By debts which I call bad 4000l. worth perhaps 800l. By debts which I call doubtful, 50,0007. worth, perhaps, 25,000l. In all, 34,4 12l. and the total of the whole personal estate, 46,412l.: so as my present income for the year 1685 may be 6,700l. the profits of the personal estate may be 4,64 \l. and the demonstrable improvement of my Irish estate may be 3,659l. per ann. to make in all I5,000l. per ann. in and by all manner of effects, abating for bad debts about 28,000l.; whereupon I say in gross, that my real estate or income may be 6,600l. per ann. my personal estate about 45,000l. my bad and desperate debts 30,000l. and the improvements may be 4,000 /. per ann. in all 15,000l. per ann. ut supra. Now my opinion and desire is (if I could effect it, and if I were clear from the law, custom, and other impediments) to add to my wife’s jointure three fourths of what it now is computed at, viz. 637l. per ann. to make the whole 1,487l. per ann. which addition of 637l. and 850l. being deducted out of the aforementioned 6,600l. leaves 5,113l. for my two sons whereof I would my eldest son should have two-thirds, or 3,408l. and the younger 1,705l. and that, after their mother’s death, the aforesaid addition of 637l. should be added in like proportion, making for the eldest 3,S32l. and for the youngest 1,916l. and I would that the improvement of the estate should be equally divided between my two sons; and that the personal estate (taking out 10,000l. for my only daughter) that the rest should be equally divided between my wife and three children; by which method my wife would have 1,587l. per ann. and 9,000l. in personal effects; my daughter would have 10,000l. of the Crame, and 9,000l. more, with less certainty: my eldest son would have 3,800l. per ann. and half the expected improvement, with 9,000l. in hopeful effects, over and above his wife’s portion: and my youngest son would have the same within 1,900l. per ann. I would advise my wife, in this case, to spend her whole l,587l. per ann. that is to say, on her own entertainment, charity, and munificence, without care of increasing her children’s fortunes: and I would she would give away one-third of the above mentioned 9,000l. at her death, even from her children, upon any worthy object, and dispose of the other two-thirds to such of her children and grand-children as pleased her best, without regard to any other rule or proportion. In case of either of my three children’s death under age, I advise as follows; viz. If my eldest, Charles, die without issue, I would that Henry should have three-fourths of what he leaves; and my daughter Anne the rest. If Henry die, I would that what he leaves may be equally divided between Charles and Anne: and if Anne die, that her share be equally divided between Charles and Henry. Memorandum, That I think fit to rate the 30,000l. desperate debts at 1,1 Ooj. only, and to give it my daughter, to make her abovementioned 10,000l. and 9,000l. to be full 20,000l. which is much short of what I have given her younger brother; and the elder brother may have 3,800 per ann. and 9,000l. in money, worth 900l. more, 2,0001. by improvements, and 1,300l. by marriage, to make up the whole to 8,000l. per ann. which is very well for the eldest son, as 20,000l. for the daughter.” He then leaves his wife executrix and guardian during her widowhood, and, in case of her marriage, her brother James Waller, and Thomas Dame: recommending to them two, and his children, to use the same servants and instruments for management of the estate, as were in his life- time, at certain salaries to continue during their lives, or until his youngest child should be twenty-one years, which would be the 22d of October, 1696, after which his children might put the management of their respective concerns into what hands they pleased. He then proceeds:

“I would not have my funeral charge to exceed 300l. over and above which sum I allow and give 150l. to set up a monument in the church of Rumsey, near where my grandfather, father, and mother, were buried, in memory of them, and of all my brothers and sisters. I give also 5l. for a stone to be set up in Lothbury church, London, in memory of my brother Anthony, there buried about 18th October, 1649. I give also 50l. for a small monument to be set up in St. Bride’s church, Dublin, in memory of my son John, and my near kinsman, John Petty, supposing my wife will add thereunto for her excellent son, Sir William Fenton, bart. who was buried there 18th March, 1670-71; and if I myself be buried in any of the said three places, I would have Joo/. only added to the above-named sums, or that the said 100l. shall be bestowed on a monumentfor me in any other place where I shall die. As for legacies for the poor, I am at a stand as for beggars by trade and election, I give them nothing; as for impotents by the hand of God, the public ought to maintain them; as for those who have been bred to no calling nor estate, they should be put upon their kindred; as for those who can get no work, the magistrate should cause them to be employed, which may be well done in Ireland, where is fifteen acres of improvable land for every head; prisoners for crimes, by the King; for debts, by their prosecutors; as for those who compassionate the sufferings of any object, let them relieve themselves by relieving such sufferers, that is, give them alms pro re nata, and for God’s sake relieve those several species above-mentioned, where the above-mentioned obligors fail in their duties: wherefore I am contented that I have assistc I all my poor relations, and put many into a way of getting their own bread, and have laboured in public works, and by inventions have sought out real objects of charity; and do hereby conjure all who partake of my estate, from time to time to do the same at their peril. Nevertheless, to answer custom, and to take the surer side, 1 give 20l. to the most wanting of the parish wherein I die. As for the education of my children, I would that my daughter might marry in Ireland, desiring that such a sum as I have left her, might not be carried out of Ireland. I wish that my eldest son may get a gentleman’s estate in England, which, by what I have gotten already, intend to purchase, and by what I presume he may have with a wife, may amount to between 2000l. and 3000l. per ann. and buy some office he may get there, together with an ordinary superlucration may reasonably be expected; so as I may design my youngest son’s trade and employment to be the prudent management of our Irish estate for himself and his elder brother, which I suppose his said brother must consider him for. As for myself, I being now about three-score and two years old, I intend to attend the improvement of my lands in Ireland, and to get in the many debts owing unto me; and to promote the trade of iron, lead, marble, fish, and timber, whereof my estate is capable: and as for studies and experiment, I think now to confine the same to the anatomy of the people and political arithmetic as also to the improvements of ships, land- carriages, guns, and pumps, as of most use to mankind, not blaming the studies of other men. As for religion, I die in the profession of that faith, and in the practice of such worship, as I find established by the law of my country, not being able to believe what I myself please, nor to worship God better than by doing as I would be done unto, and observing the laws of my country, and expressing my love and honour to Almighty God by such signs and tokens as are understood to be such by the people with whom I live, God knowing my heart, even without any at all; and thus begging the Divine Majesty to make me what he would have me to be, both as to faith and good works, I willingly resign my soul into his hands, relying only on his infinite mercy, and the merits of my Saviour, for my happiness after this life, where I expect to know and see God more clearly than by the study of the Scriptures and of his works I have been hitherto able to do. Grant me, O Lord, an easy passage to thyself, that, as I have lived in thy fear, I may be known to die in thy favour. Amen.”

His family, at his death, consisted of his widow and three children, Charles, Henry, and Anne; of whom Charles was created baron of Shelbourne, in the county of Waterford, in Ireland, by king William III.; but dying without issue, was succeeded by his younger brother Henry, who was created viscount Dunkeron, in the county of Kerry in that kingdom, and earl of Shelbourne, Feb. 11, 1718. He married the lady Arabella Boyle, sister to Charles earl of Cork, who brought him several children. He was member of parliament for Great Marlow in Buckinghamshire, a fellow of the royal society; and died April 17, 1751. Anne was married to Thomas Fitz-Morris, baron of Kerry and Lixnaw, and died in Ireland, anno 1737. The descent to the present marquis of Lansdown may be seen in the peerage.

Before concluding this article, we may glean a few memoranda of his personal history from^Yubrey, who appears to have lived in intimacy with him.

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

In 1680 he asserted the “Ancient Rights of the Commons of England, in a discourse proving by records, &c. that they were ever an essential part of parliament,” 8vo. This gave rise to a controversy, in the course of which the following pieces were published, 1. “Jani Anglorum facies nova, or several monuments of antiquity touching the great councils of this kingdom and the courts of the king’s immediate tenants and otficers,” 1680, 8vo, said to be written by Mr. Atwood. 2. “A full Answer to a book written by William Pettyt, esq. with a true account of the famous Colloquium, or Parliament 40 Hen. Ill and a glossary expounding some few words in ancient records, together with some animadversions on a book called Jani Anglorum facies nova,” 1683, 8vo. 3. “Jus Anglorum ab antique, or a confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords and commons, under the pretence of answering Mr. Pettyt, and the author of * Jam Anglorum facies nova,'” 1681, 8vo. 4. “Argumentum Anunormanicum; or an argument proving from ancient histories and records, that William duke of Normandy made no absolute conquest in England,” 1682, 8vo. This is thought by Dr. Brady to be also written by Mr. Atwood; but by others it is attributed to Mr. Cooke. To this an answer afterwards appeared by the principal champion in the dispute, Dr. Robert Brady, who collected all he had written on the occasion into “An Introduction to the Old English History, in three tracts,” and by the same author the same subject was connected with “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs, or Boroughs,” (See Brady) 1704, 1711,fol. 1777, 8vo.

, a celebrated physician and mathematician, was born at Bautzen in Lusatia in 1525, and became a doctor and professor of medicine at Wirtemberg. He married a daughter of Melancthon, whose principles he contributed to diffuse, and whose works he published at Wirtemberg in 1601, in five volumes folio. He had an extreme ardour for study. Being for ten years in close imprisonment, on account of his opinions, he wrote his thoughts on the margins of old books which they gave him for amusement, making his ink of burnt crusts of bread, infused in wine. He died at seventy-eight, on the 25th of September, 1602. He wrote several tracts, 1. “De praecipuis divinationum generibus,” 1584, 4to. 2. Methodus curatidi morbos internes,“Francfort, 1614, 8vo. 3.” De Febribus,“1614, 4to. 4.” Vita? illustrium medicowjm.“5.” Hypotheses astronomicas.“6.” Les no, us des Monnoies, des Poids, et Mesures," 8vo. His character, as drawn by himself, is that of a man who did no injury to any one, but, on the contrary, gave all the aid in his power to all who might require it. For these things he calls God to witness.

, a celebrated scholar, was born at Augsburg in 1465, and studied successfully in the principal cities of Italy. When he returned home he was appointed secretary to the senate of Augsburg, and employed by that body in the diets of the empire, and in the various courts of Europe. In his private character he conferred happiness on an excellent and learned wife; and, in his public, was always rendering essential services to his country. This excellent citizen died at eighty-two, in 1574, having lost his faculties for some time before. He is most known by an ancient itinerary, which from him is called “Tabula Peutingeriana.” It is a curious chart found in a monastery in Germany, and communicated to Peutinger by one Conrad Celtes. It was formed under the reign of Theodosius the Great, and marks the roads by which the Roman armies passed at that time to the greater part of the empire. It is not a geographical work, and seems to have been made by a Roman soldier, who thought of nothing, or perhaps knew nothing, but what respected the roads, and the places for encampment. A magnificent but now very scarce edition of it was published by F. C. Scheib at Vienna in 1753, fol. Peutinger’s own works are, 1. “Sermones convivales,” in the collection of Schardius; Jena, 1683, 8vo. 2. “De inclinatione Romani imperil, et gentium commigrationibus,” subjoined to the former, and to Procopi us. 3. “De rebus Gothorum,” Bale, 1531, fol. 4, “Romanae Vetustatis fragmenta, in Augusta Vindelicorum,” Mayence, 1528, fol.

, a French protestant, horn at Bourdeaux in 1592, entered into the service of the prince of Cond6, whom he pleased by the singularity of his humour. Peyrera believed himself to have discovered from St. Paul, that Adam was not the first man; and to prove this, he published in Holland, 1655, a book in 4to and 8vo with this title: “Praeadamitae; sive exercitatio super versibus 12, 13, 14, capitis xv. Epistoloe Pauli ad Romanes.” This work was condemned to the flames, and the author imprisoned at Brussels; but, getting his liberty through the interest of the prince of Conde“, he went to Rome in 1656, and abjured Calvinism and Praeadamitism before Alexander VII. He was not, however, thought sincere, for, returning to Paris, in spite of all the means this pope used to detain him at Rome, he became librarian to the prince of Conde 1 and some time after retired to the seminary des Vertus, where he died in 1676, aged 84. He submitted to receive the sacraments, yet was not believed to be attached to any religion. Besides the piece above mentioned, he wrote” Une Relation du Greenland,“in 8vo; and” Une Relation d'Islande,“in 8vo; both reckoned curious and interesting: and a very singular tract entitled” Rappel des Juifs," in which his object was to prove that two Messiahs were intended; the first Jesus Christ, who, according to his notion, came only for the Christians; and the second, he whom the Jews have so long expected, and who is to be a great temporal prince and render them lords of the earth. This was printed in 1643, 8vo, a circumstance which the translator of his life in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LXXXII. p. 431.) positively denies, yet we find mention of this edition in every French biography. It probably, however, attracted no great degree of attention, and Brunei places it among rare books; but being known to some of the adherents of Buonaparte it was reprinted, when it became his pleasure to assemble a Jewish Sanhedrim in Paris in 1806. It was then supposed that the Jews might be made to believe that the great temporal prince that was to restore them, was no other than the ruler of the French nation. In the authority just quoted are many curious particulars of Peyreyra, from father Simon.

, first surgeon to the king, was distinguished above all the eminent surgeons who have appeared in France, by his ardent zeal for the progress and improvement of surgery, and the sums he expended for that purpose. He was born in 1678, and died April 24, 1747. Among the important services he rendered his country, we find that he procured the establishment of the “Royal Academy of Surgery” at Paris in 17.51; and left his library, and estate of Marigny, to the company of surgeons in that city, who sold them to his majesty for 200,000 livres; he also appointing the same company universal legatees to two-thirds of his property, M. de la Peyronie bequeathed to the surgeon’s company of Montpeilier, two houses situated there, with 100,000 livres, for the erection of an amphitheatre for surgery; and also left the said company universal legatees to the third part of his property. Every clause in his will tended to the public good, and the encouragement and improvement of surgery, by which, as well as by his talents, this celebrated surgeon rendered his name immortal in France.

, a learned and ingenious Frenchman, was born at Hennebon in Bretagne, in 1639 and admitted of the order of Cistercians in 1660. He made the scriptures the principal object of his study: aware of the assistance to be derived from profane history, he read with attention the ancient Greek and Latin historians. His judgment, however, did not improve with his erudition, as appeared by a new system, which he communicated to the public, in a work printed at Paris in 1687, 4to, and called “L‘Antiquite’ des temps retablie,” &c. that is, “The Antiquity of Time restored, and defended, against the Jews and modem Chronologers.” His design here is to prove, upon the authorities of the septuagint and profane history, that the world is more ancient than modern chronologers have supposed; and that, instead of 4000 years between the creation of the world and the birth of Christ, there were almost 6000. The great principle on which this supposition is built is, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted, since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Jews, who otherwise must have been forced to acknowledge, upon their own principles, that the Messiah was actually come. Pezron’s book was extremely admired for the ingenuity and learning of it; yet created, as was natural, no small alarm among the religious. Martianay, a Benedictine, and Le Quien, a Dominican, wrote against tnis new system, and undertook the defence of the Hebrew text Martianay with great zeal and heat, Le Quien with more judgment and knowledge. Pezron published, “Defense de l'Antiquite des temps,” in 1691, 4to; which, like the work itself, abounded with curious and learned researches. Le Quien replied, but Martianay brought the affair into another court; and, in 1693, laid the books and principles of Pezron before M. de Harlai, archbishop of Paris. Harlai communicated the representation of this adversary to Pezron; who defended himself with so much ingenuity as to render the accusation of no effect.

, an ancient Latin author, who wrote five books of “Fables” in Iambic verse, was a Thracian and was born, as there is reason to suppose, some years before Julius Caesar made himself master of the Roman empire. His parentage is uncertain; though some have imagined his liberal education to be an argument that it was not mean. Perhaps he might have been made captive by Octavius, the father of the emperor Augustus; for we read, that while Octavius was prcetor in Macedonia, he gave the Thracians a very great overthrow. This fell out the same year that Q. Cicero was proconsul of Asia, and Csesar sole consul at Rome. As this opinion would carry his age pretty high, Phsedrus outliving the 18th year of Tiberius, pome have therefore rejected it, though with little reason; since many proofs may be collected, from his Fables, that he lived to be very old. How he came into the service of Augustus is unknown: but his being called “Augustus’s freedman,” in the title of his book, shews that he had been that emperor’s slave. It should seem as if he had arrived early in life at Rome for he quotes a line from “Ennius,” which, he says, he remembers to have read when he was a boy and it is not probable that he should have read it before he left Thrace. He received his freedom from Augustus, and no doubt such a competency, as enabled him to enjoy that valuable gift. He expresses a great regard for that prince’s memory, which he had indeed the more reason to do, since misfortunes overtook him after his decease. Under Tiberius, he was unjustly persecuted by Sejanus, to which he has frequently alluded in his “Fables;” and particularly in the preface to his third book. We know not the cause of this persecution, but it was not for his wealth: he represents himself, in the very same place, as a man who had never cared to hoard up riches; and mentions this as one of the reasons which should facilitate his promotion to the rank of a poet. He seems to have written all his Fables after the death of Augustus; the third book he certainly wrote after that of Sejanus, who perished in the eighteenth year of Tiberius; for, in the dedication of that book to his patron Eutychus, he has mentioned the favourite with a resentment which would never have been pardoned had he been living. How long Phsedrus survived him, is uncertain; but, supposing him to have lived a little longer, he must have been above seventy at his death; for so many years there are from Caesar’s first dictatorship to the eighteenth of Tiberius. Chronologers place him between 41 and 54 A. C.

The Fables of Phaedrus are generally valued for their wit and good sense, expressed in great purity, terseness, and elegance of language: and they who, like Scioppius, imagine they discover something foreign and barbarous in the style, form their criticisms upon the knowledge that JMuvdrus was a Thracian. They might as well object solecisms and false Latin to Terence, because he x wus born in Africa. We cannot, however, but observe it as somewhat singular, that the Roman language has been transmitted to posterity, in its greatest purity 'and elegance, by two slaves, who were brought from countries by the Romans deemed barbarous.

It is remarkable, that no writer of antiquity has made any mention of this author; for it is generally supposed, that the Phcedrus mentioned by Martial is not the same. Seneca evidently knew nothing of him; otherwise he never could have laid it down, as he does, for matter of fact, that the Romans had not attempted fables and Esopean compositions: “Fabellas et ^sopeos logos, intentatum Romanis ingeniis opus.” This may account for the obscurity in which the name and reputation of Quintus Curtius lay buried for so many years; which was likewise the case with Velleius Paterculus and Manilius. Even Isaac Casaubon, with all his learning, did not know there was a Phaedrus among the ancients, till Peter Pithou, or Pithceus, published his “Fables.” c It is by your letter,“says Casaubon,” that I first came to be acquainted with Phaedrus, Augustus’s freedman, for that name was quite unknown to me before; and I never read any thing either of the man or of his works, or, if I did, I do not remember it.“This letter of Casaubon was written in 1596, at which time Pithceus published the” Fables of Phoedrus," at Troyes. He sent a copy of them to father Sirmond, who was then at Rome; and this Jesuit shewed it to the learned men in that city, who judged it, at first, a supposititious work; but, upon carefully examining, altered their opinion, and thought they could observe in it the characteristical marks of the Augustan age.

was a famous tyrant of Agrigentum, in Sicily, who having made himself master of that city about 571A.C. exercised the most unheard of cruelties, and caused a brazen bull to be formed, in which those whom he condemned were to be burnt alive. When Perillus, the author of the cruel invention, demanded his reward, Phalaris ordered him to be the first person put to death in the machine. The people of Agrigentum at length rose, and burnt Phalaris himself in it, 563 A. C. We have some letters to this tyrant under the name of Abaris, with the answers, which occasioned the memorable controversy between Bentley and Boyle, to whose articles we refer for the particulars of it. These letters were printed at the Sorbonne about 1470, 4to; at Trevisa, 1471, 4to; and Oxford, 1718, 8vo; and the controversy itself has been translated at large into Latin, and republished, with the epistles by Lennep, 1777, 4to.

, or as some say is the proper form, Favorinus (Varinus), who flourished in the 16th century, was born at Favera, near Camerino, a ducal town of Umbria, from which he is said to have taken his name. His real name was Guarino, which he changed to Varinus. He was a favourite disciple of the celebrated Angelo Politian, and John Lascaris, at Florence, and was patronized by Lorenzo the Magnificent. Having determined on an ecclesiastical life, he undertook the care of a congregation, and was appointed preceptor to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Favorinus was appointed keeper of the Medicean library in the year 1512, and in 1514 bishop of Nocera. He died in 1537. It was in 1523 that he published his Greek lexicon at Rome, one of the earliest modern lexicons of that language, and compiled, from Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, Phrynicus, Hesychius, Harpocration, and other ancient lexicons, published and unpublished and from the notes of Eustathius, and the scholiasts. It is written entirely in Greek, and is now superseded by other works of more popular use; though it may still be serviceable, in supplying various readings of Suidas and others, of which Favorinus probably consulted very ancient manuscripts. The best edition is that of Bartoli, Venice, 1712, folio.

, a celebrated Greek comic poet, contemporary with Plato and Aristophanes, flourished about 420 B.C. He followed the style of the ancient comedy, which, instead of feigned and imaginary persons, introduced living characters on the stage, who were known to the spectators by their names and distinguishing marks, and turned them into ridicule; but Pherecrates is said to have been very moderate in his use of this licence. Twenty one comedies are attributed to this poet, of which we have only some fragments remaining, collected by Hertelius and Grotius. It appears from these fragments, some of which are given by Cumberland, or rather Bentley, in “The Observer,” that Pherecrates wrote very pure Greek, and excelled in that nice and delicate raillery distinguished by the name of Attic urbanity. He invented a kind of verses, called, from his name, Pherecratian; consisting of the three last feet of an hexameter, the first of these three feet being always a spondee. This verse of Horace, for example, “Quamvis Pontica Pinus,” is a Pherecratian verse. M. Burette, in torn. XV. of the academy of inscriptions, has examined a fragment of this poet concerning music, which may be found in Plutarch.

The particulars which remain, of the life of Pherecydes, are few and imperfect. Marvellous circumstances have been related of him, which only deserve to be mentioned, in order to shew that what has been deemed supernatural by ignorant spectators, may be easily conceived to have happened from natural causes. A ship in full sail was at a distance, approaching its harbour: Pherecydes predicted that it would never come into the haven, and it happened accordingly; for a storm arose, which sunk the vessel. After drinking water from a well, he predicted an earthquake, which happened three days afterwards. It is easy to suppose, that these predictions might have been the result of a careful observation of those phenomena which commonly precede storms or earthquakes, in a climate where they frequently happen. This is the more probable, as it is well known to have been a usual practice with the ancients, and particularly with Pythagoras, the pupil of Pherecydes, to impose upon the ignorant multitude, by pretending to powers which they did not possess, and particularly by applying their knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. Pherecydes is said to have been the first among the Grecians who wrote concerning the nature of the gods; but this can only mean, that he was the first who ventured to write upon these subjects in prose; for, before his time, Orpheus, Musaeus, and others, had written theogonies in verse. Pherecydes was much esteeiru-d at Lacedsemon, on account of his poetry inculcating the maxims of Lycurgus. He died at the age of eighty-five. It is not easy to ascertain the nature of the doctrines which he taught: he probably believed in an eternal first cause of all things, and in the immortality of the soul. According to Cicero, he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doc-trine appeared. He is said to have taught the bdief of the transjnigration of the soul: this is probably true; it being a tt iei commonly received among the Egyptians, and afttrvvards taught by Pythagoras, who was, as before observed, a pupil of Pherecydes.

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

, a learned Italian, was born in 1398, at Tolentino, in the march of Ancona. He studied at Padua, where he made such progress, that at eighteen he became professor of eloquence. The fame of his talents having gained him an invitation to Venice, he was honoured with the rank of citizen, and was sent by the republic as secretary to their embassy at Constantinople in 1419, and he took advantage of this employment to make himself master of Greek. He there married Theodora, daughter of the learned Emmanuel Chrysoloras, about 1419. Becoming at length known to the emperor John Palaeologus, he was sept on an embassy to Sigismund emperor of Germany, to implore his aid against the Turks. After this he taught at Venice, Florence, Siena, Bologna, and Milan, with astonishing success. He was not, however, without his defects. He wished to reign alone in the republic of letters, and could not bear contradiction without being extremely irritated. He would dispute on the most trivial points; and once wagered 100 crowns, on some minute question of grammar, against the beard of a Greek philosopher named Timotheus. Having won, no solicitation could prevail upon him to remit the fine, and he most unmercifully shaved his antagonist, in spite of very ample offers. To this presumptuous turn he joined a prodigality and a restlessness, which filled his life with uneasiness. Menage has accused him of destroying a copy of Cicero “De Gloria,” the only one then existing, after having transfused the greater part of it into a treatise of his own; but it does not appear that this accusation was just. Other learned men have been also suspected; but all that is certain is, that the work was extant in the time of Petrarch, who mentions having a copy of it, which has since been utterly lost. Philelphus died at Florence July 31, 1481, being then 83. His works consist of odes, dialogues, orations, &c. of which the following editions are in most request: 1. “Orationes et nonnulla alia opera, Plutarchi apophthegmata, ab eodem e Graeco in Latinum con versa,” 4to. This is a very rare edition, and contains a letter from Philelphus to Maria Sforza, dated from Milan, 1481. There are reprints at Venice in 1482, 1491, 1492, &c. but of little value. 2. “Odae,” Brix. 1497, 4to. 3. “Satyrarum Hecatosticon prima decas (decades decem),” Milan, 1476, small folio, of uncommon rarity. 4. “Satyrarum decades deceni,” Venice, 1502, 4to. 5. “Satyrae centum distinctae decem decadibus Catholicis passim refertoe sententiis: praemissa authoris vita ab Egid. Perrino Campano, &c.” Paris, 1508. De Bure says, that the life announced in the title of this edition is not to be found in such copies as he has seen. 6. “Epistolarum familiarum libri triginta septem,” Venice, 1502, folio. 7. “Fabulae,” Venice, 1480, 4to. In his letters are innumerable proofs of his arrogant and suspicious temper. His works, collected, were published at Basle in 1739.

, an Athenian comic poet, contemporary with Menander, whose rival he was, and though inferior, was frequently successful against him by means of intrigue or the partiality of friends, was, by the account of Suidas, a Syracusan by birth; but Strabo says that he was born at Solae, in Cilicia. He was some years older than Menander, and in the opinion of Quintilian fairly next to him in merit, though unfit to be preferred to him. Apuleius speaks still more favourably, saying only that he was fortasse impar; and adds, that there are to be found in his dramas “many witty strokes, plots ingeniously disposed, discoveries strikingly brought to light, characters well adapted to their parts, sentiments that accord with human life, jests that do not degrade the sock, and gravity that does not intrench upon the buskin.” Philemon, who flourished 274 B.C. lived to the extraordinary age of 101 years, and composed ninety comedies. Menander, indeed, composed more, and in less time, but even this was extraordinary. His longevity was the result of great temperance, and a placid frame of mind. Frugal, to a degree that subjected him to the charge of avarice, he never weakened his faculties or constitution by excess: and he summed up all his wishes in one rational and moderate petition to heaven, which throws a most favourable light upon his character: “I pray for health in the first place; in the next, for success in my undertakings; thirdly, for a cheerful heart; and lastly, to be out of debt to all mankind.” A petition which seems to have been granted in all its parts. As he lived in constant serenity oi mind, so he died without pain of body; for, having called together a number of his friends to the reading of a play which he had newly finished, and sitting, as was the custom in that serene climate, under the open canopy of heaven, an unforeseen fall of ruin broke up the company, just when the old man had g'>t into the third act, in the very wannest interests of his fahle. His hearers, disappointed by this unlucky check to their entertainment, interceded with him for the remainder on the day following, to which he readily assented; and a great company being then assembled, whom the fame of the rehearsal had brought together, they sat a considerable time in expectation of the poet, till wearied out with waiting, and unable to account for his want of punctuality, some of his intimates were dispatched in quest of him, who, having entered his house, and made their way to his chamber, found the old man dead on his couch, in his usual meditating posture, his features placid and composed, and with every symptom that indicated a death without pain or struggle. The fragments of Philemon are in general of a sentimental tender cast; and though they enforce sound and strict morality, yet no one instance occurs of that gloomy misanthropy, that harsh and dogmatizing spirit, which too often marks the maxims of his more illustrious rival. They were collected and published by Grotius, together with those of Menander; the greater part having been preserved by Stobtcns. Several of them, as well as the fragments of the other Greek comic poets, have been translated by Mr. Cumberland in his “Observer,” to which we refer our readers for further information.

, an eminent musician and chess-player, born at Dreuxin 1726, was descended from a long line of musical ancestors, who, in different branches of the art, had been attached to the court ever since the time of Louis XIII. The family-name was Danican; and it is pretended that this monarch, himself a dilettante musician, occasioned the surname of Philidor, a famous performer on the hautbois, whom this prince had heard in his progress through France, to be given to Danican, whose instrument being the hautbois, when the king heard him perform, he cried out, “Here’s anotuer Philidor!” Andrew was educated as a page or chorister in the chapelroyal, under Citmpra, and in 1737 he produced his first anthem, which was performed in the chapel, and complimented by the king as an extraordinary production for a child of eleven years old. On his change of voice, and quitting the chapel, he established himselt at Paris, where he subsisted by a few scholars, and by copying music; but every year he went to Versailles with a new motet.

In 1757 he composed an act of a serious opera; but Ribel, opera-manager, would not let it be performed, telling him that he would have no airs introduced in the scenes of that theatre. From this time, however, to 1779, he composed various operas for the French stage, that were much approved. In the last-mentioned year, he composed, in London, “The Carmen Seculare,” of Horace,“in the conduct of which, Philidor placed himself under the guidance of Baretti. The performance was attended, at Freemasons’ Hall, by all persons of learning and talents, in expectation of a revival of the music of the ancients, and, by many, of its miraculous powers. To wh,it kind of music the” Carmen Seculare" was performed at Rome, we pretend not to say; but in London, adds Dr. Burney, we could trace the composer’s models for the chorusses in the oratorios of Handel, and the operas of Rameau; and for the airs, in his own comic operas, and the favourite melodies then in vogue in that theatre, many of which, with Italian words and Italian singing, particularly those of Gretry, would he elegant and pleasing music any where. Philidor, however, in setting the secular ode, it must be confessed, manifested his knowledge of counterpoint in the style of the old masters; and that, in spite of chess, he had found time for the serious study of music. We believe that no one found himself much the wiser concerning the music of the ancients, after hearing this music performed to Latin words, than after hearing an oratorio of Handel, or an opera of Rameau. For the last two months of his life, he was kept alive merely by art, and the kind attentions of an old and worthy friend. To the last moment of his existence he enjoyed, though near seventy years of age, a strong retentive memory, which had long rendered him remarkable in the circle of his acquaintance in this capital. Mr. Philidor was a member of the chess-club riear 30 years; and was a man of those meek qualities that rendered him not less esteemed as a companion than admired for his extraordinary skill in the intricate and arduous game of chess, fpr which he was pre-eminently distinguished. Not two months before his death he played two games blindfold, at the same time, against two excellent chess-players, and was declared the conqueror. What seemed most to have shook the poor old man’s constitution, and to have precipitated his exit, was the not being able to procure a passport to return to France to visit his family, who were living there, before he paid the last debt of nature. But this refusal was rendered more bitter, on its being intimated that he was a suspected character, and had been one of those persons denounced by a committee of French informers. From the moment he was made acquainted with this circumstance, he became the martyr of grief: his philosophy forsook him; his tears incessantly flowed; and he sunk into the grave without a groan, oil the 3 1st of August, 1795.

, an English poet, was descended from an ancient family in Leicestershire, and educated at St. John’s-college, in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A.B. in 1696, and A.M. in 1700, at which time he obtained a fellowship. ' While at college also he is supposed to have written his “Pastorals,” which involved him so seriously with the wits and critics of the age. When he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, he became, as Jacob expresses himself, “one of the wits at Button’s; n and there contracted an acquaintance with the gentlemen of the belles lettres, who frequented it. Sir Richard Steele was his particular friend, and inserted in his Tatler, N. 12, a little poem of his, called” A Winter Piece,“dated from Copenhagen, the 9th of May, 1709, and addressed to the earl of Dorset. Sir Richard thus mentions it with honour:” This is as fine a piece as we ever had from any of the schools of the most learned painters. Such images as these give us a new pleasure in our sight, and fix upon our minds traces of reflection, which accompany us wherever the like objects occur.“Pope, too, who had a confirmed aversion to Philips, while he affected to despise his other works, always excepted this out of the number, and mentioned it as the production of a man” who could write very nobly."

In the mean time, he fell under the severe displeasure of Pope, who satirized him with his usual keenness. It was said he used to mention Pope as an enemy to the government; and it is certain that the revenge which Pope took upon him for this abuse, greatly ruffled his temper. Philips was not Pope’s match in satirical attack, and therefore had recourse to another weapon, for he stuck up a rod at Button’s coffee house, with which he threatened to chastise his antagonist whenever he should meet him. But Pope prudently declined going to a place where he must have felt the resentment of an enraged author, as much superior to him in bodily strength, as inferior in genius and skill in versifying.

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

, an English lady once highly praised for her wit and accomplishments, was the daughter of Mr. Fowler, a merchant of London, and born there Jan. 1, 1631. She was educated at a boarding-school at Hackney; where she distinguished herself early for her skill in poetry. When very young, she became the wife of James Philips, of the priory of Cardigan, esq. and afterwards went with the viscountess of Dungannon into Ireland. At the request of the earl of Orrery, she translated from the French, and dedicated to the countess of Cork, “Corneille’s tragedy of Pompey” which was several times acted at the new theatre there in 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was published. She translated also the four first acts of “Horace,” another tragedy of Corneille; the fifth being done by sir John Denham. She died of the small pox in London, the 22d of June, 1664, to the regret of all the beau-monde, in the thirty-third year of her age “having not left,” says Langbaine, “any of her sex her equal in poetry.” “She not only equalled,” adds he, “alt that is reported of the poetesses of antiquity, the Lesbian Sappho and the Roman Sulpitia, but justly found her admirers among the greatest poets of our age:” and then he mentions the earls of Orrery and Roscommon, Cowley, and others. Cowley wrote an ode upon her death. Dr. Jeremy Taylor had addressed to her his “Measures and Offices of Friendship:” the second edition of which was printed in 1,657, 12mo. She assumed the name of Orinda, and gave that of Anten'or to her husband; she had likewise a female friend Anne Owen, who was Lucasia. In 1667, were printed, in folio, “Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Catherine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added, Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, tragedies. With several other translations from the French;” and her portrait before them, engraven by Fait born. There was likewise another edition in 1678, folio; in the preface of which we are told, that “she wrote her familiar letters with great facility, in a very fair hand, and perfect orthography; and if they were collected with those excellent discourses she wrote on several subjects, they would make a volume much larger than that of her poems.” In 1705, a small volume of her letters to sir Charles Cotterell was printed under the title of “Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus:” the editor of which tells us, that “they were the effect of an happy intimacy between herself and the late-famous Poliarchus, and are an admirable pattern for the pleasing correspondence of a virtuous friendship. They will sufficiently instruct us, how an intercourse of writing between persons of different sexes ought to be managed with delight and innocence; and teach the world not to load such a commerce with censure and detraction, when it is removed at such a distance from even the appearance of guilt.” All the praise of her contemporaries, however, has not been sufficient to preserve her works from oblivion.

, one of the nephews of Milton, Was the son of Edward Phillips, who came from Shrewsbury, and rose to be secondary in the Crown-office, by Anne, sister of the celebrated poet, and was born in the Strand, near Charing-cross, in August 1630, and received his earliest education under his uncle. In 1648 he became a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he continued till 1651. The time of his death is not ascertained. He published two small works, entitled “Tractatulus de carmine Dramatico Poetarum, praesertim in choris Tragicis, et veteris Comediae,” and “Compendiosa enumeratio Poetarum (saltern quorum fama maxime enituit) qui atempore Dantis Aligerii usque ad hanc aetatem claruerunt; nempe Italorum, Germanorum, Anglorum, &c.” These were added to the seventeenth edition of Job. Buchlerus’s book, entitled “Sacrarum profanarumque phrasium poeticarum Thesaurus,” &c. Lond. 1669, 8vo. But he is better known by his “Theatrum Poetarum, or a compleat collection of the Poets, especially the most eminent of all ages, the Ancients distinguish't from the Moderns in their several alphabets. With some observations- and reflections upon many of them, particularly those of our own nation. Together with a prefatory discourse of the Poets and Poetry in general,” Lond. 1675. Into this work there is, says Warton, good reason to suppose that Milton threw many additions and corrections. It contains criticisms far above the taste of that period, and such as were not common after the national taste had been just corrupted by the false and capricious refinements of the court of Charles II. The preface, however, discovers more manifest traces of Milton’s hand than the book itself.

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

, author of several books relating to ancient customs and privileges in England, was the son of a gentleman, and born at Prestbury in Gloucestershire, Sept. 28, 1601. When he was very young, he spent some time in one of the inns of chancery; and thence translated himself to the Middle-temple, where he became learned in the law. In the civil war he continued loyal, having always been an assertor of the king’s prerogative; and was so zealously attached to Charles I. that, two days before the king was beheaded, he wrote a protestation against the intended murder, which he caused to be printed, and affixed to posts in all public places. He also published, in 1649, 4to, a pamphlet entitled “Veritas inconcussa; or King Charles I. no man of blood, but a martyr for his people:” which was reprinted in 1660, 8vo. In 1653, when the courts of justice at Westminster, especially the chancery, were voted down by Oliver’s parliament, he published “Considerations against the dissolving and taking them away:” for which he received the thanks of William Lenthall, esq. speaker of the late parliament, and of the keepers of the liberties of England. For some time, he was tilazer for London, Middlesex, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire; and spent much money in searching records, and writing in favour of the royal prerogative: yet he was but poorly rewarded by the place of one of the commissioners for regulating the law, worth 200l. per annum, which only lasted two years. After the restoration of Charles II. when the bill for taking away the tenures was depending in parliament, he wrote and published a book, to shew the necessity of preserving them. Its title is “Tenenda non Tollenda: or, the Necessity of preserving Tenures in Capite, and by KnightVservice, which, according to their first institution, were, and are yet, a 'great part of the salus populi, &c, 1660,” 4to. In 1663 he published “The Antiquity, Legality, Reason, Duty, and Necessity of Prae-emption and Pourveyance for the King,” 4to and, afterwards, many other pieces upon subjects of a similar kind. He likewise assisted Dr. Bates in his “Elenchus Motuum;” especially in searching the records and offices for that work. He died Nov. 17, 1690, in his eighty-ninth year; and was buried near his wife, in the church of Twyford in Middlesex. He was a man well acquainted with records and antiquities; but his manner of writing is not close or well digested. He published various political pamphlets, and among them one in 1681, which, supposing him to have been sincere, proves his passion for royal prerogative to have been mu h superior to his sagacity and judgment: it is entitled “Ursa Major et Minor; shewing, that there is no such fear, as is factiously pretended, of popery and arbitrary power.” In the Archaeologia, vol. XIII. is an account of a ms. of his in the Harleian collection, entitled “An Expedient or meanes in want of money to pay the sea and land forces, or as many of them as shall be thought expedient without money in this year of an almost universal povertie of the English nation.” In Strype’s life of Whitgift (p. 89), is a notice of one Fabian Phillips, one of the council of the marches of Wales, who appears to have been an ancestor of our author.

Dr. Johnson observes, that “Philips has been always praised, without contradiction, as a man modest, blameless, and pious; who bore a narrow fortune without discontent, and tedious and painful maladies without impatience; beloved by those that knew him, but not ambitious to be known. He was probably not formed for a wide circle. His conversation is commended for its innocent gaiety, which seems to have flowed only among his intimates; for I have been told, that he was in company silent and barren, and employed only upon the pleasures of his pipe. His addiction to tobacco is mentioned by one of hjs biographers, who remarks that in all his writings, except ‘ Blenheim,’ he has found an opportunity of celebrating the fragrant fume. In common life, he was probably one of those who please by not offending, and whose person was loved, because his writings were admired. He died honoured and lamented, before any part of his reputation had withered, and before his patron St. John had disgraced him His works are few. The ‘ Splendid Shilling,’ has the uncommon merit of an original design, unless it may be thought precluded by the ancient Centos. To degrade the sounding words and stately construction of Milton, by an application to the lowest and most trivial things, gratifies the mind with a momentary triumph over that granueur which hitherto held its captives in admiration; the words and things are presented with a new appearance, and novelty is always grateful where it gives no pain. But the merit of such performances begins and ends with the 6rst author. He that should again adapt Milton’s phrase to the gross incidents of common life, and even adapt it with more art, which would not be difficult, must yet expect but a small part of the praise which Philips has obtained: he can only hope to be considered as the repeater of a jest.”

It is remarkable, that there were two poets of both the names of this author, who flourished in his time: one the nephew to Milton, already mentioned. The other was the author of two political farces, both printed in 1716; 1. “The Earl of Marr marred, with the Humours of Jocky the Highlander.” 2. “The Pretender’s Flight: or, a Mock Coronation, with the Humours of the facetious Harry St. John.”

, sometimes called Phillip Morgan, a native of Monmouthshire, entered a student at Oxford about 1533. Being admitted to the degree of B. A. in 1537, he distinguished himself so much by a talent for disputing, then in high vogue, that he was called Morgan the sophister. Afterwards proceeding M. A. he was chosen a fellow of Oriel college, and entered into orders. In 1546 he was chosen principal of St. Mary-hall, and was in such reputation with the popish party, that he was one of the three selected to dispute with Peter Martyr on the sacrament. His share was published in 1549, under the title “Disputatio de sacramento Eucharistiae in univ. Oxon. habita, contra D. Pet. Martyr. 13 Mali, 1549.” We hear nothing of him during the reign of Edward VI.; but in that of queen Mary, he was appointed chanter of St. David’s. Being deprived of this by queen Elizabeth, he went abroad, and after a journey to Rome with Allen (afterwards the cardinal), he joined with him in 1568 in establishing the English college at Doway, and was the first who contributed pecuniary aid to that institution. Wood places his death at 1577, but the records of Doway college inform us that he died there in 1570, and left his property for the purchase of a house and garden for the English missionaries. A very scarce work, entitled “A Defence of the Honour of queen Mary of Scotland, with a declaration of her right, title, and interest, in the crown of England,” (London, 1569, Liege, 1571, 8vo), was attributed to him; but Camden and others assure us that it was written, as we have noticed in his life, by John Leslie, bishop of Ross. The only other treatise, therefore, we can ascribe to him with certainty, is that written in answer to Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpet” and entitled “A Treatise shewing, the Regiment (government) of Women is conformable to the law of God and Nature,” Liege, 1571, 8vo.

The preceding account is extracted from our author’s pamphlet, printed in 1761, and entitled “Philemon,” of which a few copies only were given to friends. The other circumstances collected by his biographer relate chiefly to his publications. In 1756, he published “The Study of Sacred Literature, fully stated and considered in a Discourse to a student in divinity (the rev. John Jenison, who died at Liege, Dec. 27, 1790),” a second edition of which appeared in 1758, and a third in 1765. This work is entitled to considerable praise; but his principal performance was “The History of the Life of Reginald Pole,” 1764, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1767, 2 vols. 8vo. It cannot be denied that this work, though penned with no small degree of spirit and elegance, contains much matter of an exceptionable nature, many of the facts distorted, and many of the characters introduced in it virulently abused. It excited, therefore, on the protestant side a general alarm, and met, as might be expected, with a firm opposition; many answers soon made their appearance, from several eminent hands, and the mistakes and improprieties of our author’s performance were pointed out and exposed. The following, we believe, is an exact list of his answerers: 1. “A Letter to Mr. Phillips, containing some observations on his History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Rich. Tillard, M. A. 1765, 8vo. 2. “A Review of Mr. Phillips’s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Glocester Ridley, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 3. “Animadversions upon Mr. Phillips’ s History of the Life of Cardinal Pole.” By Timothy Neve, D.D. Rector of Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire, 1766, 8vo. To this are added some remarks by Dr. Jortin. 4. “Remarks upon the History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By Edw. Stone, Clerk, A. M. and late fellow of Wadham college, Oxford, 1766, 8vo. These remarks were first printed in the Public Ledger. 5. “The Life of Cardinal Reginald Pole, written originally in Italian, by Lodovico Beccatelli, archbishop of Ragusa, and now first translated into English, with notes critical and historical. To which is added an Appendix, setting forth the plagiarisms, false translations, and false grammar in Thomas Phillips’ s History of the Life of Reginald Pole.” By theRev. Benjamin Pye, LL. B. 1766, 8vo. 6. “Catholick Faith and Practice, addressed to the ingenious author of the Life of Cardinal Pole,” anonymous, 1765; the author of which was Mr. John Jones, of Welwyn. (See before, vol. XIX.)

He had a sister Elizabeth, who became abbess of the BeneJictine nuns at Ghent, to whom he addressed some elegant and spirited poetry, which may be seen in our principal authority. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cole attributes to him “Reasons for the repeal of the Laws against the Papists;” and his biographer adds that he was the author of an elegant translation in metre, of the beautiful prose “Lauda Sion Salvatorem;” and an equally elegant “Censura Commentariorum Cornelii a Lapide,” in Latin, printed on a single sheet.

, an ancient Greek writer, and of a noble family among the Jews, flourished at Alexandria in the reign of Caligula. He was the chief person of an embassy which was sent to Rome about the year 42, to plead the cause of his nation against Apion, who was commissioned by the Alexandrians to charge it with neglecting the honours due to Caesar; but that emperor would not suffer him to speak, and behaved to him with such anger, that Philo was in no small danger of losing his life. He went a second time to Rome, in the reign of Claudius; and then, according to Eusebius and Jerome, became acquainted, and upon terms of friendship, with St. Peter. Photius says further, that he was baptized into the Christian religion, and afterwards, from some motive of resentment, renounced it; but there is much uncertainty in all this, and few believe that St. Peter was at Rome so early as the reign of Claudius, if he was there at all.

, of Crotona, was a celebrated philosopher of the ancients, who flourished about 375 B. C. He was of the school of Pythagoras, to whom that philosopher’s Golden Verses have been ascribed. He made the heavens his chief object of contemplation; and has been said to be the author of that true system of the world which Copernicus afterwards revived; but erroneously, because there is undoubted evidence that Pythagoras learned that system in Egypt. On that erroneous supposition however it was, that Bulliald placed the name of Philolaus at the head of two works, written to illustrate and confirm that system.

"He was (says Brucker) a disciple of Archytas, and flourished in the time of Plato. It was from him that Plato purchased the written records of the Pythagorean system, contrary to an express oath taken by the society of Pythagoreans, pledging themselves to keep secret the mysteries of their sect. It is probable that among these books were the writings of Timaeus, upon which Plato formed the dialogue which bore his name. Plutarch relates, that Philolaus was one of the persons who escaped from the house which was burned by Cylon, during the life of Pythagoras; but this account cannot be correct. Philolaus was con,­temporary with Plato, and therefore certainly not with Pythagoras. Interfering in affairs of state, he fell a sacrifice to political jealousy.

, an ancient Greek author, who wrote the life of Apollonius Tyanensis, and some other works still extant, was either of Athens, or Lemnos, and educated in the schools of the Sophists. He lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, from the years 193 to 212, and becoming known afterwards to Julia Augusta, the consort of Severus, he was one of those learned men whom this philosophic empress had continually about her, and it was by her command, that he wrote the “Life of Apoilonius Tyanensis.” Suidas and Hesychius say, that he taught rhetoric, first at Athens, and then at Rome, from the reign of Severus to that of Philippus, who obtained the empire in the year 244. This “Life of Apollonius” is his most celebrated work, as far as celebrity can depend oh imposture, of which it contains abundant proofs. We have already, in our account of Apollonius, noticed its being refuted by Dupin, as a collection of fables, either invented or embellished by himself; but some of the most judicious strictures on Philostratus with which we are acquainted, may be found in bishop Douglas’s Criterion from p. 50, edit. 1807. The works of Philostratus, however, originally published separately, have been thought not unworthy the attention of critics of the first class. Graevius had a design of giving a correct edition of them, as appears from the preface of Meric Casaubon, to a dissertation upon an intended edition of Homer, printed at London in 1658, 8vo. So had Bentley, who designed to add a new Latin version of his notes: and Fabricius says, that he saw the first sheet of Bentley’s edition printed at Leipsic in 1691. Both these designs being given up, a correct and beautiful edition, was published at Leipsic, in 1709, in folio, by Olearius. At the end of Apollonius’s “Life,” are ninety-five “Letters,” which go under his name, but bear all the marks of forgery. The “Lives of the Sophists,” which make part of Philostratus’ s works, contain many things, which are to be met with no where else; and his “Icones,” or images, are elegant descriptions and illustrations of some ancient paintings, and other particulars relating to the fine arts: to which Olearius has subjoined the description of some statues by Callistratus. The volume concludes with a collection of Philostratus’s “Letters:” but some of these, though it is not easy to determine which, were written by a nephew to the principal Philostratus, of the same name; as were also the last eighteen, in the book of images. This is the reason, why the title of Olearius’s edition runs, not “Philostrati,” but “Philostratorum qua? supersunt omnia.”

In 1541 his fellowship became void, /probably by his setting out on his travels through Italy. He returned in the beginning of king Edward’s reign, and was collated to the archdeaconry of Winchester by Dr. Ponet, or Poynet, the first protestant bishop of that see. He was not unknown to Gardiner, Ponet’s predecessor, who had often forbidden his preaching in king Henry’s reign, and on one occasion cited him to his house, before certain justices, and called him rogue. Catching hold of this abusive epithet, Philpot said, “Do you keep a privy sessions in your own house for me, and call me rogue, whose father is a knight, and may spend a thousand pounds within one mile of your nose? And he that can spend ten pounds by the year, as I can, I thank God, is no vagabond.”

While archdeacon of Winchester he was a frequent preacher, and active in promoting the reformed religion in the county of Hampshire; and considering the doctrine of the Trinity as of fundamental importance, was a decided enemy both in word and writing to the Arian opinions which appeared first in that reign. He and Ridley were reckoned two of the most learned men of their time, yet Philpot‘ s zeal was sometimes too ardent for the prudent discharge of his duty, and the tract he wrote against the Arians has the air of a coarse invective in the title of it. On the accession of queen Mary he disdained to temporize, or conceal his sentiments, but publicly wept in the first convocation held in her reign, when he saw it composed of men who were determined to restore popery. He wrote a report of this convocation, which fell into bishop Bonner’ s hands among other of Philpot' s books, which Bonner had seized. It was not long, therefore, before he was apprehended, and after various examinations before Bonner, and a most cruel and rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months, was condemned to be burnt in Smithfield. This was accordingly executed December 18, 1555, and was suffered by the martyr with the greatest constancy. He wrote “Epistolue Hebraicæ” and “De proprietate linguarum,” which are supposed to be in manuscript; “An Apology for Spitting upon an Arian, with an invective against the Arians,” &c. Lond. 1559, 8vo and 4to; “Supplication to king Philip and queen Mary;” “Letters to lady Vane;” “Letters to the Christian Congregation, that they abstain from Mass;” “Exhortation to his Sister;” and “Oration.” These are all printed by Fox, except the last, which is in the Bodleian. He also wrote translations of “Calvin’s Homilies” “Chrysostome against Heresies;” and Crelius Secundus Curio’s “Defence of the old and ancient anthority of Christ’s Church:” and his account of the convocation above mentioned, or what appears to be so, under the title of “Vera Expositio Disputationis institute mandate D. Mame reginae Ang. &c. in Synodo Ecclesiastico, Londini, in comitiis regni ad 18 Oct. anno 1553;” printed in Latin, at Rome, 1554, and in English at Basil.

, Somerset herald in the reign of James I. was a native of Folkstone, in Kent, and descended from an ancient and reputable family, long seated in that county. From his infancy he had a taste for heraldry and antiquities. He was respected by Camden, who employed him much as his deputy or marshal in his visitations. In 1636 he published a catalogue of the chancellors of England; and in 1657 an edition of Camden’s “Remains,” with additions. When the civil war broke out, he adhered, amidst all dangers, to the royal cause. In 1643, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. In the following year he fell into the hands of his enemies, being surprised whilst in his quarters, at a village about two miles from Oxford, by some of the parliamentary forces, who sent him up to London a prisoner; but he soon obtained his liberty. It was the king’s intention to have rewarded his loyalty by the place of Norroy, but he died prematurely, in London, according to Wood, or near Eltham, in Kent, as Hasted says, Nov. 25, 1645.

, sirnamed Trallianus, from Tralles, a city of Lydia, where he was born, was one of the emperor Adrian’s freedmen, to whom he gave a liberal education, and lived at least to the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, as appears from his mentioning the consuls of that year. He appears to have been a man of great talents, and the contemporary of Epictetus, Florus, Arrian, and other eminent men who adorned the court of Adrian. Of his works, however, we have nothing left but fragments. The titles of them were an “History of the Olympiads;” “A Treatise of long-lived Persons;” and another of “Wonderful Things;” the short and broken remains of which Xylander translated into Latin, and published at Basil in 1568, with the Greek and with notes. Meursius gave a new edition of them, with his notes at Leyden, in 1622. The titles of part of the rest of Phlegon’s writings are preserved by Suidas; but the “History of Adrian,” published under Phlegon' s name, was written by Adrian himself.

What has made Phlegon’s name more familiar among the moderns, is his being cited, though a heathen, as bearing witness to the accomplishment of prophecies, and to the miraculous darkness which prevailed during our Lord’s passion. This last was the origin of a controversy in the early part of the last century, although the immediate cause was the omission of the passage from Phlegon in an edition of Clarke’s Boyle’s Lectures, published soon after his death, at the persuasion of Dr. Sykes, who had suggested to Clarke, that an undue stress had been laid upon it. Whiston, who informs us of this affair, expresses great displeasure against Sykes, and calls “the suggestion groundless.” Upon this, Sykes published “A Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon; or, an Enquiry, whether that Eclipse had any relation to the Darkness which happened at our Saviour’s Passion,” 1732, 8vo. Sykes concludes it to be most probable that Phlegon had in view a natural eclipse, which happened Nov. 24, in the first year of the 202d olympiad, and not in the fourth year of the olympiad in which Christ was crucified.

When Ignatius was expelled and deposed from the see of Constantinople, Photius was nominated by the court to succeed him; and although at this time only a layman, in the space of six days he accumulated the degrees of monk, reader, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest, and in this rapid manner rose to the patriarchate on Christmas- day 858. The metropolitans, subject to the see of Constantinople, acknowledged Photius; but great opposition was made to this uncanonical ordination from other quarters, and he was actually degraded at Rome. Photius, however, ordered a council to be called at Constantinople, and got himself confirmed in 'his patriarchal dignity; in which, by various arts not very worthy of his high and sacred office, he continued during the life of his friend the emperor Michael. But Michael being murdered by the order of Basilius, who succeeded him in the year 867, the affairs of Photius were ruined, and Basilius banished him to a monastery, and reinstated Ignatius in his see. In this degraded state Photius remained for more than ten years, until a division between the pope and Ignatius afforded him an opportunity to attempt his own restoration; and, having obtained the emperor’s favour, he returned to Constantinople while Ignatius was yet alive. It is said Ignatius would have proposed conditions, but Photius, determined upon full restoration to the patriarchate, would be satisfied with nothing less. Ignatius however died Oct. 23, 878; and Photius immediately went into St. Sophia’s church with armed men; forced a great many bishops, clerks, and monks, to communicate with him; deposed and persecuted all that refused; and to prevent all opposition from the papal side, prevailed by threats and presents on two of the pope’s legates who were there, to declare publicly to the clergy and people, that they had come to depose Ignatius, and to declare Photius their patriarch. He kept his seat, thus forcibly obtained, till the year 886, and then was turned out, and banished by the emperor Leo into a monastery in Armenia, where he is supposed to have died soon after. He was, as we have observed, a man of great talents, great learning, and every way accomplished; but his ardent love of glory, and unbounded ambition, prompted him to such excesses, as made 'him rather a scourge than a blessing to those about him. He was the author of many intestine tumults and civil commotions; and not only divided the Greek church, but laid the foundation of a division between the Greek and Latin churches.

Amidst all his ambitious intrigues he found leisure for more honourable pursuits, and wrote some works which will preserve his name in the learned world. Among those extant the most considerable is his “Bibliotheca,” composed by him while he was yet a layman, and an ambassador in Assyria. It contains the argument or abstracts of 280 volumes of many authors upon various subjects; among whom are grammarians, critics, poets, orators, sacred and profane historians, physicians, philosophers, divines, &c. not ranked according to their several arts and professions, but introduced promiscuously as they occurred in the course of his reading. Fabricius very justly calls this “Bibliotheca,” or library, non liber, sed insignis thesaurus, “not a book, but an illustrious treasure” in which are contained many curious things relating to authors, and many fragments of works which are no where else to be found. It was first brought to light by Andreas Schottus, and communicated by him to David Hoeschelius, who caused it to be printed in 1601, at Vienna, in Greek only. Schottus, considering the usefulness of this work, translated it into Latin, and printed his translation alone in 1606. Afterwards, the Greek text and the translation were printed together at Geneva in 1611; but the best edition is that printed at Rouen in 1653, folio, under the title“Photii Myriobiblion, sive Bibliotheca librorum, quos legit et censuit Photius, Gr. et Lat.” There are large paper copies of this edition, which bear a very high price.

Photius’s “Nomocanon” is another proof of his great abilities. It is a collection digested in an excellent method, and brought under fourteen different titles, of the canons of the councils, and of the canonical epistles, and of the emperor’s laws relating to ecclesiastical matters. Balsamon has written commentaries on this work; and with these it appeared in public, by the care of M. Justel, being printed at Paris with a Latin version in 1615, 4to. There are also 253 “Letters of Photius,” which shew the same strength of judgment and depth of learning as are to be seen in his other works. They were published in 1651, folio, with a Latin version and notes, by Richard Montague, bishop of Norwich, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library. There are ether small pieces of Photius that have been printed, and not a few still extant in manuscript only. The most remarkable is a very considerable fragment of a Greek lexicon, in which the greater part of the alphabet is complete. The various M8S of this Lexicon, in different libraries on the continent, are mere transcripts from each other, and originally from one, venerable for its antiquity, which was formerly in the possession of the celebrated Thomas Gale, and which is now deposited in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge. This ms. which is on parchment, bears such evident marks of antiquity, that it may not unreasonably be supposed to have been a transcript from the author’s copy. It is written in various hands. The compendia, which are used in some parls of it, are extremely difficult to decipher, though, on the whole, they are less so than the contractions which occur in many Mss. and particularly those in the library of St. Germain. A copy of this Lexicon, at Florence, was transcribed about the end of the sixteenth century, by Richard Thomson, of Oxford, who probably intended to publish it. (See Scahger Epist. p. 503, printed 1715.) Professor Porson had transcribed and corrected this valuable Lexicon for the press, and after it had been consumed by fire, he began the task afresh, and such were his incredible industry and patience, that he completed another transcript in his own exquisite hand-writing. Mr. Person’s copy of the Codex Galeanus is said to be among the papers of that incomparable scholar, which are preserved by the learned society of which he was long a distinguished ornament. But whilst the publication of it was anxiously expected and delayed, an edition appeared at Leipsic in 1808, by Godfrey Hermann, from two Mss., both of them extremely inaccurate.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

, an artist who flourished from 1524 to 1545, was of Lodi, and imitated the style of Titian, and sometimes of Giorgione, with distinguished and often unrivalled success. Such is the surprising beauty of some heads painted by him in one of the chapels of the Incoronata at Lodi, that a tradition prevailed of their having been painted by Titian himself, on his passage through that place. His picture of the Madonna with some saints, at S. Francesco in Brescia, reminds us of Giorgione. To the memory of this great man, Ridolfi has done little justice, by praising him only for his colour in fresco and distemper, without noticing the grandeur of his design, and the elegance of his forms. He likewise mistakes the name of his native place for his surname, and calls him a Brescian, in defiance of the inscriptions at the Incoronata, and elsewhere, of Callixtus de Platea, and Callixtus Laudensis.

, a modern artist, was born at Venice in 1683. He was the son of a statuary in wood, who probably gave him what foundation he had in design. He exchanged the gay and open manner in which he painted at first, for the dark and murky one that ever after characterised his works, from the contemplation of Spagnoletto’s and Guercino’s styles. He attempted to surprise by cutting contrasts of light and shade, and succeeded; such decision of chiaroscuro gave value to his drawings, and was eagerly imitated in prints; but his method of colouring destroyed its effect in a great measure on the canvas; increased and altered shades, faded lights, dingy yellows, produced dissonance and spots. When this is not the case, and in better-preserved pictures, the effect is novel, and strikes at first sight, especially in subjects that border on horror, such as the decollation of St. John in a dark prison, at Padua; a work painted in competition with the best painters of the state, and preferred. Piazzetta had no great vigour of mind for copious composition; he consumed several years in finishing a Rape of the Sabines, for a Venetian nobleman; and in the expressions of his altar-pieces he had certainly more devotion than dignity. His chief strength lay in busts and heads for cabinets. In caricatures he was perhaps unparalleled. He died in 1754, aged seventy-one.

, an able mathematician of France, aud one of the most learned astronomers of the seventeenth century, was born at Fleche, and became priest and prior of Rillie in Anjou. Coming afterwards to Paris, his superior talents for mathematics and astronomy soon made him known and respected. In 1666 he was appointed astronomer in the Academy of Sciences. And five years after, he was sent, by order of the king, to the castle of Urani burgh, built by Tycho Brahe in Denmark, to make astronomical observations there; and from thence he brought the original manuscripts written by Tycho Brahe; which are the more valuable, as they differ in many places from the printed copies, and contain a book more than lias yet appeared. These discoveries were followed by many others, particularly in astronomy: he was one of the first who applied the telescope to astronomical quadrants: he first executed the work called “La Connoissance des Temps,” which he calculated from 1679 to 1683 inclusively: he first observed the light in the vacuum of the barometer, or the mercurial phosphorus: he also first of any went through several parts of France, to measure the degrees of the French meridian, and first gave a chart of the country, which the Cassini’s afterwards carried to a great degree of perfection. He died in 1682 or 1683, leaving a name dear to his friends, and respectable to his contemporaries and to posterity. His works are: 1. “A treatise on Levelling.” 2. “Practical Dialling by calculation.” 3. “Fragments of Dioptrics.” 4. “Experiments on Running Water.” 5. “Of Measurements.” 6. “Mensuration of Fluids and Solids.” 7. ' Abridgment of the Measure of the Earth.“8.” Journey to Uraniburgh, or Astronomical Observations made in Denmark.“9.” Astronomical Observations made in divers parts of France.“10” La Connoissance des Temps," from 1679 to 1683.

, a famous engraver, was son of Stephen Picart, a good engraver also, and born at Paris in 1673. * He learned the principles of design, and the elements of his art, from his father, and studied architecture and perspective under Sebastian le Clerc. His uncommon talents in this way soon began to shew themselves and, at ten years of age, he engraved the hermaphrodite of Poussin, which was soon followed by two pieces of cardinal de Richelieu’s tomb. These works laid the foundation of that great reputation which this celebrated artist afterwards acquired. When he was grown up, he went into Holland, where his parents had settled themselves; and, after two years’ stay, returned to Paris, and married a lady who died soon after. Having embraced the reformed religion, he returned to Holland in 1710, for the sake of that freedom in the exercise of it, which he could not have at Paris; but connoisseurs are of opinion, that in attempting to please the taste of the Dutch, he lost much of the spirited manner in which he executed his works while in France, and on which they tell us his reputation was more firmly founded. Others inform us, that he was not so fond of engraving as of drawing, that he took up the graver with reluctance, and consequently many of his prints are better drawn than engraved. The greater part of his life was certainly spent in making compositions and drawings, which are said to have been very highly finished; and they are sufficient testimonies of the fertility of his genius, and the excellency of his judgment. He understood the human figure extremely well, and drew it with a tolerable degree of correctness, especially in small subjects. He worked much for the booksellers, and book-plates are by far the best part of his works. The multitude of these which he engraved, chiefly from his own compositions, is astonishing. One estimate makes them amount to 1300 pieces. The most capital of his separate plates is the “Massacre of the Innocents,” a small plate lengthways. After his death, which happened April 27, 1733, his friends published a small folio volume, called the “Innocent Impostures;” a set of prints from the designs of the great masters, in which he has attempted to imitate the styles of the old engravers. Strutt, who has, with apparent justice, censured this production, in the essay prefixed to his second volume, laments that Picart’s friends shouldhave been so injudicious as to publish what must diminish our respect for this artist.

The young Piccini was admitted in that seminary in 1742, and was placed at first under the tuition of a subaltern master, whose lessons, given in a dry and contracted manner, soon disgusted him; and, in a few months, his discontent at such unprofitable instructions drew on him the resentment of his tutor, expressed in no very gentle way. Shocked with this treatment, he resolved to study by himself, and began composing without rules, or any other guides than his own genius and fancy, psalms, oratorios, and opera airs; which soon excited the envy or admiration of all his fellow-students. He even had the courage to compose an entire mass. One of the masters who had seen it, and even permitted him to have it rehearsed, thought it right to mention it to Leo; who, a few days after, sent for Piccini, who, frightened at this message, obeyed the order with fear and trembling. “You have composed a mass,” said Leo, with a cold and almost severe countenance. “Yes, sir.” “Shew me your score.” “Sir, sir,” “Shew it me, I say.” Piccini thought himself ruined, but he must obey. He fetched his score at which Leo looked, turned over the leaves, examined each movement, smiled, rung the bell, as the signal for a rehearsal. The young composer, more dead than alive, begged in vain to be spared what he thought such an affront. The singers and instrumental performers obeyed the summons: the parts were distributed, and the performers waited only for Leo to beat the time. When, turning gravely to Piccini, he presented him the baton, which was then used every where, in the performance of full pieces. Piccini, put to new confusion, wished he had never dared to meddle with composition; but at length rnustere 1 his courage, and marked with a trembling hand the first bars. Soon, however, animated and infl imed by the harmony, he neither saw Leo nor the standers by, who were numerous: he was absorbed in his music, and directed its performance with a fire, energy, and accuracy, which astonished the whole audience, and acquired him great applause. Leo kept a profound silence during the performance. When, it was over “I forgive you, for once,” said he; “but if you are again guilty of such presumption, you shall be punished in such a manner as you will remember as long as you live. What! you have received from nature so estimable a disposition for study, and you lose all the advantages of so precious a gift! Instead of studying the principles of the art, you give way to all the wild vagaries of your imagination, and fancy you have produced a master-piece.” The boy, piqued by these reproaches, related what had passed between him and the assistant-master under whom he was placed. Leo became calm, and even embraced and caressed him; ordering him to come to his apartments every morning, to receive instructions from himself.

, archbishop of Patras, and coadjutor of Sienna, his native place, was born in 1503. His family was illustrious, and originally Roman, but settled afterwards at Sienna. He was a successful writer of the drama; but, though involved in that seducing pursuit, preserved the credit of exemplary morals, as well as genius. His general charity was extreme, but he was particularly considerate of the wants of literary men, His works are numerous, all written in Italian, which language he was the first author who applied to philosophical subjects. He died at Sienna on the 12th of March, 1578. The most distinguished of his works are these: 1. Several dramatic compositions, which formed the chief basis of his reputation. 2. “The Morality of Nobles,” Venice, 1552, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise on the Sphere.” 4. “A Theory of the Planets.” 5. “A Translation of the Rhetoric and Poetic of Aristotle,” 4to. 6. “The Institution of Morality,” Venice, 1575, 4to. Many of his works evince a profound knowledge of natural philosophy, mathematics, and divinity. One work attributed to him, “Delia bella Creanza della Donne,” “On the Education of Ladies,” printed in 1541, 1558, and 1574, has been valued because scarce, but is disgraced by many dangerous maxims, and must have been a production of his youth; during which, we are told, he was a correspondent of the infamous Peter Aretin.

The love of fame (says his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow in this sketch,) and a too ardent thirst for praise, have perhaps justly been imputed to Picus, as constituting his ruling passion (notwithstanding the modesty and diffidence with which he frequently speaks of his own talents and productions), especially if the charge be restricted to that period of his life, when ma^turer experience and those religious impressions by which his latter years were more especially influenced, had not yet combined to rectify the errors of youth. Caressed, flattered, courted, extolled as a prodigy of erudition by the most distinguished scholars of his age, he was at the same time conscious of his own qualifications and powers, and began to think that they ought to be exhibited on the most extensive stage which the world then afforded. With this view he resolved on a journey to Rome; and immediately on his arrival, in November 1486, he published a most remarkable challenge to the learned of Europe, under the title of- “Conclusiones,” consisting of 900 propositions, or subjects of discussion, in almost every science that could exercise the speculation or ingenuity of man; and which, extraordinary and superfluous as many of them appear to a reader of the present times, certainly furnish a more adequate idea of the boundless extent of his erudition and research, than any words can describe. These he promised publicly to maintain against all opponents whatsoever: and that time might be allowed for the circulation of his “Conclusiones” through the various universities of Italy, in- all of which he caused them to be published, notice was giv^n, that the public discussion of them was not intended to take place till after the feast of the Epiphany next ensuing. A further object of this delay was, to afford to all scholars, even from the remotest of those seats of learning, who were desirous to be present and to assist at his disputations, an opportunity of repairing to Rome for such a purpose. So desirous was Picus of attracting thither, on this occasion, all the united wit, ingenuity, and erudition, that Italy could boast, that he engaged to defray, out of his own purse, the charges of all scholars, from whatever part, who should undertake the journey to Rome, for the purpose of disputing publicly with him on the subjects proposed. He had previously obtained the express permission of pope Innocent VIII. and professed all possible deference to the authority of the church, in the support of his theses. The boldness of this challenge could not fail to astonish the learned in general; but astonishment soon gave place to envy: and the Roman scholars and divines in particular, whose credit was more immediately implicated, endeavoured to render his design abortive, first, by lampoons and witticisms; and, when these proved insufficient, by the more alarming expedient of presenting thirteen of Picus’s theses, as containing matter of an heretical tendency. This answered their purpose; and although Picus continued at Rome a whole year, in expectation of reaping the harvest of praise which his juvenile vanity had led him to desire, he at last found himself not only debarred from all opportunity of signalizing himself publicly, as a disputant, but involved in a charge of heterodoxy, and therefore thought it expedient to leave Rome, and seek a temporary asylum at Florence, in the friendship of Lorenzo de Medici. Here he immediately set about the composition of his “Apologia,' 1 a work which not only served to refute the calumnies of his enemies, but convinced the world that his pretensions to very extraordinary powers were not spurious or empirical. On its completion, he sent it to the pope, who, although he fully acquitted the author of all bad intention, thought proper to suppress the circulation of it; and Picus, on further reflection, not only acquiesced in this, but in his disappointment, acknowledging with thankfulness that divine Providence, which often educes good out of evil, had rendered the malevolence of his enemies a most salutary check to the career of vain glory, in which he had been led so far astray. But Picus had not yet seen all the disagreeable consequences of this affair: his enemies began to cavil at the” Apologia" itself, which appears to have had considerable weight with pope Innocent; and it was not until 1493 that he was acquitted from the charge, and from all prosecutions, pains, and penalties, by a bull of pope Alexander VI.

In the beginning of 1488, we find Picus in the possession of a peaceful asylum at Fiesole, in the vicinity of Florence, which had been given him by Lorenzo de Medici, who had a villa in the neighbourhood; and he and Politian spent many of their hours of literary leisure together. Here also he enjoyed the friendship of Robert Salviatus and the family of the Benivieni, four in number, and all men of learning and talents. Jerome Benivieni, or Benivenius, became more especially the intimate friend of Picus, the depositary of his religious and moral opinions, and all that congeniality of opinion and disposition can render one person to another. Picus wrote a commentary on one of Benivieni’s Canzone, which will be noticed hereafter* In 1489, Picus’s “Heptaplus” was published, and received with great encomiums by the learned of the age, as worthy of its author’s talents and pre-acquired celebrity It can scarcely, however, says his biographer, be productive of any valuable purpose, very minutely to inquire into the merit of a woik which the tacit consent of posterity has consigned to almost total oblivion. Picus intermixes much of Platonism in all his theological writings; and they are also tinctured with the fancied doctrines of the Jewish Cabala, which is particularly observable in the work in question. After this he appears to have been employed on a commentary on the Psalms of David, at the request of Lorenzo de Medici; but respecting thecompletion of this, nothing satisfactory is upon record. About the beginning of 1490 he was employed on his favourite object of reconciling Plato and Aristotle. “To this work,” he says in a letter to Baptista Mantuanus, “I daily devote the whole of my morning hours; the afternoon I give to the society of friends, those relaxations which are requisite for the preservation of health, and occasionally to the poets and orators, and similar studies of a lighter kind; my nights are divided betwixt sleep and the perusal of the Holy Scriptures.” In 1491 he published his treatise “De Ente et Uno,” which, says his biographer, exhibits a chain of the most profound and abstract reasoning concerning the Deity, expressed in a language consistent with the sacred ness of the subject, much more free from the terms and phraseology peculiar to the schoolmen than might be expected, and which (in comparison with the mode then usual, of treating arguments so metaphysical and abstruse) may be denominated luminous and classical. This work afterwards gave occasion to a friendly controversy between Picus and Antonius Faventinus, or Cittadinus, the whole of which is included in the works of Picus, who, as a controversial writer, appears in a very amiable view.

The society and conveniencies of study which Florence afforded, had reconciled him to a lasting abode in that city, when, in 1492, he hadthe misfortune to lose his illustrious patron and associate, Lorenzo de Medici, who was carried off bya fever in the prime of life. He and Politian, of all the Florentine scholars, had possessed perhaps the very first place in Lorenzo’s esteem. Picus now resolved to leave Florence, at least for a time, where every object reminded him of the loss he had sustained; and went to Ferrara, where he endeavoured to divert his grief by again deeply engaging in his oriental studies. A short time previously to this period, being willing to exonerate himself from the weight of secular dignities and cares, he had, for a very inadequate consideration, transferred to his nephew (the subject of our next article), John Francis PicLi.s, all his territories and other rights and possessions in Mirandula and Goncordia, comprehending one-third part of the patrimonial inheritance. The sums arising from this transfer, he employed partly in the purchase of lands, to secure an annual revenue for the due support of his household, and partly in charitable donations; to the later purpose also the produce of a great part of his rich furniture and plate was appropriated. Benevolence towards the poor seems to have been a distinguishing feature in his character; for, not content with performing acts of munificence and charity, the necessity and propriety of which suggested themselves to his own observation, he engaged his friend Jerome Benivenius to be constantly in search of such cases of indigence and di&tress amongst the poorer citizens of Florence as might happen to escape general observation; authorizing him to supply immediate relief as necessity required, and engaging lo refund from his own purse whatever sums he should disburse on these benevolent occasions. In his latter days, to which we are now approaching, we are told that pride, ambition, anger, and all the turbulent passions, had subsided; that vanity and self-conceit were extinguished, and that no events, whether prosperous or adverse, discomposed the constant and uniform serenity of his mind. These great qualities, however, were not wholly unmixed with some portion of the superstition incident to the age. He is represented as having, at particular seasons, added to the usual mortifications prescribed by the church, by voluntary penances and self-inflicted pains, which the erring judgment of those times considered as meritorious. Of many, however, of the abuses and corruptions of the papal hierarchy he appears to have been sensible, and on various points of doctrine his views have been pronounced much more rational than could be expected from the time.

He now devoted himself to theological studies. We have already mentioned his “Hexaplus,” or explanation of the six days gf the creation; and he appears at this time to have been making preparations for farther elucidating the Holy Scriptures, and for combating the errors of his time; but of these and other undertakings, scarce any now remain except his work “Contra Astrologiam Divinatricem” and a few “Opuscula*” Of the immense mass of manuscripts found after his decease, few could be decyphered or methodized* but his nephew, by great pains uiul labour, was enabled to transcribe that portion of his voluminous work which was levelled against judicial astrology, and which proved to be in a more finished state than the rest. It was afterwards published in various collections of his works, under the title of “De Astrologia Disputationum Libri duodecim,” and has entitled Picus to the praise of having been the first who boldly and successfully exposed the fallacy of a species of superstition, which, notwithstanding his endeavours, continued long after this to hold its empire over the human mind.

In the religious opinions held by Picus, and inculcated in his works, he seems to have accorded chiefly with those of his own age and church, whom ecclesiastical writers have denominated by the general appellation of mystics; though, doubtless, if the minuter shades of difference be compared, he will, as a religious writer, be found to possess his wonted originality, and to reason and judge of many speculative points in a manner peculiar to himself. His devotional feelings were indeed subject to variation, and he once formed a resolution to dispose of all his property to the poor, and taking the crucifix in his hand, to travel barefooted from city to city as a preacher of the gospel; but this resolution he is said afterwards to have changed for that of joining the order of the Dominicans, at the instance of their general Savonarola; and his remains previous to interment (which was also the case with Politian’s) were invested with the habit of this order. Of the general character of Picus, with all the deductions which must be made from the reports of his contemporaries, Mr. Gresswell says, with great justice, that it still merits the admiration of those who contemplate with philosophical curiosity the powers and capabilities of the human rnind.

, was the son of Galeoti Picus, the eldest brother of John Picus, just recorded, and born fcbout 1409. He cultivated learning and the sciences, after the example of his uncle; but he had dominions and a principality to superintend, which involved him in great troubles, and at last cost him his life. Upon the death of his father, in 1499, he succeeded, as eldest son, to his estates; but was scarcely in possession, when his brothers Louis and Frederic combined against him; and, by the assistance of the emperor Maximilian I. and Hercules I. duke of Ferrara, succeeded. John Francis, driven from his principality in 1502, was forced to seek refuge in different countries for nine years; till at length pope Julius II. becoming master of Mirandula, put to flight Frances Trivulce, the widow of Louis, and re-established John Francis in 1511. But he could not long maintain his post; for the pope’s troops being beaten by the French at Ravenna, April 11, 1512, John James Trivulce, general of the French army, forced away John Francis again, and set up Frances Trivulce, who was his natural daughter. John. JFrancis now became a refugee a second time, and so continued for two years; when, the French being driven out of Italy, he was restored again in 1515. He lived from that time in the quiet possession of his dominions, till October 1533; and then Galeoti Picus, the son of his brother Louis, entered his castle by night with forty armed men, and assassinated him, with his eldest son Albert Picus. He died embracing the crucifix, and imploring pardon of God for his sins,

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

, one of the most celebrated sculptors that France has produced, was born at Paris in 1714, the son of a joiner, and by his talents became not only sculptor to the king, but chancellor of the academy of painting, and knight of the order of St. Michael. He did not manifest any early disposition for designing; he loved to model, but set about it awkwardly, and finished nothing but by means of indefatigable labour. A visit to Italy gave him that facility which he could not acquire at home. He there studied the works of the great artists, and returned thoroughly inspired with their genius. He died at Paris, Aug. 20, 1785. His most known works are, 1. “A Mercury and a Venus,” which he made by order of Louis XV. and which were presented to the king of Prussia. The king, who was delighted with them, was desirous to see the sculptor; and Pigalle, some time after, went to Berlin, but, being announced as the author of the Mercure de France, could not obtain an audience. When Frederic understood the mistake, he was very anxious to repair it; but Pigalle was already gone in some digust. Pigalle maintained that none of the heads of Frederic did justice to his physiognomy, which, in point of spirit, was the finest he had ever seen; and much regretted that he had not been allowed to model it. 2. The monument of marechal Saxe, in which the beauty of the whole obliterates all objections to the parts. 3. The pedestrian statue of Louis *XV. executed in bronze for the city of Rheims. 4. The statue of Voltaire. 5. A little boy holding a cage. '6. A girl taking a thorn from her foot. 7. Several busts of men of letters who were his friends. If Pigaile cannot be ranked among the men of the first genius in his art, the good sense of his designs, and the soundness of his taste, afford him a place in the very next class.

, nephew to the preceding, was born at Campen in 1520;. and, when grown up, went to Rome, where he spent eight years in the study of Roman antiquities, of which he acquired a knowledge that was not exceeded by any of his time. He then returned to Germany, and was taken into the family of the cardinal de Granvelle, who made him his librarian. He published an early, but not very correct eaition of Valerius iYlaximus, in 1567, 8vo. Afterwards he became preceptor to Charles, prince of Juliers and Cleves, and was to have attended him to Rome: but in this he was disappointed by the death of the prince, whose loss he deplored in a panegyric, entitled “Hercules Prodicus;” for which the prince’s father, William, made him canon of the church, and head master of the school, at Santen. He died at Santen in 1604, aged eighty-four.

, an Italian historian and miscellaneous writer, was born at Ferrara in 1530, and prosecuted his studies with so much success, that at the age of twenty he obtained the professorship of rhetoric in his native city. Alphonsus II. who was then hereditary prince of Ferrara, having heard some of his lectures, conceived a high opinion of him, and when he succeeded his father, extended his friendship to Pigna in a manner calculated to raise ambition in him, and envy among his contemporaries. Pigna, however, while he set a proper value on his prince’s favours, studiously avoided every occasion of profiting by them, and refused every offer of preferment which was made, employing such time as he could spare from his attendance at court, on his studies. He died in 1575, in the forty-sixth year of his age, greatly lamented by the citizens of Ferrara, who had admired him as a favourite without pride, and a courtier without ambition. His chief work, as an historian, was his history of the house of Este, “Historia de' Principi di Este, in sino al 1476,” published at Ferrara, 1570, folio. This is a well- written account, but contains too much of the fabulous early history of that illustrious family, which was never judiciously investigated until Muratori and Leibnitz undertook the task. Pigna’s other works are, I. “11 Principe,” Venice, 1560, 8vo, in imitation of Machiavel’s Prince, but written upon sound principles, which, says one of his biographers with too much truth, is the reason why it is almost unknown. 2. “II duello, &c.” 1554, 4to. 3. “I Romanzi in quali della poesia e della vita d'Ariosto si tratta,” Venice, 1554, 4to. 4. “Carminum libri quatuor,” in a collection consisting likewise of the poems of Calcagnini and Ariosto, printed at Venice in 1553, 8vo.

, or Leo Pilatus, a monk of Calabria, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is considered as one of the most industrious of those eminent scholars who contributed to the revival of literature and taste in Europe, and was the first who taught Greek in Italy, where he had Petrarch and Boccaccio for his scholars. He was on his return from a journey through Greece, in search of manuscripts in that language, when he was killed by lightning. Notwithstanding his knowledge of Greek, he was thought but moderately skilled in Latin.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

The year 1564 was remarkable for a contest about the ecclesiastical habits, and about various irregularities which had taken place in the service of the church. Bishop Pilkington, who had adopted the notions of the Geneva reformers on such subjects, entertained some scruples in his own mind about the habits, and particularly disliked the cap and surplice, though not so as to refuse to wear them. He was, however, very averse to forcing compliance upon others; and when he observed that this matter was about to be urged by the court, he wrote a long and earnest letter, dated from Auckland, Get 25, 1564, to the earl of Leicester, entreating him to use his interest to oppose it, and at the same time justified his own practice as we'aring the habits for the sake of peace, but not forcing others whose consciences prevented their compliance. In all other respects our prelate was a true friend to church and state, as appears by many of his writings, and was very assiduous in ecclesiastical duties.

He wrote a “Commentary of Aggeus (Haggai) the Prophet,” 1560, 8vo. A sermon on the “Burning of St. Paul’s Church in London, in 1561,” 1563, 12mo. This occasioned a short controversy, as the papists and protestants mutually accused each other. He wrote also “Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, the Epistle of St. Peter, and of St. Paul to the Galatians,” and “A Defence of the English Service;” but it seems doubtful whether these were printed. After his death, his “Exposition on Nehemiah” was published 1585, 4to. He left in manuscript “Statutes for the Consistory.” He died Jan. 23, 1575, aged fifty-five, and was first buried at Auckland; but afterwards removed and interred in the choir at Durham cathedral, with an inscription, now defaced, but which Willis copied from a ms. in the Bodleian library. Mr. Baker has a different one. His brothers, John and Leonard, were prebendaries of Durham; Leonard was D. D. master of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and regius professor there. Our prelate founded a school at Rivington, the seat of his family. He had by his wife Alicia, of the family of the Kingsmills, at Sigmanton, in Hampshire, two sons and two daughters. He had a brother, Leonard, who was a prebendary of Durham, rector of Middleton, regius professor of divinity, Cambridge, in 1561, and master of St. John’s college. He died probably about 1600.

, an English wit and poetess, of no very eminent rank, was the daughter of Dr. Van Lewen, a gentleman of Dutch extraction, who settled in Dublin, by a lady of good family; and born there in 1712. She had early a strong inclination and taste for letters, especially for poetry; and her performances were considered as extraordinary for her years. This, with a lively manner, drew many admirers; and at length she became the wife of the rev. Matthew Pilkington, a gentleman once known in the poetical world by his volume of Miscellanies, revised by dean Swift, who had reason afterwards to be ashamed of the connection. In a short time Mr. Pilkington grew jealous, as she relates, not of her person, but of her understanding; and her poetry, which when a lover he admired with raptures, was changed now he was become her husband, into an object of envy. During these jealousies, Mr. Pilkington, in 1732, went into England, in order to serve as chaplain to Mr. Barber, lord mayor of London; and absence having brought him into better humour with his wife, he wrote her a very kind letter, in which he informed her that her verses were full of elegance and beauty; that Pope, to whom he had shewn them, longed to see the writer; and that he himself wished her heartily in London. She accepted the invitation, went, and returned with her husband to Ireland, where they were soon after separated, in consequence of a gentleman being found in her bed-chamber at two o'clock in the morning. Her apology is rather curious: “Lovers of learning, I am sure, will pardon me, as I solemnly declare it was the attractive charms of a new book, which the gentleman would not lend me, but consented to stay till I read it through, that was the sole motive of my detaining him.” Of her guilt, however, no doubts were entertained. “Dr. Delany,” says dean Swift, in a letter to alderman Barber, “is a very unlucky recommender, for he forced me to countenance Pilkington; introduced him to me, and praised the wit, virtue, and humour of him and his wife; whereas he proved the falsest rogue, and she the most profligate w e in either kingdom. She was taken in the fact by her own husband; he is now suing for a divorce, and will not compass it; she is suing for a maintenance, and he has none to give her.”

Considered as a writer, she holds some rank in dramatic history, as the author of “The Turkish Court, or London Apprentice,” a comedy acted at Dublin in 1748, but never printed. The first act of her tragedy, “The Roman Father,” was no bad specimen of her talents in that way. Her “Memoirs” are written with great sprightliness and wit, and describe the different humours of mankind very naturally, but they must, as to facts, be read with the caution necessary in the Apologies of the Bellamys and Baddelys of our own days. She had a son, John Carteret Pilkington, who also became an adventurer, and somewhat of a poet. He published a volume of his “Memoirs,” 1760, 4to, and died in 1763.

, usually styled the prince of Lyric poets, was a contemporary of Æschylus, and born somewhat above forty years before the expedition of Xerxes, against the Greeks, and more than 500 B. C. His birth-place was Thebes, the capital of Bceotia; a country, the air of which was esteemed gross, and the stupidity of its inhabitants proverbial. We find the poet, in his sixth Olympic, confessing the disadvantage of his climate, yet resolving to exempt himself from the general censure. His parents are supposed to have been of low condition, so that he was more indebted for his attainments to his genius than to any advantages of education. We hrtve, however, few particulars of his life, amidst the numerous panegyrics to be found in ancient writers. He was highly courted and respected by most of the princes and states of Greece, and even allowed a share with the gods in their gifts and offerings, by the command of the oracle itself. For the priestess at Delphi ordered the people to give a part of thrir (irstfruits, which they brought thither, as a present to Pindar: and he had an iron stool set on purpose for him in that temple, on which he used to sit and sing verses in honour of Apollo. His countrymen, the Thebans, were irritated at his commending their enemies, the men of Athens; and fined him, for this affront to the state. Out of spleen too, they determined a poetical prize against him, in favour of a woman, the ingenious and beautiful Corinna. In the mean time, the Athenians made him a present of double the value of his fine; and erected a noble statue in honour of him. His greatest patron was Hiero king of Syracuse, whom he has celebrated in his poems, and it is supposed he left Thebes to attend the court of that prince. He is thought to have passed his whole time in the ease and tranquillity commonly allowed to men of his profession, without intermeddling in affairs of state: for we find him, in his “Isthmics,” defending this way of life. His death is said to have been an answer to his wishes: for, having prayed the gods to send him the greatest happiness of which a mortal is capable, he expired immediately after in the public theatre, in his fifty-fifth year. His relations were highly respected after his decease, and such was the veneration for his memory, that the Lacedemonians, at the taking of Thebes, saved his house; a mark of respect which was afterwards repeated by Alexander the Great. The ruins of this house were to be seen in the time of Pausanias, who lived under the reign of Antoninus the philosopher.

, an eminent engraver, who, says lord Orford, “need but be mentioned, to put the public in mind of the several beautiful and fine works for which they are indebted to him,” was born in 1690. We have no account of his education, but, independent of his art, he appears to have been a scholar. His first engravings exhibited the splendid ceremonial of the installation of the knights of the bath in 1725. These were followed by his admirable prints, ten in number, representing the tapestry hangings in the House of Lords. These were so highly approved, that the parliament passed an act to secure the emolument arising from their publication to him. Tnese, with the letter-press, form a volume, “rivalling the splendid editions of the Louvre.” The order of the battle, and other circumstances relative to the memorable Spanish armada, are most accurately executed: the portraits of the admirals and captains of the English fleet are not the least valuable part of the whole. He engraved five other plates of the same size, to accompany them, being, 1. A Plan of the House of Peers; another of the House of Commons A View of the Creation of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, by Henry VIII. from a drawing in the College at Arms. 2. The House of Peers, with Henry VIII. on the throne, the Commons attending, from a drawing by the then Garter King at Arms. Another View of the House of Peers, with Elizabeth on the throne, the Commons presenting their Speaker at t;he bar, from a painted print in the Cottonian Library. A copy of a beautiful Illumination of the Charter of Henry VI, to the Provost and College of Eton. 3. The House of Lords, shewing his majesty on the throne, the Lords in their proper robes and seats, the Commons at the bar, and the Speaker addressing the throne. 4. The House of Commons, shewing the Commons assembled in their House, the Speaker in his Chair, and sir Robert Walpole, the Minister, standing forth in his usual posture toward the chair. A View of the Lord High Steward, in both Houses of Parliament, Judges, &c. assembled in Westminster-hall, Lord Lovat, the crijmnal at the bar, on his trial. He also engraved the whole text of Horace, illustrating it with ancient bas reliefs and gems, and in the same manner Virgil’s Bucolics and Georgics. These are his principal works, except his “Magna Charta:” one of the copies of which he presented to the Aldermen of London, who voted him a purse with twenty guineas in it. He, with Tinney and Bowles, published a large Plan of London and Westminster, with all their buildings, on a large scale, from an actual survey taken by John Rorque. Jn 1743 he was made Blue Mantle in the Heralds’ roiltge, and his Majtsty, George II. gave him thr appointment of marker of the dice, and afterward his engraver of the signets, seals, and stamps: places which he held to his death, which happened in the college, May 4, 1756, aged sixty-six.

, a celebrated lawyer, was born in 1573, of a good family at Angers. He attended the bar with a degree of reputation superior to his age; and going afterwards to Paris, distinguished himself both in the parliament and grand council, by his eloquent pleadings. In 1600 he married Frances Ladvocat, daughter of Amauri Ladvocat, seigneur de Fougeres, and counsellor to the presidial of Angers, and at his return to his native place, was appointed counsellor to the same presidial. Mary de Medicis becoming acquainted with him in 1619, conceived the highest esteem for his merit, created him master of the requests in her palace, and endeavoured to support herself in her disgrace by his credit and advice; but M. du Pineau’s whole aim was to inspire her with resignation, in which he at last succeeded. Louis XIII. in return appointed him mayor and captain-general of the city of AngerSj June 2, 1632, in which situation he gained the flattering title of “Father of the People.” His house became also a kind of academy, in which every one freely proposed his difficulties on the most intricate points of law or history, and when du Pineau had spoken, the point in dispute was considered as decided. He died Oct. 15, 1644, aged 71. His works are, Notes in Latin, against those of du Moulin on the canon law, printed under the inspection of Francis Pinsson, with du Moulin' s works; “Comm. des observations et consultations surlaContume d'Anjou,” reprinted, 1725, 2 vols. fol. by the care of M. de Livoniere, who has enriched them with very useful observations. Menage relates that when his father William Menage, and du Pineau, agreed in their opinions on the same question, the people of Angers used to say, “This must certainly be right, for Pineau has confirmed the opinion of Menage.” His house was so much frequented, that the street in which he lived was called “Rue Pineau.”

, a celebrated artist, was born at Perugia in 1454, and was a disciple of Pietro Perugino, who often employed him as his assistant. He painted history; but in portraits was in so much esteem, that he was employed to paint those of pope Pius II. and of Innocent VIII; of Giulia Farnese, Caesar Borgia, and queen Isabella of Spain. His style, nevertheless, was extremely dry and Gothic, as he introduced gilding in the architectural and other parts of his pictures, blended with ornaments in relievo, and other artifices quite unsuitable to the genius of the art. The most memorable performance of Pinturicchio is the History of Pius II. painted in ten compartments, in the library at Sienna, in which he is said to have been assisted by Raphael, then a very young man, and pupil of Perugino, who made some cartoons of the most material incidents, and sketched many parts of the compositions.

His last work was a Nativity, for the monastery of St. Francis, at Sienna; in which place he had a room assigned him to paint in, without the danger of his being interrupted, and out of which he requested every thing might be removed. Every thing, accordingly, was taken away, except an old chest, which was so crazy, that when the attempt was made, it broke to pieces, and a treasure of 500 pieces of gold was discovered concealed within it. The joy of the monks was equalled only by the mortification of the painter, who is said to have died of chagrin soon after, in 1513, at the age of 59.

, was called also Venetiano, from Venice, the place of his birth, which occurred in 1485. He was renowned, in early life, as a musician, and particularly for his skill in playing upon the lute. While he was yet in his youth, he abandoned that science, and was taught the rudiments of the art of painting by Giovanni Bellini; but Giorgione da Castel Franco having just then exhibited his improved mode of colouring and effect, Sebastian became his disciple and most successful imitator. His portraits, in particular, were greatly admired for the strength of resemblance, and the sweetness and fulness of style, which made them be frequently mistaken for the work of Giorgione. His portrait of Julio Gonzaga, the favourite of cardinal Hippolito di Medici, is by many writers mentioned in the highest terms. Being induced to go to Rome, he soon attracted public notice; and in the contest respecting the comparative merits of Raphael and M. Angelo, Sebastian gave the preference to the latter, who in consequence favoured him on all occasions, and even stimulated him to the rash attempt of rivalling Raphael, by painting a picture in competition with that great man’s last great work, the Transfiguration; which had just been placed, with great form, in the church of St. Pietro a Montorio. The subject Sebastian chose was the resurrection of Lazarus; for which Michael Angelo is supposed to have furnished the design, or at least to have considered and retouched it. The picture is of the same size as Raphael’s; and, when completed, was placed in the same consistory, and was very highly applauded. The cardinal di Medici sent it to his bishopric of Narbonno, and it became the property of the Duke of Orleans. It is now in England, and in possession of J. Angerstein esq. who gave 2000 guineas for it to the proprietors of the Orleans collection. Although it is a work of profound skill, and highly preserves the reputation of its author, yet, in our opinion, it is not to be compared with the great work it was intended to rival, either in design, in expression, or effect, whatever may be said of its execution.

, an English comic painter, was the son of a Kentish gentleman descended from a Walloon family. His father, having a plentiful estate, gave this his eldest son a liberal education, and would have had him bred a scholar, or else a merchant; but his genius leading him wholly to designing, he could not fix to any particular science or business but the art to which he naturally inclined. Drawing took up all his time and all his thoughts; and being of a gay facetious humour, his manner partook of it. He delighted in drawing ugly faces; and had a talent so particular for it, that he would by a transient view of any remarkable face he met in the street, retain the likeness so exactly in his memory, that it might be supposed the person had sat several times for it. It was said of him, that he would steal a face and a man, who was not handsome enough to desire to see his picture, sat in danger in his company. He had a fancy peculiar to himself in his travels: he would often go away, and let his friends know nothing of his departure; make the tour of France and the Netherlands, a-foot; and sometimes his frolic carried him as far as Grand Cairo. He never advertised his friends of his return, any more than he did of his intended absence, delighting to baffle their conjectures, or tantalize their feelings. In this manner he travelled, at several times, through Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Holland; in which several countries he examined the works of the several painters with pleasure and judgment, and formed to himself a manner of design which no man in that kind ever excelled, or perhaps equalled.

Having a good estate of his own, and being generous, as most men of genius are, he would never take any thing for his pieces. He drew them commonly over a bottle, which he loved so well, that he spent great part of his hours of pleasure in a tavern. This was the occasion that some of his best pieces, especially such as are as large as the life, are to be found in those houses; particularly at the Mitre Tavern, in Stocks-market, where there was a room called the Amsterdam, adorned with his pictures in black and white. The room took its name from his pieces; which, representing a Jesuit, a Quaker preaching, and other preachers of most sects, was called the Amsterdam; as containing an image of almost as many religions as are professed in that free city. He drew also other pieces of humour for a Mr. Shepheard, a vintner, at the Bell, in Westminster, which Mr. Holmes, of the Mitre, purchased, to make his collection of this master’s pieces the more complete; and the benefit of shewing them was not a little advantageous to his house. Piper drew also a piece, representing a constable with his myrmidons, in very natural and ludicrous postures. He seldom designed after the life, and neglected colouring: yet he sometimes, though very rarely, coloured some of his pieces, and is said not to have been very unsuccessful in it. He was a great admirer and imitator of Augustine Caracci, Rembrandt, and Heemskirk’s manner of design, and was always in raptures when he spoke of Titian’s colouring: for, notwithstanding he never had application enough to make himself a master of that part of his art, he admired it in those that were so, especially the Italians. He drew the pictures of several of his friends in black and white; and maintained a character of truth, which shewed, that if he had bestowed time to perfect himself in colouring, he would have rivalled the best of our portrait-painters. Towards the latter end of his life, having impaired his fortune, he sometimes took money. He drew some designs for Mr. Isaac Becket, who copied them in mezzothto. Those draughts were generally done at a tavern; and, whenever he pleased, he could draw enough in half an hour to furnish a week’s work for Becket .

His invention was fruitful, and his drawing bold and free. He understood landscape-painting, and performed it to perfection. He was particularly a great master in. perspective. In designing his landscapes, he had a manner peculiar to himself. He always carried a long book about with him, like a music-book, which, when he had a mind to draw, he opened; and, looking through it, made the lower corner of the middle of the book his point of sight: by which, when he had formed his view, he directed his perspective, and finished his picture. His hand was ready, his strokes bold; and, in his etching, short. He etched several things himself, generally on oval silver plates for his friends; who, being most of them as hearty lovers of the bottle as himself, put glasses over them, and made lids of them for their tobacco-boxes. He drew several of the grand seignors’ heads for sir Paul Rycaut’s “History of the Turks,” which were engraved by Mr. Elder. In the latter part of his life, he applied himself to modelling in wax in basso-relievo; in which manner he did abundance of things with good success. He often said, he wished he had thought of it sooner, for that sort of work suited better with his genius than any; and had he lived longer, he would have arrived to great perfection in it. Some time before his death another estate fell to him, by the decease of his mother; when, giving himself new liberty on this enlargement of his fortune, he fell into a fever by his free way of living; and, employing a surgeon to let him blood, the man unluckily pricked an artery, which accident proved mortal. Piper was very fat, which might contribute to this misfortune. He died in Aldermanbury, about 1740.

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

, a celebrated Dominican of the seventeenth century, was a native of Calabria. Having acquired a knowledge of the Eastern languages, he was employed in the missions to the East, resided for a considerable time in Armenia, where he gained several converts, particularly the patriarch, by whom he had at first been opposed. He went also into Georgia, and Persia, and afterwards into Poland, as nuncio from pope Urban VIIL to appease the troubles which the Armenians, who were very numerous there, occasioned by their disputes. Having re-united all parties, and embarked for Italy, he was taken in his voyage by some corsairs, and carried to Tunis; but his ransom being paid, he went to Home, and having given an account of his mission, received the most public marks of esteem from the pope, who sent him back to the East, where, in 1655, he was made bishop of Nacksivan, in Armenia. After governing this church nine years, he returned to his native country, was entrusted with the church of Bisignano, in Calabria, where he died three years after, in 1667. Rewrote several controversial and theological works; two dictionaries, one, “Latin and Persian;” the other, “Armenian and Latin;” “An Armenian Grammar” and “A Directory” all of which have been esteemed of great utility.

, a French dramatic poet, was born at Dijon in 1689, where he lived till he was past thirty, in all the dissipation of a young man of pleasure. At length, having given great offence to his countrymen by an ode which he produced, he removed to Paris; where, as his relations could not give him much assistance, he supported himself by his talent of writing an admirable hand. He was first secretary to M. Bellisle, and afterwards to a financier, who little suspected that he had such a genius in his house. By degrees he became known, from producing several small pieces, full of originality, at a little theatre in Paris; till the comedy called “Metromanie,” esteemed one of the best produced in the last century, raised his fame to the highest point. His very singular talent for conversation, in which he was always lively, and inexhaustible in wit, contributed to enhance his popularity; and as his company was more courted for a time than that of Voltaire, who had less good humour, he was inclined to fancy himself superior to that writer. Many traits of his wit are related, which convey, at the same time, the notion that he estimated himself very highly. At the first representation of Voltaire’s Semiramis, which was ill received, the author asked him in the theatre what he thought of it “I think,” said he, “that you would be very glad that I had written it.” The actors wishing him to alter one of his pieces, affronted him by using the word “corrections,” instead of alterations. They pleaded that Voltaire always listened to their wishes in that respect. “What then?” replied Piron, “Voltaire works cabinet-work, I cast in bronze.” The satirical turn of Piron kept him from a seat in the academy. “I never could make nine-and thirty people,” said he, “think as I do, still less could 1 ever think with them.” He sought, however, a species of revenge, in the epitaph which he wrote for himself:

“Here lies Piron, who was nothing, not even an academician.” He died of the effects of a fail, Jan. 21, 1773. His works have been collected in seven vols. 8vo, and nine 12mo. But it is agreed, that out of the seven, five at least might be spared; since, besides his “Metromanie,” his “Gustavus,” a tragedy; his “Courses de Tempe,” a pastoral piece; some odes, about twenty epigrams, and one or two tales, there is very little in the whole collection that is above mediocrity. His comedies are reckoned better than, his tragedies; and the prefaces to his dramas, though not excellent in point of style, are full of new and agreeable thoughts, with natural and happy turns of wit and expression.

, an Italian by birth, but the author of many compositions in French prose and verse, was born at Venice about 1363, being the daughter of Thomas Pisan, of Bologna, much celebrated at that time as an astrologer. When she was five years old, her father settled with her in France, and her extraordinary beauty and wit procured her an excellent husband by the time she was fifteen. After ten years she lost this husband, Stephen Castel, by whom she was most tenderly beloved, and found her chief resource for comfort and subsistence in her pen; her husband’s fortune being entangled in several law-suits. Charles VI. of France, and other princes, noticed and assisted her on account of her talents, and provided for her children. When she died is uncertain. Some of her poems, which are full of tenderness, were printed at Paris in 1529, others remain in manuscript in the royal library. “The Life of Charles V.” written by desire of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, is considered as her best performance in prose. It is preserved in ms. in the library of the king of France, but a transcript was published by the abbé Le Beuf in the third volume of “Dissertations on the Ecclesiastical History of Paris,” where he gives a Life of Cnristina. She wrote also “An hundred Stories of Troy,” in rhyme “The Treasure of the City of Dames,” Paris, 1497 “The Long Way,” translated by John Chaperon, 1549, under the title of “Le Chemin de long etendue.” In the Harleian collection of Mss. (No. 219, 5) is a piece by Christina entitled “Epistre d'Otnea deese de Prudence a Hector, &c. Mis en vers Francois, et dedie a Charles V. de France.” Anthony WidviSle, earl Rivers, translated a work of hers, we know not whether included in any of the above, entitled “The Moral Proverbs of Christian of Pyse,” printed by Caxton. Lord Orford, who has noticed this work in his account of WidviUe, has also introduced an account of Christina, which, although written in his flippant and sarcastic manner, contains some interesting particulars of her history.

, an eminent Scotch physician of the mechanical sect, was descended from an ancient family in the county of Fife, and born at Edinburgh Dec. 25, 1652. After some classical education at the school of Dalkeith, he was removed in 1668 to the university of Edinburgh; where, having gone through a course of philosophy, he obtained in 1671 his degree of M. A. and studied first divinity, which does not appear to have been to his taste, and then the civil law, which was more seriously the object of his choice, and he pursued it with so much intenseness as to impair his health. He was then, advised to travel to Montpelier in France, but found himself recovered by the time he reached Paris. He determined to pursue the study of the law in the university there; but there being no able professor of it, and meeting with some of his countrymen, who were students in physic, he went with them to the lectures and hospitals. A few months after, he was called home by his father; and now, having laid in the first elements of all the three professions, he found himself absolutely undetermined which to follow. In the mean time he applied himself to the mathematics, in which he made a very great progress; and an acquaintance which he formed with Dr. David Gregory, the celebrated mathematical professor, probably conduced to cherish his natural aptitude for this study. At length, struck with the charms of mathematical truth which been lately introduced into the philosophy of medicine, and hoping to reduce the healing art to geometrical method, he unalterably determined in favour of medicine as a profession. As there was however at this time no medical school in Edinburgh, no hospital, nor opportunity of improvement but the chamber and the shop, he returned to Paris about 1675, and cultivated the object of his pursuit with diligence and steadiness. Among his various occupations, the study of the ancient physicians seems to have had a principal share. This appears from a treatise which he published some time after his return, “Solutio problematis de inventoribus,” which shews that he wisely determined to know the progress of medicine from its earliest periods, before he attempted to reform and improve that science. In August 1680 he received from the faculty of llheims the degree of Doctor, which in 1699 was likewise conferred on him by the university of Aberdeen, and he was likewise appointed a member of the college of surgeons of Edinburgh in 1701. He was before chosen a member of the royal college of physicians of Edinburgh from the time it was established by charter in 1681. On his return to Edinburgh, which was about the time of the revolution, he presently came into good business, and acquired an extensive reputation. Such, however, was his attachment to the exiled James II. that he became excluded from public honours and promotion at home, and therefore, Laving in 1692 received an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, to be professor of physic there, he accepted it, and went and made his inauguration speech the 26th of April that year, entitled “Oratio qua ostenditur meclicinam ab omni philosophorum secta esse Jiberam.” He continued there little more than a year; during which short space he published several dissertations, chiefly with a view of shewing the usefulness of mathematics to physic. Pitcairne was the first who introduced the mechanic principles into that art, now so generally exploded, but they do not appear to have influenced his practice, which did not differ essentially from the present. He returned to Scotland in 1693, to discharge an engagement to a young lady, who became his second wife, the daughter of sir Archibald Stephenson, an eminent physician in Edinburgh; and, being soon after married to her, was fully resolved to set out again for Holland; but, the lady’s parents being unwilling to part with her, he settled at Edinburgh, and wrote a valedictory letter to the university of Leyden. His lady did not survive her marriage many years; yet she brought him a daughter, who was in 1731 married to the earl of Kelly.

In 1701 he republished his “Dissertationes Medicæ,” with some new ones and dedicated them to Bellini, professor at Pisa, in return to the same compliment, which Bellini had made him, when he published his “O'puscula.” They were printed at Rotterdam in one volume 4to, under this title, “Disputationes Medicac,” of which there are eight. The last edition published in his life- time carne out at Edinburgh, a few months before his death, which happened' Oct. 13, 1713. Afterwards were published, in 1717, his lectures to his scholars, under the title of “Klementa Medicine Physico-Mathematica,” although he had taken great pains to prevent the publication of any thing in that way. He even shews some concern about this in his Dissertation “de Circulatione Sanguinis in animaiibns genitis, et non genitis.” There are editions of his whole works at Venice, 1733, and Leyden, 1737, 4to. In 169, being hindered by sickness from attending the calls of his profession, he amused himself with writing remarks upon sir Robert Sibbald’s “Prodromus Historic Tslaturalis Scotiae,” who had published a treatise ridiculing the new method of applying geometry to physic; in return to which Pitcairne wrote, “Dissertatio de Legibus Histories Naturalis,” and published it, but not anonymously, as has been asserted, in the abovementioned year. Pitcairne likewise used to divert himself sometimes with writing Latin verses of considerable merit, which were collected after his death. The occasion of their appearance was a remark of Peter Burman, in his preface to his edition of Buchanan’s history, on the inconsiderable number of Latin writers, especially in poetry, whom Britain had produced. Ruddirnan on this endeavoured to vindicate his native country from its share in this degrading censure; and with that view published, in 1727, a small volume entitled “Selecta Poemata Archibaldi Pitcairnii et aliorum,” &c. But, says lord Woodhouselee, this very attempt affords a demonstration of the truth of the proposition it was meant to disprove, for the poems of Pitcairne comprise almost all that are of any merit in the volume; and even these, from the nature of their subjects, temporary political satire (against the revolution) the commemoration of local incidents, or allusions to private characters, have none of the requisites to found either a. general or a permanent reputation.

In 1563, being then twenty-four, he gave the first fruits of his studies to the public, in a work entitled “Adversaria Snbseciva;” which was highly applauded by Turnebus, Lipsius, and other learned men, and laid the foundation of that great and extensive fame which he afterwards acquired. A little time after, he was advanced by Henry III. to some considerable post; in which, as well as at the bar, he acquitted himself with high honour. Pithou was a Protestant, and was almost involved in the terrible massacre of Saint Bartholomew in 1572. His escape indeed was very narrow, for he was at Paris during the whole, and in the same lodgings with several protestants, who were all murdered. Whether from fear or conviction, he soon afterwards openly embraced the Catholic faith. Afterwards he attended the duke of Montmoiency into England; and in 1572 was honoured with the degree of LL. D. at Oxford, where he resided for some time; and upon his return, by reason of his great wisdom, amiable manners, and profound knowledge, became a kind of oracle to his countrymen, who consulted him on all important occasions. Nor was his fame less in other parts of the continent; Ferdinand the Great duke of Tuscany not only consulted him, but even submitted to his determination, in a point contrary to his interests. Henry III. and IV. were greatly obliged to him for combating the league in the most intrepid manner, and for many other services, in which he had recourse to his pen, as well as to other means.

Pithou died upon his birth-day, November 1, 1596, leaving behind him a wife, whom he had married in 1579, and some children. Thuanus has represented him as the most excellent and accomplished man of the age in which he lived; an opinion in which his learned contemporaries seem agreed. He collected a most valuable library, which was rich in manuscripts, as well as printed books; and he took many precautions to hinder its being dispersed after his death, but in vain. He published a great number of works on various subjects of law, history, and classical literature; and he gave several new and correct editions of ancient writers. He was the first who made the world acquainted with the “Fables of Ptuedrus:” they, together with the name of their author, being utterly unknown, till published from a manuscript, which had been discovered by his brother, Francis Pithou. The principal works of Peter Prthou are, 1. “A Treatise on the Liberties of the Gallican Church,” four volumes folio; the foundation of all that has been written on that subject since. The best edition is Paris, 1731. 2. Editions of many importan' monuments relative to Fre: ch history. 3. Notes on many classical authors. 4. A volume of smaller works, or “Opuscula,” printed collectively at Paris in 1609, besides many publications on civil and canon law, some issued separately, and some in conjunction with his brother. It was his intention to hare published a complete body of French historians, but he published only two volumes on the subject, one in octavo, and the other in quarto.

, a very learned scholar and editor, was born at Zutphen, March 30, 1637. His grandfather, there is reason to think, was Bartholomew Pitiscus, preacher to the elector palatine, who died in 1613, and was the author of a Latin work on “Trigonometry,” reprinted in 1612, and very much approved by Tycho Brabe. His father, Samuel, appears to have been a refugee for the sake of the protestant religion, and took up his abode at Zutphen, where our author was first educated, but he afterwards studied polite literature at Daventer under John Frederick Qronovius, for two years, and divinity for three, at Groningen. After finishing this course he was admitted into the church, and appointed master of the public school at Zutphen in 1685. About the same time he was intrusted with the direction of the college of St. Jerome at Utrecht, which he retained until 1717, when, being in his eightieth year, he resigned with great credit, but lived ten years longer, and died Feb. 1, 1727. He married two wives, one while schoolmaster at Zutphen, who gave him much uneasiness, having contracted a habit of drunkenness, to gratify which she used to steal and sell his books. The other, whom he married at Utrecht, restored that domestic happiness which suited his retired and studious disposition. He acquired considerable property by his works, and left at his death 10,000 florins to the poor. He was a man of extensive learning, directed chiefly to the illustration of the classical authors, and was long in the highest esteem as a teacher

, an English biographer, was born at Alton, in Hampshire, in 1560 and at eleven, sent to Wykeham’s school near Winchester. He was elected thence probationer fellow of New college in Oxford, at eighteen; but, in less than two years, left the kingdom as a voluntary Romish exile, and went to Douay, where he was kindly received by Dr. Thomas Stapleton, who gave him advice relating to his studies. Pursuant to this, he passed from Douay to Rheims and, after one year spent in the English college there, was sent to the English college at Rome, where he studied seven years, and was then ordained priest. Returning to Rheims about 1589, he held the office of professor of rhetoric and Greek for two years. Towards the latter end of 151*0, being appointed governor to a young nobleman, he travelled with him into Lorraine; and, at Pont-a-Mousson, he took the degree of master of arts, and soon after that of bachelor of divinity. Next, going into Upper Germany, he resided a year and a half at Triers; and afterwards removed to Ingolstadt in Bavaria, where he resided three years, and took the degree of doctor of divinity. After having travelled through Italy as well as Germany, and made himself master of the languages of both countries, he went back to Lorraine; where, being much noticed by Charles cardinal of Lorraine, he was preferred by him to a canonry of Verdun. When he had passed two years there, Antonia, daughter to the duke of Lorraine, who was married to the duke of Cleves, invited him to be her confessor; and, that he might be the more serviceable to her, he learned the French language with so much success, that he often preached in it. In her service he continued twelve years; during which time he studied the histories of England, ecclesiastical and civil, whence he made large collections and observations concerning the most illustrious personages. On the death of the duchess of Cleves he returned a third time to Lorraine, where, by the favour of John bishop of Toul, formerly his scholar, he was promoted to the deanery of Liverdun, a city of Lorraine, which was of considerable value. This, with a canonry and an officialship of the same church, he held to the day of his death, which happened at Liverdun in 1616. He published three treatises: “De Legibus,” Triers, 1592; “De Beatitudine,” Ingolst. 1595; “De Peregrinatione,” Dusseld. 1604.

During the leisure he enjoyed, while confessor to the duchess of Cleves, he employed himself in that work which alone has made him known to posterity, in compiling “The Lives of the Kings, Bishops, Apostolical Men, and Writers of England.” They were comprised in four large volumes; the first containing the lives of the kings; the second, of the bishops; the third, of the apostolical men; and the fourth, of'the writers. The three first are preserved in the archives of the collegiate church of Verdun: the fourth only was published, and that after his decease, at Paris, 1619, and 1623, in 4to, under the title of “J. Pitsei Angli, &c. Relationum Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis tomus primus;” but the running title, and by which it is oftenest quoted, is, “De Illustribus Angliae. Scriptoribus.” It is divided into four parts; the first of which is preliminary matter, “De laudibus Historiae, de Antiquitate Ecclesise Britannicae, de Academiis tarn antiquis Britonum quam recentioribus Anglorum.” The second part contains the lives and characters of three hundred English writers; the third is an “Appendix of some Writers, in alphabetical order, and divided into four Centuries,”- together with “An Index of English Books, written by unknown Authors.” The last part consists of “Fifteen Alphabetical Indexes,” forming a kind of epitome of the whole work. Pits appears to have acted in a very disingenuous manner, especially in the second part of this work; the greater part of which he has taken without any acknowledgment from Bale’s book “De Scriptoribus majoris Britanniae,” while he takes every opportunity to shew his abhorrence both of Bale and his work. He pretends also to follow, and familiarly quotes, Leland’s “Collectanea de Scriptoribus Anglise;” whereas the truth is, as Wood and others have observed, he never saw them, being but twenty years of age, or little more, when he left the nation: neither was it in his power afterwards, if he had been in England, because they were kept in such private hands, that few protestant antiquaries, and none of those of the church of Rome, could see or peruse them. What therefore he pretends to have from Leland, he takes at second-hand from Bale. His work is also full of partiality: for he entirely leaves out Wickliflfe and his followers, together with the Scots and Irish writers, who are for the most part commemorated by Bale; and in their room gives an account of the Roman catholic writers, such especially as had left the kingdom, after the Reformation in queen Elizabeth’s reign, and sheltered themselves at Rome, Douay, Louvain, &c. This, however, is the best and most valuable part of Pits’s work. Pits was a man of abilities and learning. His style is clear, easy, and elegant; but he wants accuracy, and has fallen into many mistakes in his accounts of the British writers. His work, however, will always be thought of use, if it be only that “Historia quoquo modo scripta delectat.”

, earl of Chatham, one of the most illustrious statesmen whom this country has produced, was the son of Robert Pitt, esq. of Boconnock in Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt, governor of Madras, who was purchaser of the celebrated diamond, afterwards called the Regent. The family was originally of Dorsetshire, where it had been long and respectably established. William Pitt was born Nov. 15, 1708, and educated at Eton; whence, in January 1726, he went as a gentleman-commoner to Trinity-college, Oxford. It has been said, that he was not devoid of poetical talents, of which a few specimens have been produced; but they do not amount to much, and of his Latin verses on the death of George the First, it is natural to suspect that the whole merit was not his own. When he quitted the university, Pitt was for a time in the army, and served as a cornet; but his talents leading him more decisively to another field of action, he quitted the life of a soldier for that of a statesman, and became a member of parliament for the borough of Old Sarum, in February 1735. In this situation his abilities were soon distinguished, and he spoke with great eloquence against the Spanish convention in 1738. It was on the occasion of the bill for registring seamen in 1740, which he opposed as arbitrary and unjustifiable, that he is said to have made his celebrated reply to Mr. Horatio Walpole, who had attacked him on account of his youth (though then thirty-two), adding, that the discovery of truth is little promoted by pompous diction and theatrical emotion. Mr. Pitt retorted, with great severity, “I will not undertake to determine whether youth can justly be imputed to any man as a reproach; but I will affirm, that the wretch who, after having seen the consequences of repeated errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults. Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy; and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country.” Something like this Mr. Pitt might have said, but the language is that of Dr. Johnson, who then reported the debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine.

When the discontents in America began to appear, on the occasion of the stamp act, Mr. Pitt again found a subject for his exertions. The repeal of that act being proposed in March 1766, by the new ministry of the Rockingham-party, Mr. Pitt, though not connected with them, very forcibly supported the measure, which was carried; whether wisely or fortunately, is still a matter of dispute. About this time died sir William Pynsent, of Burton Pynsent, in Somersetshire, a man of considerable property, who, through mere admiration of Mr. Pitt in his public character, disinherited his own relations, and made him heir to the bulk of his estate. It was certainly a remarkable proof of the very uncommon estimation in which this statesman was held, that a circumstance of this nature should have happened to him at two different periods of his life.

The Rockingham ministry proving unable to maintain its ground, a new administration was formed, and Mr. Pitt, in 1766, was made lord privy seal. At the same time he was created a peer, by the titles of viscount Pitt, of Burton Pynsent, in the county of Somerset, and earl of Chatham, in the county of Kent. Whatever might be his motives for accepting this elevation, he certainly sunk by it in popularity, at least as much as he rose in nominal dignity. The great commoner, as he was sometimes styled, had formed a rank to himself, on the sole basis of his talents and exertions, for which the titular honours, which he was now to participate with many others, could not in the public opinion compensate. Still it must be owned that the high and hereditary distinction of the peerage is a just and honourable object of ambition to a British commoner; which, if he attains it, as Mr. Pitt appears to have done, without any improper concession or stipulation, may be considered as the fair reward of past services, and the most permanent monument of public gratitude. Lord Chatham, whatever might be the cause, did not long continue in office; he resigned the place of lord privy seal on the 2d of November, 1768, and it was the last public employment which he ever accepted. He does not indeed appear to have been desirous of returning to office. He was now sixty; and the gout, by which he had been long afflicted, had become too frequent and violent in its attacks, to allow of close or regular application to business. In the intervals of his disorder he continued occasionally to exert himself, on questions of great magnitude, and was particularly strenuous in 1775, and the ensuing years, against the measures pursued by the ministers in the contest with America. Nevertheless, in all things he maintained his native spirit. When France began to interfere in the contest, he fired with indignation at the insult; and when, in 1778, it was thought necessary, after the repeated misfortunes of the war, to acknowledge the independence of America, he summoned up all the strength that remained within him, to pour out his disapprobation of a measure so inglorious. He did so in a speech of considerable energy, and being answered in the course of the debate by the duke of Richmond, seemed agitated with a desire to reply: but when he attempted to rise, the effort proved too violent for his debilitated constitution, and he sunk, in a kind of fit, into the arms of those who were near him. This extraordinary scene of a great statesman, almost dying in the last exertion of his talents, has been perpetuated by the pencil, and will live for ever in the memory of his countrymen. He did not long survive this effort. This debate happened on the 8th of April, 1778, and he died on the 11th of May ensuing.

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

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.

His appearance, at the early age of twenty-four in this high character, was as much applauded on the part of the nation at large, as it was ridiculed and despised by his opponents, as the arrogant assumption of a stripling who owed to accident or intrigue, what a few weeks or months must certainly deprive him of. For some time, indeed, all this seemed not very improbable. The adherents of the coalition-ministry, in the House of Commons, had suffered no great diminution, and formed yet so considerable a majority, that when Mr. Pitt introduced his own bill into the House for the regulation of India affairs, it was rejected by 222 against 214. In this state matters remained for some months, during which meetings were held of the leading men of both parties, with a view to a general accommodation; but as Mr. Pitt’s previous resignation was demanded as a sine qua non, he determined to adhere in the utmost extremity to the sovereign by whom he had been called into office, and the people by whom he found himself supported. After many unavailing efforts, therefore, he determined on a step which, had his cause been less popular, might have been fatal to his sovereign as well as to himself. This was a dissolution of parliament, which took place in the month of March 1784; and although during the general election the country was thrown, by the struggles of the parties, into a greater degree of political heat and irritation than ever was known, and although some of his higher opponents greatly embarrassed their estates and families by the most wasteful expenditure, in order to secure the return of their friends, above thirty of the latter, all men of consideration, were thrown out, and the minister was enabled to meet the new parliament with a decided majority, including almost the whole of that class that had the credit of patriotism and independence, but certainly excluding a mass of talent such as few ministers have had to encounter.

The second great æra of Mr. Pitt’s public life was now approaching, in which his power and popularity arose to the greatest height in the very moment when in all human probability he was about to be deprived of both. In the autumn of 1788, the country was thrown into a state of alarm by a calamity which rendered his majesty incapable of exercising the royal functions. Parliament having been prorogued to Nov. 20, it became necessary it should meet that day, as the sovereign, by whom only it could be further prorogued, was not in a situation to assert his prerogative. In the mean time, the leaders of the different parties who were interested in the event, assembled in the capital; and an express was dispatched to Mr. Fox, then absent on the continent, to accelerate his return. This occurrence gave occasion to a display of the firmness and decision of Mr. Pitt’s character. In this article we cannot enter into many particulars; but we may observe, that the first material question brought up by this event was, in whom the office of regent was vested The prince of Wales being then connected with the party in opposition, Mr. Fox contended that the regency devolved upon him as a matter of course; while, on the other hand, Mr. Pitt supported the doctrine, that it lay in the two remaining branches of the legislature to fill up the office, as they should judge proper; admitting, at the same time, that no other person than the prince could be thought of for the office. By adopting this principle, he carried with him the concurrence as well of those who were attached to the popular part of the constitution, as of the king’s friends, whose great object was to secure his return to power, on the cessation of his malady; and he was enabled to pass a bill, greatly restricting the power of the regent, which his majesty’s timely recovery in the beginning of 1789 rendered unnecessary; but such was the general conviction of its propriety, that on a subsequent more melancholy occasion, the minister of the day, Mr. Perceval, found no great difficulty in reviving it, and it became the rule of the present regency. Mr. Pitt was now left to pursue his plans of internal economy, without those interruptions to which he had lately been subjected. He had received, during the discussions on the regency, very decisive tokens of esteem from many of the great public bodies in the kingdom; and he had the satisfaction of knowing, that the firm and steady conduct which he observed, on a question peculiarly calculated to try the firmness, steadiness, and consistency of a public character, had obtained for him, in a very marked manner, the confidence of their majesties, and greatly increased his popularity throughout the nation.

The third great æra in Mr. Pitt’s life, and which, beyond all preceding parts of his conduct, will determine his character with posterity, was the French revolution, an event the most momentous in its consequences that modern history records. The influence of this vast convulsion could not be viewed, by the politician and the minister of a great empire, but in a double light, as exerted upon France itself, and upon the neighbouring states. In both cases, Mr. Pitt took up the opinion that it afforded just cause for jealousy, and he was the more strengthened in this opinion from observing the effects which the conduct of the French had already produced in this country. It is allowed by his enemies that he did not precipitately rush into war with France, or interfere in the affairs of that country, while the French seemed to be operating a change by means which were rational; and while their only objects seemed to be a representative government and a limited monarchy. It was not until they had destroyed the freedom of their representatives by the terrifying influence of clubs and parties more powerful than their legalized assemblies, and until they had dragged their helpless sovereign to the scaffold, that he saw the danger that would accrue to every country where such measures should be considered as a precedent. In England, it might have been thought that the enormities which preceded and followed the execution of the French king, would have excited universal abhorrence; that a moral, thinking, and industrious people, prosperous beyond all other nations in arts and commerce, and secure beyond all others in the essentials of liberty, would have found no provocation to imitate the most inhuman barbarities of the darkest ages. It soon, however, appeared that although the majority of the nation was disposed to contemplate what had happened in France, with the abhorrence it was naturally fitted to create, a party was arising, selected indeed from the lower and illiterate orders, but guided by leaders of some knowledge, and of great activity and resolution, who seemed determined on a close imitation of all the licentiousness of France, and whose attacks were at once directed against the throne, the state, and the church. For some time their sentiments were considerably disguised. They affected moderation, and derived too much countenance from those who really were inclined to moderate changes, moderate reforms; and, with no little art, they revived the popular delusions of annual parliaments and universal suffrage; but moderation was neither the characteristic nor the object of this party: and finding themselves for some time unnoticed by government, they began to disdain the protection of their insignificance, and boldly avowed that they did not mean to leave the accomplishment of their projected changes to any of the legal authorities. In imitation of the French clubs, they were to produce the effect by self-created societies that should dictate to parliament, and when parliament was completely overawed, supply its place.

Such were the effects which the proceedings in France had already produced in England, among a party, which, if not originally numerous, was fast increasing, when Mr. Pitt thought it necessary to interfere. In taking this step he was accused of precipitation and of severity: the dangers he dreaded were represented as in a great measure imaginary; and the plan he adopted was said to be pregnant with mischief to the freedom of the press. It appeared, however, in consequence of inquiries instituted, that had he exercised a longer forbearance, the greatest of the dangers he apprehended must have followed in regular progress. Forbearance, in the republican language of the day, was “timidity, and the happy consequence of the vigour and spirit of the people.” It was time therefore to set the question at rest by appealing to the nation at large; and Mr. Pitt had no sooner begun the experiment of checking a licentiousness so dangerous and unprovoked, than he was supported by the general mass of the people, who assembled in every county, city, town, and village, to testify their satisfaction with the constitution as then administered, and to offer their lives and fortunes in support of the government under which they had flourished. It has been objected to Mr. Pitt by his opponents that in some instances he followed, rather than produced, public opinion: why this should be an objection with those hold public opinion sacred, we know not. In the present instance, however, it may be allowed as a matter of fact, and it is a fact very honourable to the people of England, that he had, at this crisis, only to anticipate their wishes, and that in consequence of the precautions he took, harsh as they might have been thought at any other time, all the dangers of internal disturbance gradually disappeared, and the wild theories that had been propagated from the press either appeared ridiculous, or became obsolete.

What has been termed the system or the principle of Mr. Pitt in commencing and continuing the war with France, cannot perhaps be better expressed than in the above language of lord Grenville. Mr. Pitt considered it as our duty to continue it, “while the French retained that turbulent and aggressive spirit which threatened danger to every nation in Europe,” and which at length actually destroyed the independence of every nation in Europe, and ended in an attempt at universal empire, and slavish subjection to the ruler of France. It was Mr. Pitt’s opinion, and the opinion of all who acted with him, of the great majority of parliament and of the people at large, that no peace could be permanent or secure with France until she had returned to her proper station among the nations of Europe, admitted of the independence of other nations, and contented herself with the territories she possessed at the commencement of the revolution. On this principle the war was instituted, and on this principle it was supported at a risk and an expense beyond all precedent, but with a success so inadequate to produce the wished-for result, that when the opposition represented the continuance of it as obstinacy and infatuation, they seemed to speak a language which events fully justified. On our own element, our success was so great as to raise the character of our navy beyond all precedent; under such men as Howe, St. Vincent, Duncan, and Nelson, the navies of France, Spain, and Holland were almost annihilated, while ours had become, humanly speaking, invincible. Mr. Pitt was therefore blamed for not confining himself to a naval war, and his sending troops to join the powers of Europe in league against France, was represented as a species of Quixotism which would soon prove its own absurdity. All this for some years seemed confirmed by events. The French armies not only out-numbered those sent against them, but acquired a military skill absolutely new in their history. So frequent and decisive were their victories that all resistance seemed in vain, and either by valour or treachery they were enabled to dissolve every confederacy formed against them. Still the English minister saw nothing in this to prove his original opinion to be wrong; France, he conceived, must be ruined at last by successes of which she did not know how to make the proper use. With every extension of territory, she carried a portion of tyranny and a system of plunder and destruction, that must one day excite an effectual resistance in the nations which she had deluded by offers of liberty and friendship. Mr. Pitt and his supporters, therefore, persisted in the opinion that France must at last yield to some confederacy or other; and when the state of Europe was such as to render it unwise to send English troops to join the confederates, he conceived that no better use could be made of the annual supplies than to subsidize the powers that were still willing to take the field. He even determined to continue the struggle when, in 1800, Bonaparte, the most successful of the French generals, had assumed the sovereign power, under the name of consul, and addressed a letter to our king intimating a desire for peace. The answer of our minister was, that it would be useless to negociate while the French seemed to cherish those principles which had involved Europe in a long and destructive war. And although he gave his assent to the experiment made by Mr. Addington in 1801, to conclude a peace with the French government, he soon had reason to revert to his former sentiments, and when recalled into office in 1804, again exerted all the vigour of his character to render the contest successful.

He did not, however, live to witness that glorious and wonderful termination which was at last brought about by a continuance of the same system he all along pursued, and which finally ended in the conquest of France, the annihilation of her armies, and the banishment of her ruler. The last event of importance in Mr. Pitt’s life-time was the fatal battle of Austerlitz, and he was at this time in a state of health ill calculated to meet this stroke. He had, from an early period of life, given indications of inheriting his father’s gouty constitution, with his talents, and it had been thought necessary to make the liberal use of wine a part of his ordinary regimen, a stimulant which, added to the cares and exertions of office during his long and momentous administration, brought on a premature exhaustion of the vital powers. In December 1805, he was recommended to go to Bath, but the change afforded him no permanent relief. On the 11th of January he returned to his seat at Putney, in so debilitated a state, as to require four days for the performance of the journey. The physicians, even yet, saw no danger, and they said there was no disease, but great weakness, in consequence of an attack of the gout. On the following Sunday he appeared better, and entered upon some points of public business with his colleagues in office: the subject was supposed to relate to the dissolution of the new confederacy, by the peace of Presburgh, which greatly agitated him. On the 17th, at a consultation of his physicians, it was agreed, that though it was not advisable he should attend to business for the next two months, yet there was hope he would be able to take a part in the House of Commons in the course of the winter. On the 20th, however, he grew much worse, and his medical friends now saw that he was in the most imminent danger, and that, probably, he had not many hours to live. The bishop of Lincoln, who never left him during his illness, informed him of the opinion now entertained by sir Walter Farquhar, and requested to administer to him the consolations of religion. Mr. Pitt asked sir Walter, who stood near his bed, “How long do you think I have to live?” The physician answered that he could not say, at the same time he expressed a faint hope of his recovery. A half smile on the patient’s countenance shewed that he placed this language to its true account. In answer to the bishop’s request to pray with him, Mr. Pitt replied, “I fear I have, like too many other men, neglected prayer too much, to have any ground for hope that it can be efficacious on a death-bed—but,” making an effort to rise as he spoke, “I throw myself entirely on the mercy of God.” The bishop then read the prayers, and Mr. Pitt appeared to join in them with a calm and humble piety. He desired that the arrangement of his papers and the settlement of his affairs might be left to his brother and the bishop of Lincoln. Adverting to his nieces, the daughters of earl Stanhope by his elder sister, for whom he had manifested the sincerest affection, he said, “I could wish a thousand or fifteen hundred a-year to be given them; if the public should think my long services deserving of it.” He expressed also much anxiety respecting major Stanhope, that youthful hero, who fell a sacrifice to his valour at Corunna, in company with his friend and patron, general sir John Moore, and his brother, who was also at Corunna at the same time, and who has been engaged in all the great battles in the peninsula, and more than once severely wounded in his country’s service. Mr. Pitt died about four o'clock in the morning of the 23d of January 1806, in the 47th year of his age. A public funeral was decreed to his honour by parliament, and 40,000l. to pay those debts which he had incurred in his country’s service. Public monuments have been since erected to his memory in Westminster-Abbey, in the Guildhall of the city of London, and by many public bodies in different parts of the kingdom.

Mr. Pitt possessed no particular advantages of person or physiognomy, but as a speaker he was thought to be without a rival; such was the happy choice of his words, the judicious arrangement of his subject, and the fascinating effect of a perennial eloquence, that his wonderful powers were acknowledged even by those who happened to be prepossessed against his arguments. In his financial speeches he manifested a perspicuity, eloquence, and talent, altogether wonderful; which carried the audience along with him in every arithmetical statement, left no calculation obscure or ambiguous, and impressed the House, at its close, with tumultuous admiration. When employed, say his opponents, in a good cause, he was irresistible; and in a bad one he could dazzle the judgment, lead the imagination captive, and seduce the heart, even while the mind remained firm and unconvinced. Yet they allow that although ambition and the love of power were his ruling passions, his mind was elevated above the meanness of avarice. His personal integrity was unimpeached, and so far was he from making use of his opportunities to acquire wealth, that he died involved in debts, which negligence, and the demands of his public station, rather than extravagance, had obliged him to contract; for his tastes were simple, and he does not appear to have had a fondness for splendour or parade. His private character has been drawn by a friend (the right hon. George Rose), and it corresponds perfectly with other accounts that we have had from those much in his confidence, and who were frequently in his company at times when the man and not the minister was displayed in all its native colours: “With a manner somewhat reserved and distant in what might be termed his public deportment, no man was ever better qualified to gain, or more successful in fixing, the attachment of his friends, than Mr. Pitt. They saw all the powerful energies of his character softened into the most perfect complacency and sweetness of disposition in the circles of private life, the pleasures of which no one more cheerfully enjoyed, or more agreeably promoted, when the paramount duties he conceived himself to owe the public, admitted of his mixing in them. That indignant severity with which he met and subdued what he considered unfounded opposition; that keenness of sarcasm with which he expelled and withered, as it might be said, the powers of most of his assailants in debate, were exchanged in the society of his intimate friends for a kindness of heart, a gentleness of demeanour, and a playfulness of good humour, which no one ever witnessed without interest, or participated without delight.”

, whose name was Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, was born in 1405, at Corsignano in Sienna, where his father lived in exile. He was educated at the grammar-school of that place; but his parents being in low circumstances, he was obliged, in his early years, to submit to many servile employments. In 1423, by the assistance of his friends, he was enabled to go to the university of Sienna, where he applied himself to his studies with great success, and in a short time published several pieces in the Latin and Tuscan languages. In 1431 he attended cardinal Dominic Capranica to the council of Basil as his secretary. He was likewise in the same capacity with cardinal Albergoti, who sent him to Scotland to mediate a peace betwixt the English and Scots; and he was in that country when king James I. was murdered. Upon his return from Scotland, he was made secretary to the council of Basil, which he defended against the authority of the popes, both by his speeches and writings, particularly in a dialogue and epistles which he wrote to the rector and university of Cologn. He was likewise made by that council clerk of the ceremonies, abbreviator, and one of the duodecemviri, or twelve men, an office of great importance. He was employed in several embassies; once to Trent, another time to Frankfort, twice to Constance, and as often to Savoy, and thrice to Strasburg, where he had an intrigue with a lady, by whom he had a son: he has given an account of this affair in a letter to his father, in which he endeavours to vindicate himself with much indecent buffoonery. In 1439 he was employed in the service of pope Felix; and being soon after sent ambassador to the emperor Frederic, he was crowned by him with the poetic laurel, and ranked amongst his friends. In 1442 he was sent for from Basil by the emperor, who appointed him secretary to the empire, and raised him to the senatorial order. He could not at first be prevailed on to condemn the council of Basil, nor to go over absolutely to Eugenius’s party, but remained neuter. However, when the emperor Frederic began to favour Eugenius, Æneas likewise changed his opinion gradually. He afterwards represented the emperor in the diet of Nuremberg, when they were consulting about methods to put an end to the schism, and was sent ambassador to Eugenius: at the persuasion of Thomas Sarzanus, the apostolical legate in Germany, he submitted to Eugenius entirely, and made the following speech to his holiness, as related by John Gobelin, in his Commentaries of the life of Pius II. “Most holy father (said he), before I declare the emperor’s commission, give me leave to say one word concerning myself. I do not question but you have heard a great many things which are not to my advantage. They ought not to have been mentioned to you; but I must confess, that my accusers have reported nothing but what is true. I own I have said, and done, and written, at Basil, many things against your interests; it is impossible to deny it: yet all this has been done not with a design to injure you, but to serve the church. I have been in an error, without question; but I have been in just the same circumstances with many great men, as particularly with Julian cardinal of St. Angelo, with Nicholas archbishop of Palermo, with Lewis du Pont (Pontanus) the secretary of the holy see; men who are esteemed the greatest luminaries in the law, and doctors of the truth; to omit mentioning the universities and colleges which are generally against you. Who would not have erred with persons of their character and merit? It is true, that when I discovered the error of those at Basil, I did not at first go over to you, as the greatest part did; but being afraid of falling from one error to another, and by avoiding Charybdis, as the proverb expresses it, to run upon Scylla, I joined myself, after a long deliberation and conflict within myself, to those who thought proper to continue in a state of neutrality. I lived three years in the emperor’s court in this situation of mind, where having an opportunity of hearing constantly the disputes between those of Basil and your legates, I was convinced that the truth was on your side: it was upon this motive that, when the emperor thought fit to send me to your clemency, I accepted the opportunity with the utmost satisfaction, in hopes that I should be so happy as to gain your favour again: I throw myself therefore at your feet; and since I sinned out of ignorance, I entreat you to grant me your pardon. After which I shall open to you the emperor’s intentions.” This was the prelude to the famous retraction which Æneas Sylvius made afterwards. The pope pardoned every thing that was past; and in a short time made him his secretary, without obliging him to quit the post which he had with the emperor.

Upon the decease of pope Eugenius, Æneas was chosen by the cardinals to preside in the conclave till another pope should be elected. He was made bishop of Trieste by pope Nicholas, and went again into Germany, where he was appointed counsellor to the emperor, and had the direction of all the important affairs of the empire. Four years after he was made archbishop of Sienna; and in 1452 he attended Frederic to Rome, when he went to receive the imperial crown. Æneas, upon his return, was named legate of Bohemia and Austria. About 1456, being sent by the emperor into Italy, to treat with pope Callixtus III. about a war with the Turks, he was made a cardinal. Upon the decease of Callixtus, in 1458 he was elected pope by the name of Pius II. After his promotion to the papal chair he published a bull, retracting all he had written in defence of the council of Basil, with an apology which shows how little he was influenced by principle: “We are men (says he), and we have erred as men; we do not deny, but that many things which we have said or written, may justly be condemned: we have been seduced, like Paul, and have persecuted the church of God through ignorance; we now follow St. Austin’s example, who, having suffered several erroneous sentiments to escape him in his writings, retracted them; we do just the same thing: we ingenuously confess our ignorance, being apprehensive lest what we have written in our youth should occasion some error, which may prejudice the holy see. For if it is suitable to any person’s character to maintain the eminence and glory of the first throne of the church, it is certainly so to ours, whom the merciful God, out of pure goodness, has raised to the dignity of vicegerent of Christ, without any merit on our part. For all these reasons, we exhort you and advise you in the Lord, not to pay any regard to those writings, which injure in any manner the authority of the apostolic see, and assert opinions which the holy Roman church does not receive. If you find any thing contrary to this in our dialogues and letters, or in any other of our works, despise such notions, reject them, follow what we maintain now; believe what I assert now I am in years, rather than what I said when I was young: regard a pope rather than a private man; in short, reject Æneas Sylvius, and receive Pius II.”

Pius behaved in his high office with considerable spirit and activity; but more as a temporal prince, than the head of the church. During his pontificate he received ambassadors from the patriarchs of the east: the chief of the embassy was one Moses, archdeacon of Austria, a man well versed in the Greek and Syriac languages, and of a distinguished character. He appeared before his holiness in the name of the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; he told his holiness, that the enemy who sows tares having prevented them till then from receiving the decree of the council of Florence, concerning the union of the Greek and Latin churches, God had at last inspired them with a resolution of submitting to it; that it had been solemnly agreed to, in an assembly called together for that purpose; and that for the future they would unanimously submit to the pope as vicegerent of Jesus Christ. Pius commended the patriarchs for their obedience, and ordered Moses’s speech to be translated into Latin, and laid up amongst the archives of the Roman church. A few days after the arrival of these ambassadors from the east, there came others also from Peloponnesus, who offered obedience to the pope, and he received them in the name of the church of Rome, and sent them a governor.

Pius, in the latter part of his pontificate, made great preparations against the Turks, for which purpose he summoned the assistance of the several princes in Europe; and having raised a considerable number of troops, he went to Ancona to see them embarked; where he was seized with a fever, and died the 14th of August, 1464, in the fifty-­ninth year of his age, and the seventh of his pontificate. His body was carried to Rome, and interred in the Vatican. The Roman catholic writers are profuse in their praises of this pope, whose character, however, whether private or public, will not bear the strictest scrutiny. His secretary, John Gobelin, published a history of his life, which is supposed to have been written by this pope himself: it was printed at Rome in quarto in 1584 and 1589 and at Francfort in folio in 1614. We have an edition of Æneas Sylvius’s works, printed at Basil, in folio, in 1551. They consist of Memoirs of the Council of Bâle; The History of the Bohemians from their origin till A. D. 1458; Cosmography, in two books; the History of Frederick III. whose vice-chancellor he was; a Treatise on the education of children; a Poem on the Passion of Jesus Christ; a collection of 482 Letters; Historia rerum ubicunque gestarum; the first part only of which was published at Venice in 1477, fol. Euryalus and Lucretia, a romance. A collection of all these, with his life, was also published at Helmstadt in 1700, fol. He was, notwithstanding the applauses of the catholics, a man of great ambition, and great duplicity. He has been praised for his wise and witty sayings, but he was also famous for sayings of a very different description. He indulged himself, respecting the reformers, in a rancour of language which must be offensive to every sober Christian; and his letters show that he indulged great licence in point of morals. Mr. Gilpin, after selecting some striking proofs of this, says, “Such is the testimony which Æneas Sylvius hath given us of himself. It may serve to invalidate what he hath said of others; as it seems entirely to show that his censures are founded upon a mere difference of opinion, without any regard to practice, which is one of the characteristics of bigotry. They who are not acquainted with the history of this writer will be surprised to hear that the man of whom we have this authentic character, was not only a pope, but is acknowledged by the generality of popish writers, as one of the most respectable of all the Roman pontiffs.”

, the conqueror of Peru, celebrated rather for his abilities than for his virtues, his glory being tarnished by the cruelties which he practised towards those whom he had conquered, was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, by a very low woman, and apparently destined by his ungenerous parent not to rise above the condition of his mother, being put to the mean employment of keeping hogs. The genius of young Pizarro disdained this low occupation. He enlisted as a soldier, served some time in Italy, and then embarked for America, which offered at that period a strong allurement to every active adventurer. Distinguished by his utter disdain of every hardship and danger, he was soon regarded, though so illiterate that he was unable to read, as a man formed for command; and being settled in Panama, where the Spanish emigrants had found their sanguine expectations wholly disappointed, he united in 1524 with Diego de Almagro, another military adventurer, and Hernando Lucque, a priest, to prosecute discoveries to the eastward of that settlement. This attempt had frequently been made, but had failed through the inability of the persons concerned in it; it had now fallen into such hands as were calculated to make it successful, and their confederacy was sanctioned by the governor of Panama. The enterprise was begun in a very humble manner. Pizarro set sail with a single vessel, and, from universal ignorance of the climate, at the very worst season of the year, in November, when the periodical winds were precisely against his course. He had no success, nor was his colleague Almagro, who followed, more fortunate. After undergoing extreme hardships, and obtaining only a glimpse of a better country, the utmost they could do was to establish themselves in an island near the coast. Nothing could deter Pizarro from his enterprise; the refusal of further sanction from the governor, the desertion of all his associates, except thirteen, all was in vain. He remained with his small band, till, in spite of all obstacles, they obtained another vessel, with some reinforcements. They set sail again in 1526, and on the twentieth day after their departure, discovered the fertile coast of Peru. They were yet too weak to attempt the invasion of an empire so populous, and Pizarro contented himself with carrying back, by means of an amicable intercourse, such specimens of the wealth and civilization of the country as might invite others to accede to the enterprise. Unable to bring the governor of Panama to adopt his views, he returned to Spain, and explaining to that court the magnitude of the object, obtained every grant of authority he could wish, but no other assistance; and being left to his own resources, could have effected nothing had he not been assisted with money by Cortez, just then returned from Mexico. It was February 1531, before he and his associates were again able to sail from Panama on their great undertaking; and then their whole armament consisted only of three small vessels and 180 soldiers, thirty-six of whom were horsemen. When they landed in Peru, as they had the imprudence to attack the natives, instead of conciliating them, they were at first exposed to famine, and several other calamities. Pizarro, however, had the good fortune to enter Peru when the forces of the empire were divided by an obstinate civil war between Huascar the legitimate monarch, and Atahualpa (commonly called Atabalipa), his half brother. By degrees understanding the state of the country, Pizarro engaged to be the ally of Atahualpa, and under that pretence was permitted to penetrate unmolested to Caxamalca, twelve days’ journey within the country. He was received pacifically and with state, as the ambassador of a great monarch but, perfidiously taking advantage of the unsuspecting good faith of Atahualpa, he made a sudden attack, and took him prisoner. The exaction of an immense ransom, the division of which served to invite new invaders; the disgraceful breach of faith by which the king was kept a prisoner after his ransom was paid; and the detestable murder of him, a short time after, under the infamous mockery of a trial; with the insults superadded by bigotry, to make him die a Christian, without being able to comprehend that faith; all contribute to accumulate disgrace upon the head of the treacherous and unfeeling conqueror, and form such odious additions to the reproachful scenes acted by the Spaniards in America, as nothing can palliate or obliterate. Pizarro, favoured by the distracted state of Peru, which now increased, though Huascar had been put to death by order of his brother, and reinforced by more soldiers from Spain, proceeded in his conquests, and on Jan. 18, 1535, laid the foundation of Lima, called by him and his countrymen Ciudad de los Reyes. In 1537 he found a new enemy in his original associate Almagro, who claiming Cuzco, the ancient capital of Peru, as belonging to his jurisdiction, got possession of it. This, and other advantages gained by him, at once distressed and roused Pizarro. They came to an engagement in 1538, in which Almagro was defeated and taken prisoner; and, after an interval of confinement, was tried and executed. This was the last of the successes of Pizarro; the son and friends of Almagro conspired against him, and on June 26, 1541, he was assassinated by them in his palace, making a most resolute defence, well worthy of his long-tried courage. He was at this time advanced in years, though his exact age is not known. The glory he justly acquired by military talents, courage, and sagacity, would have placed him in the rank of heroes, had not his character been disgraced by the indelible stains of perfidy and cruelty.

, an eminent philologer of Hamburgh, where he was born in 1642, completed his studies at Helmstadt and Leipsic, and improved his talents by travelling in France and Italy. When he returned, he applied himself to the bar, and afterwards became professor of morals and eloquence, in which situation he continued twenty-four years. He was beloved by his pupils, and when he died, April 6, 1699, regretted by his countrymen in general, who had considered him as an oracle. His works are, 1. “A Dictionary of anonymous and pseudonymous Authors,” published in 1708, in 2 vols. folio, by the care of Fabricius; a curious work, but abounding with faults. 2. “De jurisconsulto perito Liber,” 1693, 8vo. 3. “Carmina juvenilia,” Amst. 1667, 12mo. 4. “De arte excerpendi,” Hamburgh, 1689, 8vo, with several others, all testifying, and abundantly proving, his talents and erudition.

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

, is said to have been the real name of a German author, who, tinder the fictitious one of Publius Porcius Porcellus, wrote the Latin poem entitled “Pugna porcorum,” consisting of 360 verses, in which every word begins with a P. It was published separately at Antwerp, in 1530, and is in the “Nugae venales,” &c. We have followed Baillet in- calling him Peter Placentinus, but Le Clerc says that his name was John Leo Placentius, a Dominican monk, who died about 1548, and that he composed an history of the bishops of Tongres, Maestricht, and Liege, taken out of fabulous memoirs, and several poems besides the “Pugna Porcorum.” In this last he imitated one Theobaldus,. a Benedictine monk, who flourished in the time of Charles the Bald, to whom he presented a panegyric on baldness, every word of which began with the letter C (calvities, baldness). Placentinus is said to have had another object,

, a protestant minister of great eminence, was born at Pontac in Berne, Jan. 19, 1639; and his father, who was a minister, trained him with the greatest attention and care. From 1660, he exercised the ministry in France; but, after the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he retired to Denmark, where he continued till the death of the queen in 1711; for that princess, apprised of his gr,eat merit, kept him near her. From Denmark he passed to Holland, and fixed himself first at the Hague then removed to Utrecht, where he died April 25, 1718, aged seventy-nine. He was the author of many works upon piety and morality, which are reckoned excellent in their kind; and of some of the polemic kind, against the church of Rome, and particularly against Bayle’s sceptical works. Among these we may enumerate, 1. “Nouveaux Essais de Morale,” 6 vols. 12mo. 2. “Traité de l'Orgueil,” the best edition of which is 1699, 3. “Traité de la Conscience.” 4. “Traité de la Restitution.” 5. “La Communion deVote,” the best edition of which is that of 1699. 6. “Traité des bonnes CEuvres en general.” 7, “Traité du Serment” 8. “Divers Traités sur des Matieres de Conscience.” 9. “La Mort des Justes.” 10. “Traité de l'Aumône.” 11. “Traité des Jeux de Hazard.” 12. “La Morale Chretien abregee,” 1701. 13. “Reflexions Chretiennes sur divers Sujets de Morale,” all in 12mo. 14. “De Insanabili Edclesia Romana, Scepticismo, Dissertatio,” 1686, or 1696, 4to. 15. “De l'Autorite des Sens contre la Transubstantiation,” 12mo. 16. “Traité de la Foi divine,” 4 vols. 4to. 17. “Dissertation sur divers Sujets de Theologie et de Morale,” 12mo, &c. Some of the above have been published in English, particularly the “Treatise on Conscience,” and that on the “Death of the Just.”

, an eminent printer, was born at Mont-Louis, near Tours, in 1514. He was instructed in his art at Caen, under Robert Mace, whence he went to Antwerp, and formed by degrees one of the greatest establishments for printing in Europe, and said indeed to be unique in its kind. The whole was upon the most magnificent scale, and even the building was accounted one of the ornaments of the city of Antwerp, and was so amply furnished with presses, founts of letter of all sorts, a foundery, and other matters necessary for the concern, as to have cost an immense sum of money. One of his biographers informs us that Plantin’s ideas were so magnificent as that he cast some founts in silver, and considered himself as having in.that respect done what no other printer had attempted but this is a mistake, as Robert Stephens had before indulged himself in the luxury of silver types, although not so rich a man as Plantin. In 1576 Thuanus paid a visit to Plantin, who, although not now in such good circumstances, still had seventeen presses at work, and the wages of his workmen amounted to 20O florins per day. But what redounds most to his credit was the number of men of learning whom he retained in his service, and rewarded with great liberality for their assistance in correcting the press. Among these were Victor Giselin; Theodore Pulman; Antony Gesdal; Francis Hardouin Cornelius Kilien and Francis Raphelengius, who became his son-in-law. Cornelius Kilien, one of the most learned and accurate of these, spent fifty years in this printing-house. The correctness, therefore, of Plantin’s editions, with such aid, is not much a matter of surprise, and will appear still less so when it is added that he was so fastidious as not altogether to trust to the assistants now mentioned, nor even to rely on his own skill and knowledge, both of which were great, but used also to hang up the proof sheets, after undergoing every possible degree of correction, in some conspicuous place, promising rewards for the detection of errors. In this, likewise, it will be observed, he followed the example of Robert Stephens. Such care on the part of Plantin, with the beauty of his types, and the judicious choice he made of the authors to be printed, gave him very high reputation among the learned of Europe, who are unbounded in their praises of him, particularly Lipsius, Scaliger, Antonio, Baronius, and Arias Montanus, who expatiates on his merits in the introduction to what may be termed Plantin’s capital work, the Antwerp Polyglot. The king of Spain gave him the title of archi-typographus, and accompanied this title with a salary sufficient to support it and his printing-office, and a kind of patent for the printing of certain works, particularly of the religious kind, with which, Bullart says, he almost exclusively served Europe and the Indies.

Besides his great establishment at Antwerp, Plantin set up another at Leyden, notwithstanding the troubles which prevailed in Holland and a third at Paris. The king of France would have fain persuaded him to return to his native country, but he preferred remaining at Antwerp, where, as just noticed, the king of Spain for some time rendered his situation easy, and even splendid. The printing office at Leyden he bestowed on his son-in-law, Raphelengius and took into partnership at Antwerp John Moret, who had married his second daughter. He gave likewise to Giles Beys, a Parisian, the office he had established at Paris, as a portion with his third daughter. After all this, and the constant expences of his living and establishment, he was enabled to leave a considerable fortune to his daughters, for he had no son. He died in 1589, aged seventy-five, and was interred in the great church at Antwerp, where a monument was erected to his memory. His device was a pair of compasses, with the motto “Lahore et constantia.”

, a Greek monk of Constantinople, who lived at the end of the thirteenth, and the beginning of the fourteenth century, is the author of a “Life of Æsop,” full of anachronisms, absurdities, and falsehoods and of 149 “Fables;” which, though he published them as Æsop’s, have been suspected to be his own. There is also a collection of Greek epigrams, under the title of “Anthologia,” made by this monk and it is but just to allow him the merit of having preserved many valuable compositions which otherwise would have been lost. His “Anthologia” was published at Florence, 1494, a very rare edition, reprinted in 1600. No particulars are known of Planudes, except that he suffered some persecution on account of his zeal for the Latin church, and, although he wrote a recantation, Bessarion thinks he was not sincere.

, an eminent physician, was born at Basle in 1536, and educated upder his father’s eye, who was likewise an eminent physician, and principal of the college of Basle. From this place he went to Montpellier, where he obtained the degree of doctor in 1556, and on his return to Basle, was admitted ad eundem, and commenced a very successful career of practice. In 15 60 he was appointed professor of medicine, and became the confidential physician of the princes and nobles of the Upper Rhine. He possessed an extensive knowledge of anatomy, botany, natural history, and other branches of science, and contributed much to the celebrity of his native university, in which he was a teacher upwards of fifty years. He died in July 1614, in the seventy-eighth year of his age. He left the following works: “De Corporis humani structura et usu Libri tres,” Basle, 1583, and 1603, folio; “De Febribus Liber,” Francfort, 1597; “Praxeos Medicae Tomi tres,” Basle, 1602; “Observationum Medicinalium Libri tres,” ibid. 1614, &c.; “Consilia Medica,” Francf. 1615, in the collection of Brendelius; “De Gangraena Epistola,” in the first century of the letters of Hildanus. After his death were published “Qusestionum Medicarum paradoxarum et eudoxarum Centuria posthuma,” Basle, 1625, edited by his brother, Thomas Plater and “Qusestiones Physiologicæ de partium in utero conformatione,” Leyden, 1650.

, so called, a learned Italian, and author of a “History of the Popes,” was born in 1421 at Piadena, in Latin Platina, a village between Cremona and Mantua; whence he took the name by which he is generally known. He first embraced a military life, which he followed for a considerable time but afterwards devoted himself to literature, and made a considerable progress in it. He went to Rome under Calixtus III. who was made pope in 1455 and procuring an introduction to cardinal Bessarion, he obtained some small benefices of pope Pius II. who succeeded Calixtus in 1458, and afterwards was appointed to an office which Pius II. created, called the college of apostolical abbreviators. But when Paul II. sue-‘ ceeded Pius in 1464, Platina’ s affairs took a very unfavourable turn. Paul hated him because he was the favourite of fris predecessor Pius, and removed all the abbreviators from their employments, by abolishing their places, notwithstanding some had purchased them with great sums of money. On this Platina ventured to complain to the pope, and most humbly besought him to order their cause to be judged by the auditors of the Rota. The pope was offended at the liberty, and gave him a very haughty repulse “Is it thus,” said he, looking at him sternly, “is it thus, that you summon us before your judges, as if you knew riot that all laws were centered in our breast Such is our decree they shall all go hence, whithersoever they please I am pope, and have a right to ratify or cancel the acts of others at pleasure.” These abbreviators, thus divested of their employments, used their utmost endeavours, for some days, to obtain audience of the pope, but were repulsed with contempt. Upon this, Platina wrote to him in bolder language “If you had a right to dispossess us, without a hearing, of the employments we lawfully purchased; we, on the other side, may surely be permitted to complain of the injustice we suffer, and the ignominy with which we are branded. As you have repulsed us so contumeliousjy, we will go to all the courts of princes, and intreat them to call a council; whose principal business shall be, to oblige you to shew cause, why you have divested us of our lawful possessions.” This letter being considered as an act of rebellion, the writer was imprisoned, and endured great hardships. At the end of four months he had his liberty, with orders not to leave Rome, and continued in quiet for some time; but afterwards, being suspected of a plot, was again imprisoned, and, with many others, put to the rack. The plot being found imaginary, the charge was turned to heresy, which also came to nothing; and Platina was set at liberty some time after. The pope then flattered him with a prospect of preferment, but died before he could perform his promises, if ever he meant to do so. On the accession, however, of Sixtus IV. to the pontificate, he recompensed Platina in some measure by appointing him in 1475, keeper of the Vatican library, which was established by this pope. It was a place of moderate income then, but was highly acceptable to Platina, who enjoyed it with great contentment until 1481, when he was snatched away by the plague. He bequeathed to Pomponius Laetus the house which he built on the Mons Quirinalis, with the laurel grove, out of which the poetical crowns were taken. He was the author of several works, the most considerable of which is, “De Vitis ac Gestis Summorum Pontificum” or, History of the Popes from St. Peter to Sixtus IV. to whom he dedicated it. This work is written with an elegance of style, and discovers powers of research and discrimination which were then unknown in biographical works. He seems always desirous of stating the truth, and does this with as much boldness as could be expected in that age. The best proof of this, perhaps, is that all the editions after 1500 were mutilated by the licensers of the press. The Account he gives of his sufferings under Paul II. has been objected to him as a breach of the impartiality to be observed by a historian but it was at the same time no inconsiderable proof of his courage. This work was first printed at Venice in 1479, folio, and reprinted once or twice before 1500. Platina wrote also, 2. “A History of Mantua,” in Latin, which was first published by Lambecius, with notes, at Vienna, 1675, in 4to. 3. “De Naturis rerum.” 4. “Epistolae ad diversos.” 5. “De honesta voluptate et valetutiine.” 6. “De falso et vero bono.” 7. “Contra amores.” 8. “De vera nobilitate.” 9. “De optimo cive.” 10.“Panegyricus in Bessarionem.” 11. “Oratio ad Paulum II.” 12. “De pace Italiae componenda et bello Turcico indicendo.” 13. “De flosculis lingua? Latin.” Sannazarius wrote an humorous epigram on the treatise “de honesta voluptate,” including directions for the kitchen, de Obsoniis, which Mr. Gresswell has. thus translated:

, the most illustrious of the Greek philosophers, and whose sect outlived every other, was by descent an Athenian, but born in the island of Ægina, then subject to Athens. His origin is traced back, on his father Aristo’s side, to Codrus; and on that of his mother Pericthiohe, through five generations, to Solon. The time of his birth is commonly placed in the first year of the eighty-eighth olympiad, or B.C. 428; but Brucker thinks, it may perhaps be more accurately fixed in the third year of the eighty-seventh olympiad, or B. C. 430. He gave early indications of an extensive and original genius, and was instructed in the rudiments of letters by the grammarian Dionysius, and trained in athletic exercises by Aristo of Argos. He applied also with great diligence to the arts of painting and poetry, and produced an epic poem, which he had the wisdom afterwards, upon comparing it with Homer, to commit to the flames. At the age of twenty years, he composed a dramatic piece, which was about to be performed on the theatre, but the day before the intended exhibition, he happened to hear a discourse of Socrates, which induced him to withdraw the piece, and relinquish the muses for the study of philosophy. Accordingly he became a regular pupil of Socrates for eight years, and although he sometimes mixed foreign tenets with those of his master, always preserved a strong attachment to him, and attended him at his trial. During the imprisonment also of that celebrated philosopher, Plato had an opportunity of hearing his sentiments on the immortality of the soul, the substance of which he inserted in his beautiful dialogue entitled “Phajdo,” along with some of his own peculiar opinions. On the death of Socrates, he retired, with other friends of Socrates, to Megara, where they were hospitably entertained by Euclid, who taught Plato the art of reasoning, and probably increased his fondness for disputation.

Returning home richly stored with knowledge of various kinds, he settled in Athens, and formed his celebrated school of philosophy. The place which he made choice of for this purpose was a public grove, called the Academy, from Hecademus, who left it to the citizens for the puiv pose of gymnastic exercises. Adorned with statues, temples, and sepulchres, planted with lofty plane-trees, and intersected by a gentle stream, it afforded a delightful retreat for philosophy and the muses. Within this inclosure he possessed, as a part of his humble patrimony, purchased at the price of three thousand drachmas, a small garden, in which he opened a school, and to shew the value he placed on mathematical studies, and how necessary a preparation be thought them for higher speculations, he placed an inscription over the door, the meaning of which is, “Let no one, who is unacquainted with geometry, enter here.” He soon became ranked among the most eminent philosophers, and his travels into distant countries, where learning and wisdom flourished, gave him celebrity among his brethren, none of whom had ventured to institute a school in Athens, except Aristippus, the freedom of whose manners had brought him into discredit. Plato alone inherited the popularity of Socrates, and besides a crowd of young scholars, persons of the first distinction frequented the academy, females not excepted, whose curiosity induced them to put on the male apparel for this purpose. Such reputation could not escape envy and jealousy. Diogenes the Cynic ridiculed Plato’s doctrine of ideas and other abstract speculations; nor was he himself without a tinge of jealousy, for he and Xenophon, who had been fellow pupils of Socrates, studiously avoided mentioning each other. Amidst all this, however, Plato’s fame increased; and such an opinion was formed of his political wisdom, that several states solicited his assistance in new modelling their respective forms of government. But while he gave his advice in the affairs of Elis, and other Grecian states, and furnished a code of laws for Syracuse, he rejected the applications of the Arcadians and Thebans, because they refused to adopt the plan of his republic, which prescribed an equal distribution of property. He was also in high esteem with several princes, particularly Archelaus, king of Maoedon, and Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily. At three different periods he visited the court of this latter prince, and made several bold, but unsuccessful attempts to subdue his haughty and tyrannical spirit. A brief relation of the particulars of these visits to Sicily, may serve to cast some light upon the character of our philosopher

The professed object of Plato’s first visit to Sicily, which happened in the fortieth year of his age, during the reign of the elder Dionysius, the son of Hermocrates, was, to take a survey of the island, and particularly to observe the wonders of Mount Etna. Whilst he was resident at Syracuse, he was employed in the instruction of Dion, the king’s brother-in-law, who possessed excellent abilities, but had not escaped the general depravity of the court. Such, however, was the influence of Plato’s instructions, that he became an ardent lover of wisdom, and hoping that philosophy might produce the same effect upon Dionysius, he procured an interview between Plato and the tyrant. This had like to have proved fatal, for Donysius, perceiving that the philosopher levelled his discourse against the vices and cruelties of his reign, dismissed him with high displeasure from his presence, and conceived a design against his life. And although he did not accomplish this barbarous intention, he procured him to be sold as a slave in the island of Ægina, the inhabitants of which were then at war with the Athenians. Plato, however, could not long remain unnoticed: Anicerris, a Cyrenaic philosopher, who happened to be at that time in the island, discovered him, and purchasing his freedom, sent him home to Athens, and afterwards refused the repayment of the purchase-money, that, as he said, Plato’s friends might not monopolize the honour of serving so illustrious a philosopher.

After a short interval, Dionysius, repenting of his unjust resentment, wrote to Plato, inviting him to return to Syracuse, to which Plato answered, with some contempt, that philosophy would not allow him leisure to think of Dionysius. He was induced, however, to return by another expedient. Plato had made Dion a determined votary of virtue, and he naturally wished to extend this advantage to the younger Dionysius, who also expressed a most earnest desire to become acquainted with Plato< Letters were then dispatched to him, from the tyrant, from Dion and several followers of Pythagoras, importuning him to return to Syracuse, and take upon him the education of the young prince. After considerable hesitation, he consented, and is said to have had some kind of promise on the part of Dionysius that he would adopt the Platonic form of government. In the mean time the enemies of Dion prevailed upon Dionysius to recall from exile Philistus, a man of tyrannical principles and spirit, who, they hoped f would oppose the doctrines and measures of Plato. The philosopher in the mean time was conducted to Syracuse with public honours; the king himself received him into his chariot, and sacrifices were offered in congratulation of his arrival. New regulations were immediately introduced; the licentiousness of the court was restrained; moderation reigned in all public festivals; the king assumed an air of benignity; philosophy was studied by his courtiers; and every good man assured himself of a happy revolution in the state of public manners. It was now that Philistus and his adherents found means to rekindle the jealousy of the tyrant, and through their intrigues, Dion became so obnoxious to Dionysius, that he ordered him to be imprisoned, and afterwards banished him into Italy. With Plato, however, he continued to keep up some appearance of friendship, and under that pretence allotted Plato an apartment in his palace, but at the same time placed a secret guard about him, that no one might visit him without his knowledge. At length, upon the commencement of a war, Dionysius sent Plato back into his own country, with a promise, that he would recal both him and Dion upon the return of peace. Part of this promise he was soon inclined to keep, by recalling Plato but the philosopher received his solicitations with coolness, pleaded in excuse his advanced age, and reminded the tyrant of the violation of his promise respecting Dion nor was it until the request of Dionysius was seconded by the intreaties of the wife and sister of Dion, and by the importunities of Archytas of Tarentum, and other Pythagorean philosophers, to whom the tyrant had pledged himself for the performance of his promises, that he could be prevailed upon to return.

On his third arrival he was received with great respect by Dionysius, who now seemed wholly divested of his former resentments, listened to his doctrines with pleasure, and presented him with eighty talents in gold. The court indeed was not much improved, nor was the disposition of the tyrant really changed, yet Plato supported the credit of philosophy with great dignity, and had considerable influence and authority. But as he soon found that he could not procure the recall of Dion, and that there was little sincerity in the professions of Dionysius, he requested permission to return to Greece. The permission was granted, and a ship provided; but before it could set sail, Dionysius retracted his promise, and detained Plato in Syracuse. This conduct being attended with complaints on the part of Plato, the tyrant was so irritated as to dismiss him from his court, and put him under a guard of soldiers, whom false rumours had incensed against him. His Pythagorean friends at Tarentum, being informed of his dangerous situation, immediately dispatched an embassy to Dionysius, demanding an instant completion of his promise to Archytas. The tyrant, not daring to refuse this demand, with a view to pacify Plato gave him a magnificent entertainment, and sent him away loaded with rich presents.

It is from the writings of Plato, chiefly, that we are to form a judgment of his merit as a philosopher, and of the service which he rendered to science. No one can be conversant with these without perceiving, that his diction always retained a strong tincture of that poetical spirit which he discovered in his first productions. This is the principal ground of those lofty encomiums, which both autient and modern critics have passed upon his language, and, particularly, of the high estimation in which it was held by Cicero, who, treating on the subject of language, says, that “if Jupiter were to speak in the Greek tongue, he would borrow the style of Plato.” The accurate Stagyrite describes it, as “a middle species of diction, between verse and prose.” Some of his dialogues are elevated by such sublime and glowing conceptions, are enriched with such copious and splendid diction, and flow in so harmonious a rythmus, that they may truly be pronouncedhighly poetical. Most of them are justly admired for their liter rary merit the introductions are pertinent and amusing the course of the debate, or conversation, is clearly marked; the characters are accurately supported every speaker has his proper place, language, and manners the scenery of the conference is painted in lively colouring and the whole is, with admirable art, adorned and enlivened by those minute embellishments, which render the colloquial mode of writing so peculiarly pleasing. Even upon abstract subjects, whether moral, metaphysical, or mathematical, the language of Plato is often clear as the running stream, and in simplicity and sweetness vies with the humble violet which perfumes the vale. In these beautiful parts of his works, it has been conjectured, not without probability, that Socrates and Lysias were his models. At other times, however, we find him swelling into the turgid style, a tincture of which he seems to have retained from his juvenile studies, and involving himself in obscurities, which were the offspring of a lofty fancy, or were borrowed from the Italic school. Several ancient critics have noticed these blemishes in the writings of Plato. Dionysius Halicarnassensis particularly censures Plato for the harshness of his metaphors, and his bold innovations in the use of terms, and quotes from his Phædrus examples of the bombast, the puerile, and the frigid style. The same inequality, which is so apparent in the style of Plato, may also be observed in his conceptions. Whilst he adheres to the school of Socrates, and discourses upon moral topics, he is much more pleasing than when he loses himself, with Pythagoras, in abstruse speculations.

The truth appears to have been, that Plato, ambitious of the honour of forming a new sect, and endued by nature with more brilliancy of fancy than strength of judgment, collected the tenets of other philosophers, which were, in many particulars, contradictory, and could by no exertion of ingenuity be brought to coalesce; and that, out of this heterogeneous mass, he framed a confused system, destitute of form or consistency. This will be acknowledged by every one, who, in perusing the philosophical writings of Plato, is capable of divesting himself of that blind respect for antiquity, by which the learned so frequently suffer themselves to be misled. The followers, too, of Plato, far from dispersing the clouds which from the first, hung over his system, appear to have entered into a general combination to increase its obscurity. The successive changes, which took place in the academy after the death of its founder, by introducing a succession of new opinions, continually increased the difficulty of arriving at the true sense of Plato. And when, in a subsequent, period, the Platonic philosophy was professed in Alexandria, it was still further adulterated by an injudicious and absurd attempt to mould into one system the doctrines of Plato, the traditionary tenets of Egypt and the eastern nations, and the sacred creeds of the Jews and Christians: a coalition which proved exceedingly injurious both to philosophy and religion.

It is doubtful how many plays he composed. We have only twenty extant, and not all entire. Varro allowed twenty- six to be of his composition, which were all extant in Gellius’s time. Some made the number of his plays to exceed an hundred but this might arise from his revising the plays of other poets, which Gellius supposes he did and Varro' s account ought to be decisive. This learned Roman had written a particular treatise on Plautus’s works, from the second book of which, quoted by Gellius, the preceding particulars are taken. Many other critics are there mentioned by GelHus, who had all written some pieces upon Plautus, which shew the great admiration in which he was held by the Romans and it should seem as if this admiration continued long for there is a passage in Arnobius, whence it seems reasonable to infer that some of his plays were acted on solemn occasions, so late as the reign of Dioclesian. Two circumstances contributed to his fame; the one, his style, which was thought the standard of the purest Latin, for the learned Varro did not scruple to say, that were the Muses to speak Latin, they would certainly speak in the language of Plautus; the other, the exquisite humour of his characters, which set him above all the Roman comic writers. This is the constant opinion of Varro, Cicero, Gellius, Macrobius, and the most eminent modern critics, as Lipsius, the Scaligers, Muretus, Turnebus, &c. Horace only blames the coarseness of his wit, in which opinion a modern reader of taste will perhaps be inclined to join. Bonnell Thornton endeavoured to naturalize them by a translation, which however is too liberal to afford the mere English reader an idea of the humour which delighted a Roman audience.

, called the elder, to distinguish him from his nephew, was one of the most learned of the ancient Roman writers, and was born in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, about the year of Christ 23. His birth-place was Verona, as appears from his calling Catullus his countryman, who was unquestionably of that city. Tho ancient writer of his life, ascribed to Suetonius, and, after him, St. Jerom, have made him a native of Rome: father Hardouin has also taken some pains to confirm this notion, which however has not prevailed. We can more readily believe Aulus Gellius, who represents him as one of the most ingenious men of his age; and what is related of his application by his nephew the younger Pliny, is almost incredible. Yet his excessive love of study did not spoil the man of business, nor prevent him from filling the most important offices with credit. He was a procurator, or manager of the emperor’s revenue, in the provinces of Spain and Africa; and was advanced to the high dignity of augur. He had also several considerable commands in the army, and was distinguished by his courage in the field, as well as by his eloquence at the bar. His manner of life, as it is described by his nephew, exhibits a degree of industry and perseverance scarcely to be paralleled. In summer he always began his studies as soon as it was night: in winter, generally at one in the morning, but never later than two, and often at midnight. No man ever spent less time in bed; and sometimes he would, without retiring from his books, indulge in a short sleep, and then pursue his studies. Before day-break, it was his custom to wait upon Vespasian, who likewise chose that season to transact business: and when he had finished the affairs which the emperor committed to his charge, he returned home again to his studies. After a slender repast at noon, he would frequently, in the summer, if he was disengaged from business, recline in the sun: during which time some author was read to him, from which he made extracts and observations. This was his constant method, whatever book he read; for it was a maxim of his, that “no book was so bad, but something might be learned from it.” When this was over, he generally went into the cold-bath, after which he took a slight refreshment of food and rest and then, as if it had been a new day, resumed his studies till supper-time, when a book was again read to him, upon which he would make some remarks as they went on. His nephew mentions a singular instance to shew how parsimonious he was of his time, and how covetous of knowledge. His reader having pronounced a word wrong, some person at the table made him repeat it: upon which, Pliny asked that person if he understood it? and when he acknowledged that he did, “Why then,” said he, “would you make him go back again we have lost, by this interruption, above ten lines.” In summer, he always rose from supper by clay-light and in winter, as soon as it was dark. Such was his way of life amidst the noise and hurry of the town but in the country his whole time was devoted to study without intermission, excepting only when he bathed, that is, was actually in the bath for during the operation of rubbing and wiping, he was employed either in hearing some book read' to him, or in dictating himself. In his journeys, he lost no time from his studies, his mind at those seasons being disengaged from all other thoughts, and a secretary or amanuensis constantly attended him in his chariot; and that he might suffer the less interruption to his studies, instead of walking, he always used a carriage in Rome. By this extraordinary application he found leisure to write a great many volumes.

The circumstances of his death, like his manner of livr ing, were very singular, and are also described at large by the elegant pen of his nephew. He was at that time, with a fleet under his command, at Mis en urn, in the gulf of Naples; his sister and her son, the younger Pliny, being with him. On the 24th of August, in the year 79, about one in the afternoon, his sister desired him to observe a cloud of a very unusual size and shape. He was in his study; but immediately arose, and went out upon an eminence to view it more distinctly. It was not at that distance discernible from what mountain this cloud issued, but it was found afterwards to ascend from mount Vesuvius. Its figure resembled that of a pine-tree; for it shot up to a great height in the form of a trunk, which extended itself at the top into a sort of branches; and it appeared sometimes bright, and sometimes dark and spotted, as it was either more or less impregnated with earth and cinders. This was a noble phenomenon for the philosophic Pliny, who immediately ordered a light vessel to be got ready; but as he was coming out of the house, with his tablets for his observations, the mariners belonging to the gallies stationed at Retina, earnestly intreated him to come to their assistance, since that port being situated at the foot of mount Vesuvius, there was no way for them to escape, but by sea. He therefore ordered the gallies to put to sea, and went himself on board, with intention of assisting not only Retina, but several other towns, situated upon that beautiful coast. He steered directly to the point of danger, whence ethers fled with the utmost terror; and with so much calmness and presence of mind, as to be able to make and dictate his observations upon the motion and figure of that dreadful scene. He went so nigh the mountain, that tha cinders, which grew thicker and hotter the nearer he approached, fell into the ships, together with pumice-stonet and black pieces of burning rock: they were likewise in danger, not only of being aground by the sudden retreat of the sea, but also from the vast fragments which rolled down from the mountain, and obstructed all the shore. Here he stopped to consider, whether he should return; to which the pilot advising him, “Fortune,” said he, “befriends the brave; carry me to Pomponianus.” Pomponianus was then at Stabioe, a town separated by a gulf, which the sea, after several windings, forms upon that shore. He found him in the greatest consternation, but exhorted him to keep up his spirits; and, the more to dissipate his fears, he ordered, with an air of unconcern, the baths to be got ready; when, after having bathed, he sat down to supper with apparent cheerfulness. Jn the mean while, the eruption from Vesuvius flamed out in several places with much violence, which the darkness of the night contributed to render still more visible and dreadful. Pliny, to soothe the apprehensions of his friend, assured him it was only the burning of the villages, which the country people had abandoned to the flames: after this he retired, and had some sleep. The court which led to his apartment being in the mean time almost filled with stones and ashes, if he had continued there any longer, it would have been impossible for him to have made his way out: it was therefore thought proper to awaken him. He got up, and went to Pomponianus and the rest of the company, who were not unconcerned enough to think of going to bed. They consulted together, whether it would be most prudent to trust to the houses, which now shook from side to side with frequent and violent rockings; or to fly to the open fields, where the calcined stones and cinders, though light indeed, yet fell in large showers, and threatened destruction. In this distress they resolved for the fields, as the less dangerous situation of the two; and went out, having pillows tied upon their heads with napkins, which was all their defence against the storms of stones that fell around them. It was now day every where else, but there a deeper darkness prevailed than in the most obscure night; which, however, was in some degree dissipated by torches, and other lights of various kinds. They thought proper to go down farther upon the shore, to observe if they might safely put out to sea; but they found the waves still run extremely high and boisterous. There Pliny, taking a draught or two of water, threw himself down upon a cloth which was spread for him; when immediately the flames and a strong smell of sulphur, wkich was the forerunner of them, dispersed the rest of the company, and obliged him to arise. He raised himself, with the assistance of two of his servants, for he was corpulent, and instantly fell down dead: suffocated, as his nephew conjectures, by some gross and noxious vapour; for he had always weak lungs, and was frequently subject to a difficulty of breathing. As soon as it was light again, which was not till the third day after, his body was found entire, and without any marks of violence upon it; exactly in the same posture that he fell, and looking more like a man asleep than dead.

As to the writings of Pliny, his nephew informs us that the first book he published was, a treatise, “Concerning the art of using the javelin on horseback,” written when he commanded a troop of horse. He also was the author of “The Life of Pomponius Secundus,” who was his friend; and “The history of the Wars in Germany;” ia which he gave an account of all the battles the Romans had had with the Germans. His nephew says, that a dream, which occurred when he served in the army in Germany, first suggested to him the design of this work: it was, that Drusus Nero, who extended his conquests very far into that country, and there lost his life, appeared to him, and conjured him not to suffer his memory to be buried in oblivion. He wrote likewise “A treatise upon Eloquence; and a piece of criticism” concerning dubious Latinity.“This last work, which was published in Nero’s reign, when the tyranny of the times made it dangerous to engage in studies of a freer kind, is often cited by Prisrcian, He completed a history which Aufidius Bassus left unfinished, by adding to it thirty books, which contained the history of his own times. Lastly, he left thirty-seven books upon the subject of natural history: a work, sayi his nephew, of great compass and learning, and almost as full of variety as nature herself. It is indeed a most valuable treasury of ancient knowledge. For its defects, which in the estimation of modern students of natural history must unavoidably be numerous, he thus apologizes, in the dedication to Vespasian:” The path which I have taken has hitherto been, in a great measure, untrodden; and holds forth to the traveller few enticements. None of our own writers have so much as attempted these subjects; and even among the Greeks no one has treated of them in their full extent. The generality of authors in their pursuits attend chiefly to amusement; and those who have the character of writing with great depth and refinement are involved in impenetrable obscurity. Such is the extent of my undertaking, that it comprehends every topic which the Greeks include under the name of Encyclopedia; of which, however, some are as yet utterly unknown, and others have been rendered uncertain by excessive subtlety. Other parts of my subject have been so often handled, that readers are become cloyed with them. Arduous indeed is the task to give what is old an appearance of novelty; to add weight and authority to what is new; to cast a lustre upon subjects which time has obscured; to render acceptable what is become trite and disgusting; to obtain credit to doubtful relations; and, in a word, to represent every thing according to nature, and with all its natural properties. A design like this, even though incompletely executed, will be allowed to be grand and noble.“He adds afterwards,” Many defects and errors have, I doubt not, escaped me; for, besides that I partake of the common infirmities of human nature, I have written this work in the midst of engagements, at broken periods which I have stolen from sleep."

It would be unjust to the memory of this great man, not to admit this apology in its full extent; and it would be still more unjust, to judge of the merit of his work, by comparing it with modern productions in natural history, written after the additional observations of seventeen hundred years. Some allowance ought also to be made for the carelessness and ignorance of transcribers, who have so mutilated and corrupted this work, that, in many places, the author’s meaning lies almost beyond the reach of conjecture.

, nephew of the preceding, was born A. D. 62, at Novocomum, a town upon the lake Larius, near which he had several beautiful villas. Caecilius was the name of his father, and Plinius Secundus that of his mother’s brother, who adopted him. He discovered from his infancy, good talents and an elegant taste, which he did not fail to cultivate, and informs us himself that he wrote a Greek tragedy at fourteen years of age. He lost his father when he was young, and had the famous Virginius for his tutor or guardian, of whom he gives a high character. He frequented the schools of the rhetoricians, and heard Quintilian; for whom he ever after entertained so high an esteem, that he bestowed a considerable portion upon his daughter at her marriage. He was in his eighteenth year when his uncle died and it was then that he began to plead in the forum, the usual road to promotion. About a year after, he assumed the military character, and went into Syria with the commission of tribune: but as this did not suit his taste, he returned after a campaign or two. He tells us, that in his passage homewards he was detained by contrary winds at the island Icaria, and that he employed himself in making verses: he enlarges, in the same place, upon his poetical efforts; but in this respect, like Cicero, he valued himself upon a taleftt which he did not eminently possess.

Upon his return from Syria, he settled at Rome, in the reign of Domitian. During this most perilous time, he continued to plead in the forum, where he was distinguished, not more by his uncommon abilities and eloquence, than by his great resolution and courage, which enabled him to speak boldly, when hardly any one else could venture to speak at all. On these accounts he was often singled out by the senate, to defend the plundered provinces against their oppressive governors, and to manage other causes of a like important and dangerous nature. One of these causes was in favour of the province of Baetica, in their prosecution of Baebius Massa; in which he acquired so general an applause, that the emperor Nerva, then a private man, and in banishment at Tarentum, wrote him a letter, in which he congratulated, not only Pliny, but the age which had produced an example so much in the spirit of the ancients. Pliny relates this affair, in a letter to Tacitus; and he was so pleased with it himself, that he could not help informing his correspondent that he should not be sorry to find it recorded in his history. He obtained the offices of questor and tribune, and escaped the proscriptions of the tyrannical reign of Domitian. There is, however, reason to believe that he owed his safety to the death of the emperor, as his name was afterwards found in that savage’s tablets among the number of those who were destined to destruction.

Pliny was unquestionably a man of talents, and various accomplishments, and a man of virtue; but in dislike of the Christians he seems to have indulged equally his master Trajan, whose liberal sentiments respecting informers in his short letter cannot be sufficiently admired. Pliny wrote and published a great number of books: but nothing has escaped the wreck of time, except the books of Epistles, and the “Panegyric upon Trajan,” which has ever been considered as a master-piece. His Letters seem to have been intended for the public; and in them he may be considered as writing his own memoirs. Every epistle is a kind of historical sketch, in which we have a view of him in some striking attitude, either of active or contemplative life. In them are preserved anecdotes of many eminent persons, whose works are come down to us, as Suetonius, Silius Italicus, Martial, Tacitus, and Quintilian; and of curious facts, which throw great light upon the history of those times. They are written with great politeness and spirit; and, if they abound too much in turn and metaphor, we must impute it to that degeneracy of taste, which was then accompanying the degenerate manners of Rome. Pliny, however, seems to have preserved himself in this latter respect from the general contagion: whatever the manners of the Romans were, his were pure and incorrupt. His writings breathe a spirit of great goodness and humanity: his only imperfection is, he was too desirous that the public and posterity should know how humane and good he was; and while he represents himself, as he does, calling for Livy, reading him at his leisure, and even making extracts from him, when the eruption of Vesuvius was shaking the ground beneath him, antl striking terror through the hearts of mortals by appearances unheard of before, it is not possible to avoid being of the opinion of those, who think that he had, with all his virtues, something of affectation.

, eminent for being the first who formed a plan for a natural history of England, the son of Robert Plot, esq. captain of the militia, in the hundred of Milton, in Kent, was born in 1640, at Sutton Baron, in the parish of Borden, in that county, and educated at the free -school of Wye, in the same county. In March 1658, he went to Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, where Josiah Pullen was his tutor took a bachelor of arts degree in 1661, a master’s in 1664, and both the degrees in law in 1671. He removed afterwards to University-college, where he was at the expence of placing the statue of king Alfred over the hall-door. His general knowledge and acuteness, and particularly his attachment to natural history, procured his being chosen, in 1677, a fellow of the royal society and in 1682, elected one of the secretaries of that learned body. He published their “Philosophical Transactions,” from No. 143, to No. 166, inclusive. In 1683, Elias Ashmole, esq. appointed him the first keeper of his museum and about the same time he was nominated by the vicechancellor the first reader in chemistry in that university. In 1687, he was made secretary to the earl-marshal, or court of chivalry, which was then renewed, after it had lain dormant from the year 1641. In 1690, he resigned his professorship of chemistry, and also his place of keeper of the museum; which he then augmented by a very large collection of natural curiosities, being such as he had figured and described in his Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire, and there distinguished by the names of “Scrinium Plotianum Oxoniense,” and “Scrinium Plotianum Staffordiense.” In 1688 he received the title of Historiographer to James II. which he could not long retain, as this was just before the abdication of that sovereign. In 1694-5, Henry Howard, earl-marshal, nominated him Mowbray herald extraordinary; and two days after, he was constituted registrar of the court of honour. He died of the stone, April 30, 1696, at his house in Borden, and was buried in the church there, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. He left two sons by his wife Rebecca, widow of Henry Burman, to whom he was married in August 1690.

Although Plotinus’s plan was new, it was obscure, and he had but few disciples. He was not the less assiduous, however, in teaching, and studied very hard, preparing himself by watching and fasting. He was so respected for wisdom and integrity, that many private quarrels were referred to his arbitration, and parents on their death-beds were very desirous of consigning their children to his care. During his residence of twenty-six years at Rome, he became a favourite with Galienus, and would have persuaded that emperor to re-build a city in Campania, and people it with philosophers, to be governed by the laws of Plato but this was not effected. Although skilled in the medical art, he had such a contempt for the body, that he would never take any medicines when indisposed; nor for the same reason would he suffer his birth-day to be celebrated, or any portrait to be taken of his person. His pupil Amelius, however, procured one by stealth, painted while he was lecturing. Such abstinence, and neglect of health, brought him into a state of disease and infirmity, which rendered the latter part of his life exceedingly painful. When he found his end approaching, he said to Eustochius, “The divine principle within me is now hastening to unite itself with that divine being which animates the universe” herein expressing a leading principle of his philosophy, that the human soul is an emanation from the divine nature, and will return to the source whence it proceeded. Plotinus died in the year 270, aged sixty-six years. Porphyry represents him as having been possessed of miraculous powers, but there is more reason to conclude from his life and writings, that he belonged to the class of fanatics. His natural temper, his education, his system, all inclined him to fanaticism. Suffering himself to be led astray by a volatile imagination, from the plain path of good sense, he poured forth crude and confused conceptions, in obscure and incoherent language. Sometimes he soared in extatic flights into the regions of mysticism. Porphyry relates, that he ascended through all the Platonic steps of divine contemplation, to the actual vision of the deity himself, and was admitted to such intercourse with him, as no other philosopher ever enjoyed. They who are well acquainted with human nature, will easily perceive in these flights, unequivocal proofs of a feeble or disordered mind, and will not wonder that the system of Plotinus was mystical, and his writings obscure. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have become, in a great degree, the preceptor of the world, and should, by means of his disciples, have every where disseminated a species of false philosophy, which was compounded of superstition, enthusiasm, and imposture. The muddy waters sent forth from this polluted spring, were spread through the most celebrated seats of learning, and were even permitted to mingle with the pure stream of Christian doctrine.

Our author left no herbarium of his own, his collection of dried plants having been lost at sea; but he had, on various occasions, communicated dried specimens toTournefort; and these still remain, with his hand-writing annexed, in the collections at Paris. Lister, who visited Plumier in his cell at the convent of Minims in that city, speaks of his obliging and communicative manners, and of his “designs and paintings of plants, birds, fishes, and insects of the West Indies, all done by himself very accurately.”

, a great philosopher and historian of antiquity, who lived from the reign of Claudius to that of Adrian, was born at Chaeronea, a small city of Bceotia, in Greece, which had also been the birth-place of Pindar, but was far from partaking of the proverbial dulness of his country. Plutarch’s family was ancient in Chaeronea: his grandfather Lamprias was a man eminent for his learning, and a philosopher; and is often mentioned by Plutarch in his writings, as is also his father. Plutarch was initiated early in study, to which he was naturally inclined; and was placed under Ammonius an Egyptian, who, having taught philosophy with reputation at Alexandria, thence travelled into Greece, and settled at Athens. Under this master he made great advances in knowledge, but being more intent on things than words, he neglected the languages. The Roman language at that time was not only the language of 'Rome, but of Greece also; and much more used there than the French is now in England. Yet he was so far from regarding it then, that, as we learn from himself, he did not become conversant in it till the decline of life; and, though he is supposed to have resided in Rome near forty years, at different times, he never seems to have acquired a competent skill in it.

The circumstances of Plutarch’s life are not known, and therefore cannot be related with any exactness. He was married, and his wife’s name was Timoxena, as Rualdus conjectures with probability. He had several children, and among them two sons, one called Plutarch after himself, the other Lamprias, in memory of his grandfather. Lamprias was he, of all his children, who seems to have inherited his father’s philosophy; and to him we owe the table, or catalogue of Plutarch’s writings, and perhaps also his “Apophthegms.” He had a nephew, Sextus Chseroneus, who taught the emperor Marcus Aurelius the Greek language, and was much honoured by him. Some think that the critic Longinus was of his family; and Apuleius, in the first book of his Metamorphoses, affirms himself to be descended from him.

On what occasion, and at what time of his life, he went to Rome, how long he lived there, and when he finally returned to his own country, are all uncertain. It is probable, that the fame of him went thither before him, not only because he had published several of his works, but because immediately upon his arrival, as there is reason to believe, he had a great resort of the Roman nobility to hear him: for he tells us himself, that he was so taken up in giving lectures of philosophy to the great men of Rome, that he had not time to make himself master of the Latin tongue, which is one of the first things that would naturally have engaged his attention. It appears, that he was several times at Rome; and perhaps one motive to his inhabiting there was, the intimacy he had contracted in some of these journeys with Sossius Senecio, a great and worthy man, who had been four times consul, and to whom Plutarch has dedicated many of his lives. But the great inducement which carried him first to Rome was, undoubtedly, that which had carried him into so many other parts of the world; 'namely, to make observations upon men and manners, and to collect materials for writing “The Lives of the Roman Worthies,” in the same manner as he had already written those of Greece: and, accordingly, he not only conversed with all the living, but searched the records of the Capitol, and of all the libraries. Not but, as we learn from Suidas, he was entrusted also with the management of public affairs in the empire, during his residence in the metropolis: “Plutarch,” says he, “lived in the time of Trajan, who bestowed on him the consular ornaments, and also caused an edict to be passed, that the magistrates or officers of Illyria should do nothing in that province without his knowledge and approbation.”

His works have been divided, and they admit of a tolerably equal division, into “Lives” and “Morals:” the former of which, in his own estimation, were to be preferred, as more noble than the latter. As a biographer he has great merit, and to him we stand indebted for much of the knowledge we possess, concerning several of the most eminent personages of antiquity. His style perhaps may be justly censured for harshness and obscurity, and he has also been criticized for some mistakes in Roman antiquities, and for a. little partiality to the Greeks. On the other hand, he has been justly praised, for sense, learning, integrity, and a certain air of goodness, which appears in all he wrote. Some have affirmed his works to be a kind of library, and collection of all that was wisely said and done among the ancient Greeks and Romans: and if so, the saying of Theodorus Gaza was not extravagant. This learned man, and great preceptor of the Greek tongue at the revival of literature, being asked by a friend “If learning must suffer a general shipwreck, and he have only his choice of one author to be preserved, who that author should be?” answered, “Plutarch.” But although it is unquestionable that in extent and variety of learning Plutarch had few equals, he does not appear to have excelled as much in depth and solidity of judgment. Where he expresses his own conceptions and opinions, he often supports them by feeble and slender arguments: where he reports, and attempts to elucidate, the opinions of others, he frequently falls into mistakes, or is chargeable with misrepresentations. In proof of this assertion, Brucker mentions what he has advanced concerning Plato’s notion of the soul of the world, and concerning the Epicurean philosophy. Brucker adds, that Plutarch is often inaccurate in method, and sometimes betrays a degree of credulity unworthy of a philosopher.

There have been many editions of Plutarch, but he came later to the press than most other classical authors. There was no edition of any part of the original Greek, before Aldus printed the “Morals,” which was not until 1509. The “Lives” appeared first at Florence, by Junta, in 1517. The first edition of the “Opera Omnia,” was Stephen’s, at Paris, in 1572, Greek and Latin, 13 vols. Dr. Harwood calls it one of the most correct books H. Stephens ever published; but other critics are by no means of this opinion. The next was that of Cruserius, at Francfort, 1599, 2 vols. folio, which has the advantage of Xylander’s excellent Latin version, who himself published two editions, Francfort, 1620, and Paris, 1624, 2 vols. folio; both valuable. Reiske’s, of Leipsic, 1774, &c. 12 vols. 8vo, is a most elaborate edition, which, however, he did not live to finish. But the best of all is that of Wytteubach, published lately at Oxford in quarto and octavo, and too well known to scholars to require any description.

, a gentleman of Dauphiny, is recorded as the first who opened a school for riding the manege in France, which, till then, could be learned only in Italy. He flourished in the reign of Henry IV. who made him his chief master of the horse, and his chamberlain; besides which, he sent him as an ambassador into Holland. He died at Paris in 1620, having prepared a work, which was published five years after, entitled “L'Art de monter a Cheval,” folio, with plates. The figures are portraits, by Crispin de Pas.

, a learned English divine, and the first Oriental scholar of his time, was the son of Edward Pocock, B. D. some time fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, and vicar of Chively in Berkshire. He was born at Oxford Nov. 8, 1604, iii the parish of St. Peter in the East. He was sent early to the free-school of Thame, where he made such progress in classical learning, under Mr. Richard Butcher, an excellent teacher, that at the age of fourteen he was thought fit for the university, and accordingly was entered of Magdalen-hall. After two years residence here, he was a candidate for, and after a very strict examination, was elected to, a scholarship of Corpus Christi college, to which he removed in December 1620. Here, besides the usual academical courses, he diligently perused the best Greek and Roman authors, and, 'among some papers written by him at this time, were many observations and extracts from Quintilian, Cicero, Plutarch, Plato, &c. which discover no common knowledge of what he read. In November 1622, he was admitted bachelor of arts, and about this time was led, by what means we are not told, to apply to the study of the Eastern languages, which at that time were taught privately at Oxford by Matthew Pasor. (See Pasor). In March 1626, he was created M. A. and having learned as much as Pasor then professed to teach, he found another able tutor for Eastern literature in the Rev. William Bedwell, vicar of Tottenham, near London, whom his biographer praises as one of the first who promoted the study of the Arabic language in Europe. Under this master Mr. Pocock advanced considerably in what was now become his favourite study and had 1 otherwise so much distinguished himself that the college admitted him probationer-fellow in July 1628.

As the statutes required that he should take orders within a certain time, he applied to the study of divinity and while employed in perusing the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical writers, he found leisure to exhibit a specimen of his progress in the oriental languages by preparing for the press those parts of the Syriac version of the New Testament which had never yet been published. Ignatius, the patriarch of Antioch, had in the sixteenth century sent Moses Meridinseus, a priest of Mesopotamia, into the West, to get the Syriac version of the New Testament printed, for the use of his churches. It was accordingly printed by the care and diligence of Albertus Widmanstad, at Vienna in 1555. But the Syriac New Testament, which was followed in this edition, wanted the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the whole book of the Revelations, because, as Lewis de Dieu conjectures, those parts of holy Scripture, though extant among them, were not yet received into the Canon by those Oriental Churches. This defect no one had thought of supplying until De Dieu, on the encouragement, and with the assistance of Daniel Heinsius, set about the Revelation, being furnished with a copy of it, which had been given, with many other manuscripts, to the university of Leyden by Joseph Scaliger. That version of the Apocalypse was printed at Leyden, in 1627, but still the four Epistles were wanting, and those Mr. Pocock undertook, being desirous that the whole New Testament might at length be published in that language, which was the vulgar tongue of our Saviour nimself and his apostles. A very fair manuscript for this purpose he had met with in the Bodleian Library, containing those Epistles, together with some other parts of the New Testament. Out of this manuscript, following the example of De Dieu, he transcribed those epistles in the Syriac character: the same he likewise set down in Hebrew letters, adding the points, not according to the ordinary, but the Syriac rules, as they had been delivered by those learned Maronites, Amira and Sionita. He also made a new translation of these epistles out of Syriac into Latin, comparing it with that of Etzelius, and shewing on various occasions the reason of his dissent from him. He also added the original Greek, concluding the whole with a number of learned and useful notes. When finished, although with the utmost care and exactness, yet so great was his modesty and distrust of himself, that he could not be persuaded to think it fit for publication, till after it had lain by him about a year, when he was induced to consent to its publication by Gerard John Vossius, who was then at Oxford, and to whom it had been shown by Rouse, the public librarian, as the production of a young man scarcely twenty-four years old. Vossius not only persuaded him to allow it to be printed, but promised to take it with him to Leyden for that purpose. It was accordingly published there in 1630, 4to, after some few corrections and alterations in the Latin version, in which Mr. Pocock readily acquiesced, from the pen of Lewis de Dieu, to whom Vossius committed the care of the work.

In Dec. 1629 Mr. Pocock was ordained priest by Corbet, bishop of Oxford, by whom he had some time before been admitted into deacon’s orders, and was now appointed chaplain to the English merchants at Aleppo, where he arrived in Oct. 1630, and continued five or six years. Here he distinguished himself by an exemplary discharge of the duties of his function, and when the plague broke out in 1634, was not to be diverted from what he thought his duty, when the merchants fled to the mountains; but continued to administer such comfort as was possible to the inhabitants of the city; and the mercy on which he relied for his own preservation, was remarkably extended to his countrymen, not one dying either of those who left, or those who remained in the city. While here he paid considerable attention to the natural history of the place, as far as concerned the illustration of the Scriptures, and besides making some farther progress in the Hebrew, Syriac, and Ethiopic languages, took the opportunity which his situation afforded of acquiring a familiar knowledge of the Arabic. For this purpose he agreed with an Arabian doctor to give him lessons, and engaged also a servant of the same country to live with him for the sake of conversing io the language. He also studied such grammars and lexicons as he could find read the Alcoran with great care, and translated much from books in the Arabic, particularly a collection which he procured of 6000 proverbs, containing the wisdom of the Arabians, and referring to the most remarkable passages of their history. These opportunities and advantages iri time reconciled him to a situation which at first greatly depressed his spirits the transition indeed from Oxford and its scholars to Aleppo and its barbarians, could not but affect a man of his disposition.

On his return he was admitted, July 8, 1636, to the degree of bachelor of divinity. On the 8th of August foU lowing Dr. Baillie, president of St. John’s, and vice-chancellor, informed the convocation that archbishop Laud, then chancellor of the university, in addition to his benefaction of Arabic books to the Bodleian, had founded a professorship, and had settled 40l. a-year, during his life, on a person who should read a lecture on that language fle then mentioned Mr. Pocock of Corpus Christi as the person nominated by the archbishop for the approbation of the convocation, a man, as they very well knew, “eminent for his probity, his learning, and skill in languages.” Being accordingly unanimously elected, he entered on his office two days after, Aug. 10, with an inaugural speech, part of which was afterwards printed, “ad finem notarum in Carmen Tograi,” edit. Oxon. 1661. After this introduction, the book, which he first undertook to read on, was the “Proverbs of Ali,” the fourth emperor of the Saracens, and cousin-german and son-in-law of Mahomet; a man of such account with that impostor, not only for his valour, but knowledge too, that he used to declare, that if all the learning of the Arabians were destroyed, it might be found again in Ali, as a living library. Upon this book, observing the directions of the archbishop in the statutes he had provided, he spent an hour every Wednesday in vacation-time, and in Lent, explaining the sense of the author, and the things relating to the grammar and propriety of the language, and also shewing its agreement with the Hebrew and Syriac, as often as there was occasion. The lecture being ended, he usually remained for some time in the public school, to resolve the questions of his hearers, and satisfy them in their doubts; and always that afternoon gave admittance in his chamber from one o'clock till four, to all who would come to him for farther conference and direction.

He does not appear, however, to have given more than one course of those lectures before he took a second journey to the East, along with Mr. John Greaves, and this by the archbishop’s encouragement, who was still bent on procuring manuscripts, and would not lose the advantage of such agents. The archbishop also allowed him the profits of his professorship to defray his expences, besides which Mr. Pocock enjoyed his fellowship of Corpus, and had a small estate by the death of his father. The whole annual produce of these he is supposed to have expended in this expedition. During his absence Mr. Thomas Greaves, with the archbishop’s consent, supplied the Arabic lecture. On, Mr. Pocock’s arrival at Constantinople, the English ambassador, sir Peter Wyche, entertained him in his house as his chaplain, and assisted him, by his interest, in the great object of his journey. In pursuit of this he made several valuable acquaintances among some learned Jews, particularly Jacob Romano, author of an addition to Buxtorf’s “Bibliotheca Rabbinica,” a man of great learning and candour but his ablest assistant was the learned and unfortunate Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople (see Lucar), to whom we owe that valuable ms. the “Codex Alexandrinus” and Nath. Canopius, who to avoid the fate of his master Lucar, came to England, and lived for some time under the patronage of archbishop Laud, who gave him preferment in Christ church, from which he was ejected in 1648. He derived some assistance also from his fellow-labourer in the collection of books and Mss. Christian Ravius, but especially from John Greaves, whose zeal in this research we have already noticed.

At length about the beginning of 1640, Mr. Pocock' s friends began to solicit his return; the archbishop in a letter dated March 4 of that year says, “I am now going to settle my Arabic lecture for ever upon the university, and I would have your name to 'the deed, which is the best honour I can do for the service.” Accordingly he embarked in August, but did not return home entirely by sea, but through part of France and Italy. At Paris he was introduced to many of the learned men of the time, particularly to Gabriel Sionita, the celebrated Maronite, and to Grotius, to whom he communicated a design he had of translating his treatise “De Veritate” into Arabic, for the benefit of the Mahometans, many of whom he believed were prepared for more light and knowledge than had yet been afforded them. Pocock at the same time candidly told Grotius, who very much approved the design, that there were some things towards the end of his book, which he could not approve, viz. certain opinions, which, though they are commonly in Europe charged on the followers of Mahomet, have yet no foundation in any of their authentic writings, and are such as they are ready on all occasions to disclaim. With this freedom Grotius was so far from being displeased, that he heartily thanked Mr. Pocock for it, and gave him authority, in the version he intended, to expunge and alter whatsoever he should think fit.

His journey home was attended with many melancholy circumstances. While at Paris, and on the road, he heard of the commotions in England, and on his arrival, he found his liberal patron, Laud, a prisoner in the Tower. Here he immediately visited the archbishop, and their interview was affecting on both sides. The archbishop thanked him for the care he had taken in executing his commissions, and for his interesting correspondence while abroad, adding that it was no small aggravation of his present misfortunes that he no longer had it in his power tp reward such important services to the cause of literature. Mr. Pocock then went to Oxford, to dissipate his grief, and in hopes of enjoying some tranquillity in a place which had not yet become the scene of confusion and there he found that the archbishop had settled the Arabic professorship in perpetuity by a grant of lands. He now resumed his lecture, and his private studies. In 1641 he became acquainted with the celebrated John Selden, who was at this time preparing for the press, with no very liberal design, some part of Eutychius’s annals, in Latin and Arabic, which he published the year following, under the title of “Origines Alexandrine,” and Mr. Pocock assisted him in collating and extracting from the Arabic books in Oxford. Selden’s friendship was afterwards of great importance to him, as he had considerable influence with the republican party. In 1642 Oxford became the seat of war, and was that of learning only in a secondary degree. Mr. Pocock was however removed from a constant residence for some time, by the society of Corpus Christi, who bestowed on him the vacant living of Childrey in Berkshire, about twelve miles from Oxford, which of course he could easily visit during term time, when he was to read his lecture. As a parish priest, his biographer informs us, that “he set himself with his utinost diligence to a conscientious performance of all the duties of his cure, preaching twice every Sunday; and his Sermons were so contrived by him, as to be most useful to the persons who were to hear him. For though such as he preached in the university were very elaborate, and full of critical and other learning, the discourses he delivered in his parish were plain and easy, having nothing in them which he conceived to be above the capacities even of the meanest of his auditors. And as he carefully avoided all ostentation of learning , so he would not indulge himself in the practice of those arts, which at that time were very common, and much admired by ordinary people such as distortions of the countenance, and strange gestures, a violent and unnatural way of speaking, and affected words and phrases, which being out of the ordinary way were therefore supposed to express somewhat very mysterious, and in an high degree spiritual. His conversation too was one continued sermon, powerfully recommending to all, who were acquainted with him, the several duties of Christianity.”

But all this found no protection against the violence of the times. Immediately after the execution of archbishop Laud, the profits of his professorship were seized by the sequestrators, as part of that prelate’s estate, although Mr. Pocock, in a letter to these sequestrators, endeavoured to shew the utility of this foundation to the interests of learning, and his own right to the settlement of the founder, which was made with all the forms of law. This for some time had no effect, but at last men were found even in those days who were ashamed of such a proceeding, and had the courage to expose its cruelty and absurdity and in 1647 the salary of the lecture was restored by the interposition of Selden, who had considerable interest with the usurpers. Dr. Gerard Langbaine also, the provost of Queen’s college, drew up a long instrument in Latin, stating the legal course taken by the archbishop in the foundation of the Arabic lecture, and the grant the university had made to Mr. Pocock of its profits. This he and some others proposed in congregation, and the seal of the university was affixed to it with unanimous consent. About the same time, Mr. Pocock obtained a protection from the hand and seal of general Fairfax, against the outrage of the soldiery, who would else have plundered his house without mercy.

In November 1650, about a year after publishing the preceding work, he was ejected from his canonry of Christ church for refusing to take the engagement, and soon after a vote passed for depriving him of the Hebrew and Arabic lectures but upon a petition from the heads of houses at Oxford, the masters, scholars, &c. two only of the whole number of subscribers being loyalists, this vote was reversed, and he was suffered to enjoy both places, and took lodgings, when at Oxford, in Baliol college. In 1655 a more ridiculous instance of persecution was intended, and would have been inflicted, if there had not yet been some sense and spirit left even among those who had contributed to bring on such calamities. It appears that some of his parishioners had presented an information against him to the commissioners appointed by parliament “for ejecting ignorant, scandalous, insufficient, and negligent ministers.” But the connection of the name of Pocock with such epithets was too gross to be endured, and, we are told, filled several men of great fame and eminence at that time at Oxford with indignation, in consequence of which they resolve'd to go to the place where the commissioners were to meet, and expostulate with them about it. In the number of those who went, were Dr. Seth Ward, Dr. John Wilkins, Dr. John Wailis, and Dr. John Owen, who all laboured with much earnestness to convince those men of the strange absurdity of what they were undertaking particularly Dr. Owen, who endeavoured with some warmth to make them sensible of the infinite contempt and reproach, which would certainly fall upon them, when it should be said, that they had turned out a man for imiifficiency, whom all the leamed, not of England only, but of all Europe, so justly admired for his vast knowledge and extraordinary accomplishments. And being himself one of the commissioners appointed by the act, he added, that he was now come to deliver himself, as well as he could, from a share in such disgrace, by protesting against a proceeding so strangely foolish and unjust. The commissioners being very much mortified at the remonstrances of so many eminent men, especially of Dr. Owen, in whom they had a particular confidence, thought it best to extricate themselves from their dilemma, by discharging Mr. Pocock from any farther attendance. And indeed he had been sufficiently tired with it; this persecution, which lasted for many months, being the most grievous to him of all he had undergone. It made him, as he declared to the world some time after, in the preface to the “Annales Eutychianae,” utterly incapable of study, it being impossible for him, when he attempted it, duly to remember what he had to do, or to apply himself to it with any attention.

In the same year (1655) Mr. Pocock published his “Porta Mosis,” being six prefatory discourses of Moses Maimonides, which in the original were Arabic, expressed in Hebrew characters, together with his own Latin translation of them, and a very large appendix of miscellaneous notes. This was the first production of the Hebrew press at Oxford from types procured, at the charge of the university, and by the influence of Dr. Langbaine. In the year following, Mr. Pocock appears to have entertained some thoughts of publishing the Rabbi Tanchum’s expositions on the Old Testament. He was at this time the only person in Europe who possessed any of the Mss. of this learned rabbi; but probably from want of due encour.agement, he did not prosecute this design. The Mss. are now in the Bodleian. In 1657 the celebrated English Polyglot appeared, in which Mr. Pocock, as was natural to expect, had a considerable hand. Indeed the moment he heard of the design he entered into a correspondence with Dr. Walton, and, although his own engagements were very urgent, agreed to collate the Arabic pentateuch, and also drew up a preface concerning the Arabic versions of that pajt of the Bible, and the reason of the various readings in them. This preface, with the various readings, are published in the appendix to the Polyglot. He was perhaps yet more serviceable by contributing the use of some very valuable Mss. from his own collection, viz. the gospels in Persian, his Syriac ms. of the. whole Old Testament, and two other Syriac Mss. of the Psalms, and an Ethiopic ms. of the same.

In 1658, Mr. Pocock’s translation of the annals of Eutychius, from Arabic into Latin, was published at Oxford, in 2 vols. 4to. This was undertaken by Mr. Pocock at the request of Selden, who bore the whole expences of the printing, although he died before it appeared. He had long before this, in 1642, published an extract which he thought inimical to episcopacy, but which was afterwards proved to be a mere fable; and now Mr. Pocock, in his translation of the whole, farther proves how little reliance was to be placed on many of Eutychius’s assertions. Selden, in a codicil to his will, bequeathed the property of the “Annales Eutychii” to Dr. Langbaine and Mr. Pocock.

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

In 1663, Dr. Pocock published at Oxford, as we noticed in our account of that author, the whole of Gregory Abulfaragius’s “Historia Dynastiarum;” but this work was not much encouraged by the public, which his biographer accounts for in a manner not very creditable to the reign of Charles II. compared to the state of solid learning during tbat of the protectorate. The love of Arabic learning, he informs us, was now growing cold, and Pocock, in his correspondence with Mr. Thomas Greaves, seems very sensible of, and much hurt by this declension of literary taste. This also, his biographer thinks may in some measure account for our author’s rising no higher in church-preferment at the restoration, when such numbers of vacant dignities were filled. Perhaps, adds Mr. Twells, “he is almost the only instance of a clergyman, then at the highest pitch of eminence for learning, and every other merit proper to his profession, who lived throughout the reign of Charles II. without the least regard from the court, except the favour sometimes done him of being called upon to translate Arabic letters from the princes of the Levant, or the credential letters of ambassadors coming from those parts; for which yet we do not find he had any recompenc besides good words and compliments. But he was modest, as he was deserving, and probably, after his presenting Abulfaragius to the king, he never put himself in the way of royal regards any more.”

This discouragement, however, did not abate his zeal in the cause of biblical learning, to which he appears to have devoted the remainder of his life, publishing in 1677 his Commentary on the prophecy of Micah and Malachi, in 1685 on that of Hosea, and in 1691 that of Joel. In 1674 he had published, at the expense of the university, his Arabic translation of church catechism and the English liturgy, i. e. the morning and evening prayers, the order of administering baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the 39 articles. It was supposed that he meant to have commented upon some other of the lesser prophets, but this was prevented by his death on Sept. 10, 1691, after a gradual decay of some months, which, however, had not affected the vigour of his mind. His useful life had been prolonged to his eighty-seventh year, during the greater part of which he was, confessedly, the first Oriental scholar in Europe, and not less admired for the excellence of his private character, of which Mr. Twells has given an elaborate account, and which is confirmed by the report of all his contemporaries, but particularly by a long letter from the celebrated Locke, dated July 1703, to Mr. Smith of Dartmouth, who was then collecting materials for a life of Dr. Pocock.

In person he was of a middle stature, his hair and eyes black, his complexion fair, and his look lively and cheerful. In conversation he was free, open, and ingenuous; easily accessible and communicative to all who applied to him for advice in his peculiar province. His temper was unassuming, humble, and sincere, and his intellectual powers uniformly employed on the most useful subjects. His memory was great, and afforded him suitable advantages in the study of the learned languages. He wrote his own language with clearness and perspicuity, which form his principal recommendation as an English writer, but in his Latin a considerable degree of elegance may be perceived. His whole conduct as a divine, as a man of piety, and a minister of the church of England, was highly exemplary.

He was interred in one of the north ailes joining to the choir of the cathedral of Christ church, Oxford; and a monument is erected to him on the north wall of the north isle of that church, with the following inscription. “Edwardus Pocock, S. T. D. (cujus si nomen audias, nil hie de fama desideres) natus est Oxoniae Nov. 8, ann. Dom. 1604, socius in Collegium Corp. Christi cooptatus 1628, in Linguae Arabicse Lecturam publice habendam primus est institutus 1636, deincle etiam in Hebraicam Professori Regio successit 1648. Desideratissimo Marito Sept. 10, 1691, in ccelum reverso, Maria Burdet, ex qua novenam suscepit sobolem, tumuium hunc mcerens posuit.” His Theological works were republished at London in 1740, in 2 vo,l$. fol. by Mr. Leonard Twells, M. A. to which is prefixed a Life of the Author. Of this we have availed ourselves in the present sketch, but not without omitting many very curious particulars relating both to Dr. Pocock and to the history of his times, which render Mr. Twells’ s work one of the most interesting biographical documents. Dr. Pocock’s life was first attempted by the rev. Humphrey Smith, a Devonshire clergyman, who was assisted by the doctor’s eldest son, the rev. Edward Pocock, rector of Minall in Wiltshire, and prebendary of Sarum. What they could collect was, after a long interval, committed to the care of the rev. Leonard Tvvells, M. A. rector of the united parishes of St. Matthew’s Friday-street, and St. Peter Cheap, and prebendary of St. Paul’s, with the consent of the rev. John Pocock, the doctor’s grandson. The contents of these two volumes are the “Porta Mosis,” and his English commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi. The Arabic types were supplied by the society for the promoting Christian knowledge, in consequence of an application made to them by the rev. Arthur Bedford, chaplain to the Haberdashers’ hospital, Hoxton. But what renders this edition peculiarly valuable is, that it was corrected for the press by the rev. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thomas Hunt, one of Dr. Pocock’s learned successors in the Arabic chair.

Dr. Pocock had married in 1646, while he was resident upon his living in Berkshire and had nine children. We have only an account of his eldest son Edward Pocock, who, under his father’s direction, published, in 1671, 4to, with a Latin translation, an Arabic work, entitled “Philosophus Autodidactus sive, Epistola Abu Jaafar Ebn Tophail de Hai Ebn Yokdhan. In qua ostenditur, quomod ex inferiorum contemplationead superiorum notitiam ratio humana ascendere possit.” In 1711, Simon Ockley published an English translation of this book, under the title of “The Improvement of Human Reason, exhibited in the Life of Hai Ebn Yokdhan,” &c. 8vo and dedicated it to Mr. Pocock, then rector of Minal in Wiltshire. Mr. Pocock had also prepared an Arabic history, with a Latin version, and put, to it the press at Oxford but not being worked off when his father died, he withdrew it, upon a disgust at not succeeding his father in the Hebrew professorship. The copy, as much of it as was printed, and the manuscript history, were, in 1740, in the hands of Mr. Pocock’s son, then rector of Minal.

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

Mr. Cumberland, whose paintings are to be viewed with some caution, gives the following as characteristic sketches of bishop Pococke: “That celebrated oriental traveller and author was a man of mild manners and primitive simplicity; having given the world a full detail of his researches in Egypt, he seemed to hold himself excused from saying any thing more about them, and observed in general an obdurate taciturnity. In his carriage and deportment he appeared to have contracted something of the Arab character, yet there was no austerity in his silence, and though his air was solemn, his temper was serene. When we were on our road to Ireland, I saw from the windows of the inn at Daventry a cavalcade of horsemen approaching on a gentle trot, headed by an elderly chief in clerical attire, who was followed by five servants at distances geometrically measured and most precisely maintained, and who, upon entering the inn, proved to be this distinguished prelate, conducting his horde with the phlegmatic patience of a Scheiki”

, one of the. revivers of literature, was the son of Guccio Bracciolini, and was born in 1380, at Terranuova, a small town situated in the territory of the republic of Florence, not far from Arezzo. He inherited from his father who had been a notary, but had lost his property, no advantages of rank or fortune, yet in a literary point of view, some circumstances of his birth were singularly propitious. At the close of the fourteenth century, the dawn of literature was appearing, and the city of Florence was distinguished by the zeal with which its principal inhabitants cultivated and patronized the liberal arts. It was consequently the favourite resort of the ablest scholars of the time; some of whom were induced by the offer of considerable salaries, to undertake the task of public instruction. In this celebrated school, Poggio applied himself to the study of the Latin tongue, under the direction of John of Ravenna; and of Greek, under Manuel Chrysoloras. When he had acquired a competent knowledge of these languages, he quitted Florence, and went to Rome, where his literary reputation introduced him to the notice of pope Boniface IX. who took him into his service, and promoted him to the office of writer of the apostolic letters, probably about 1402. At this time Italy was convulsed by war and faction, and in that celebrated ecclesiastical feud, which is commonly distinguished by the name of the “schism of the West,” no fewer than six of Poggio’s patrons, the popes, were implicated in its progress and consequences. In 1414 we find Poggio attending the infamous pope John to Constance, in quality of secretary; but as this pontiff fled from the council, his household was dispersed, and Poggio remained some time at Constance. Having a good deal of leisure, he employed his vacant hours in studying the Hebrew language, under the direction of a Jew who had been converted to the Christian faith. The first act of the council of Constance was the trial of pope John, who was convicted of the most atrocious vices incident to the vilest corruption of human nature, for which they degraded him from his dignity, and deprived him of his liberty. It was also by this council that John Huss, the celebrated Bohemian reformer, was examined and condemned, and that Jerome of Prague, in 1416, was tried. Poggio, who was present at Jerome’s trial, gave that very eloquent account of the martyr’s behaviour which we have already noticed (See Jerome Of Prague), and which proves, in the opinion of Poggio’s biographer, that he possessed a heart “which daily intercourse with bjgoted believers and licentious hypocrites could not deaden to the impulses of humanity.”

After the ecclesiastical feud had been in some measure composed, Martin V. became the new pontiff, but Poggio did not at first hold any office under him, as he visited England in consequence of an invitation which he had received from Beaufort, bishop of Winchester. He is said to have observed with chagrin the uncultivated state of the public mind in Britain, when compared with the enthusiastic love of elegant literature, which polished and adorned his native country. During his residence here he received an invitation to take the office of secretary to Martin V. which was the more readily accepted by him, as he is said to have been disappointed in the expectations he had formed from the bishop of Winchester. The time of his arrival at Rome is not exactly ascertained but it appears that his first care afcer his re-establishment in the sacred chancery, was to renew with his friends the personal and epistolary communication which his long absence from Italy had interrupted. He now also resumed his private studies, and in 1429 published his “Dialogue on Avarice,” in which he satirized, with great severity, the friars who were a branch of the order of the Franciscans, and who, on account of the extraordinary strictness with which they professed to exercise their conventual discipline, were distinguished by the title of Fratres Observantly. He inveighs also against the monastic life with great freedom, but with a levity which renders it very questionable whether any kind of religious life was much to his taste. When Eugenius IV. was raised to the pontificate, his authority commenced with unhappy omens, being engaged in quarrels both in Italy and Germany and Poggio, foreseeing the disastrous event, wrote freely upon the subject to the cardinal Julian, the pope’s legate, that he might gain him over to his master’s interest. In this letter were some smart strokes of satiric wit, which the disappointed and irritated mind of Julian could not well bear. Poggio’s morals were not free from blame; and the cardinal in his answer reminds him of having children, which, he observes, “is inconsistent with the obligations of an ecclesiastic and by a mistress, which is discreditable to the character of a layman.” To these reproaches Poggio replied in a letter replete with the keenest sarcasm. He pleaded guilty to the charge which had been exhibited against him, and candidly confessed that he had deviated from the paths of virtue, but excused himself by the common-place argument that many ecclesiastics had done the same. In 1433, when the pope was obliged to fly from Rome, Poggio was taken prisoner, and obliged to ransom himself by a large sum of money. He then repaired to Florence, where he attached himself to the celebrated Cosmo de Medici, and in consequence became involved in a quarrel with Francis Philelphus (See Philelphus), which was conducted with mutual rancour. Poggio now purchased a villa at VaJdarno, which he decorated with ancient sculpture and monuments of art; and such was the esteem in which he was held by the republic of Florence, that he and his children were exempted from the payment of taxes. These children, all illegitimate, amounted to fourteen but in 1435, when he had attained his fifty-fifth year, he dismissed them and their mother without provision, and married a girl of eighteen years old. On this occasion he wrote a formal treatise on the propriety of an old man marrying a young girl the treatise is lost, and would be of little consequence if recovered, since the question was not whether an old man should marry a young girl, but whether an old man should discard his illegitimate offspring to indulge his sensuality under the form of marriage. As however, men in years who marry so disproportionately are generally very ardent lovers, he celebrates his young bride for her great beauty, modesty, sense, &c.

Although Poggio held the office of apostolic secretary under seven pontiffs, he had never reached any of the superior departments of the Roman chancery. But when Nicholas V. ascended the pontifical throne, his prospects were brightened and he indulged the hope of spending the remainder of his days in a state of independence, if not of affluence. With a viewof improving his interest with the new pontiff, he addressed to him a congratulatory oration, which was recompensed by very liberal presents. This was succeeded by a dedicatory epistle, introducing to his patronage a dialogue “On the Vicissitudes of Fortune,” the most interesting of Poggio’s works, and inculcating maxims of sublime philosophy, enforced by a detail of splendid and striking events. Confiding in the pontiff, he also published the dialogue “On Hypocrisy,” already mentioned. At the request, and under the patronage of Nicolas, he also contributed to the illustration of Grecian literature, by a Latin translation of the works of Diodorus Siculus, and the “Cyropaedia” of Xenophon. During the plague, which raged in various parts of Italy, in 1450, Poggio visited the place of his nativity; and availing himself of this interval of relaxation from the duties of his office, he published his “Liber Facetiarum,” or collection of jocose tales, containing anecdotes of several eminent persons who flourished during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This work acquired a considerable degree of popularity, and was read, not only in the native country of its author, but also in France, Spain, Germany, and Britain, very little indeed to the credit of the readers, as it abounds with gross and abominable indecencies. In 1451 he dedicated to the cardinal Prospero Colonna, his “Historia disceptativa convivialis.” In 1453 Poggio was elevated to the chancellorship of Florence; and at the same time he was chosen one of the “Priori degli arti,” or presidents of the trading companies; both which offices he held till his death, which happened October 30, 1459. Notwithstanding the multiplicity of his business, and the advances of age, he prosecuted his studies with his accustomed ardour, and published a dialogue “De miseria hurnanae conditionis,” and a version of Lucian’s “Ass,” with a view of establishing a point of literary history, which seems to nave been till that time unknown namely, that Apuleius was indebted to Lucian for the stamina of his “Asinus aureus.” The last literary work in which he engaged, was his “History of Florence,” divided into eight books, and comprehending the events in which the Florentines were concerned from 1350 to the peace of Naples in 1455. This history was translated into Italian by Jacopo, the son of Poggio but the original was published by Recanati, and has been republished in the collections of Graevius and Muratori. Poggio concluded his career in the possession of universal respect, and in the tranquil enjoyment of social and domestic comforts. His remains were interred with solemn magnificence in the church of Santa Croce at Florence and his fellow-citizens testified thek respect for his talents and virtues, by erecting a statue to his memory on the front of the church of Santa Maria del Fiore. As the citizeu of a free state, which he deemed a high honour, he improved every opportunity that occurred for increasing and displaying the glory of the Tuscan republic. Although he was honoured by the favour of the great, he never sacrificed his independence at the shrine of power, but uniformly maintained the ingenuous sentiments of freedom. Such was the state of morals in his time, that the licentiousness which disgraced the early period of his life, and the indecent levity which occurs in some of his writings, did not deprive him of the countenance of the greatest ecclesiastical dignitaries, or cause him to forfeit the favour of the pious Eugenius, or of the moral and accomplished Nicolas V. To those with whom he maintained a personal intercourse, he recommended himself by the urbanity of his manners, the strength of his judgment, and the sportiveness of his wit. “As a scholar, Poggio is entitled to distinguished praise. By assiduous study, he became a considerable proficient in the Greek language, and intimately conversant with the works of the Roman classic authors. In selecting, as his exemplar in Latin composition, the style of Cicero, he manifested the discernment of true taste and his endeavours to imitate this exquisite model, were far from being unsuccessful. His diction is flowing, and his periods are well balanced. But by the occasional admission of barbarous words and unauthorized phraseology, he reminds his readers that at the time when he wrote, the iron age of literature was but lately terminated. His striking fault is diffuseness a diffuseness which seems to arise, not so much from the copiousness of his thoughts, as from the difficulty which he experienced in clearly expressing his ideas. It must, however, be observed, that he did not, like many modern authors who are celebrated for their Latinity, slavishly confine himself to the compilation of centos from the works of the ancients. In the prosecution of his literary labours, he drew from his own stores and those frequent allusions to the customs and transactions of his own times, which render his writings so interesting, must, at a period when the Latin language was just rescued from the grossest barbarism, have rendered their composition peculiarly difficult.” When compared with the works of his immediate predecessors, the writings of Poggio are truly astonishing. Rising to a degree of elegance, to be sought for in vain in the rugged Latinity of Petrarca and Coluccio Salutati, he prepared the way for the correctness of Politian, and of the other eminent scholars whose gratitude has reflected such splendid lustre on the character of Lorenzo de Medici." The works of Poggio were published together at Basil, in 1538, which is reckoned the most complete edition.

, a very excellent French engraver, was born at Abbeville in 1622, and bred under Pierre Duret. He completed his knowledge of his art by a residence of seven years at Rome and on his return to Paris, distinguished himself by many capital works from pictures of sacred and profane history, and portraits of various sizes. Louis XIV. made him his engraver in ordinary, in 1664, expressly on account of his merit, and the works he had published in Italy, as well as in France. He drew as skilfully as he engraved. Precision of outline, boldness, firmness, and clearness, are the characteristics of his plates; and it is recorded to his honour, that he never degraded his abilities by engraving any subject of an immoral kind. He died in 1693. His brother Nicolas, who was also an able engraver, survived him only three years and both left sons, who applied their talents to painting and engraving.

, famous only for his love of mysticism and enthusiasm, and for his writings conformable to those sentiments, was born at Metz, April 15, 1646, and educated at Basle in Switzerland, in the college of Erasmus. His father, who was a sword-cutler, placed him as pupil to a sculptor, and from him he learned design at least, and retained so much of the art as to draw the portrait of his favourite, madame Bourignon. This pursuit, however, he forsook for the learned languages, philosophy, and theology. He became a minister at Heidelberg in 1668, and at Anweil obtained a similar situation in 1674. Here it was that he met with the works of the mystical writers, with which, particularly with those of madame Bourignon, he became to the utmost infatuated. Madame Guyon was another of his favourites, and he determined to live according to their maxims. Towards the end of life he retired to Reinsberg in Holland, where he died, May 21, 1719, at the age of seventy-three. His works are all of the mystical kind: 1. “Cogitationes rationales de Deo,” Amst. 1677, 4to twice reprinted. 2. “ L'ceconomie Divine,” 1687, in 7 vols. 8vo, in which all the notions of Bourignon are repeated. 3. “La Paix des bonnes Ames,” Amst. 1687, 12mo. 4. “Les Principes solides de la Religion Chretienne,” 1705, 12mo. 5. “Theologie du Coeur,” Cologne, 1697, 2 vols. 12mo. 6. He published also a complete edition of the works of madame Bourignon, in twenty-one volumes, octavo, with a life of that pious enthusiast. 7. An attempt to attack Descartes, in a treatise “de Eruditione triplici,” in 2 vols. 4to, reprinted at Amsterdam in 1707. This being directed against Descartes, has been compared to the attack of the viper upon the file. It contains, however, some good observations.

, an eminent physician, was born at Nancy, in 1527. He studied medicine at Paris under Sylvius, together with his elder brother, Anthony Lepois, who was afterwards first physician to Charles III. duke of Lorraine, and author of a valuable work on ancient coins. Nicholas succeeded him as the duke’s physician in 1578. The result of his practice, and of his very extensive reading, was at first drawn up only for the use of his sons, Christian and Charles, whom he destined for the medical profession; but being prevailed on to publish it, it was printed at Francfort, in 1580, in folio, under the title of “De cognoscendis et curandis prsecipue interi}is humani corporis morbis, Libri tres, ex clarissimorum medicorum, turn veterum, turn recentiorum, monumentis non ita pridem collecti.” Boerhaave had so high an opinion of this author, that he edited this work, adding a preface to it, at Leyden, 1736, in two volumes, quarto; a_nd it was again reprinted at Leipsic in 1766, 2 vols. 8vo. The time of his death has not been recorded.

, a native of Paris, and learned priest of the Oratory, was esteemed well acquainted with philosophy, mathematics, and divinity. He made a considerable stay in Italy, where he acquired the respect of the literati, and was sometime superior of his congregation at Vendome. He died in an advanced age at Lyons, May 5, 1710. His works are, a Summary of the Councils, printed at Lyons 1706, in two volumes, folio, under the title “Delectus actorum Ecclesiae universalis, seu nova Summa^Conciliorum,” &c. The second volume is nearly half filled with notes on the councils, and valuable remarks on the method, mechanics, and music of Descartes, who was his friend. He'.left also some manuscripts. It is said, that he was in possession of several pieces by Clemangis and Theophylact, which have never been printed.

, a celebrated French physician, was born at Dijon, July 5, 1720. After studying medicine, he succeeded M. Dubois in 1746 as protessor of physic in the college de France. He was one of the first who gave a course of chemical lectures in Paris. In 1757 he was appointed first physic‘an to the French army, and the year following went to Russia to attend the empress Elizabeth in her illness. He remained two years in Russia, and assisted at the famous experiment relative to the congelation of quicksilver, of which he afterwards gave an account (inserted in their memoirs), to the Academy of sciences at Paris, who had elected him a member. Soon after he returned to France he was promoted to the rank of counsellor of state; and in 1764 was appointed inspectorgeneral of physic; surgery, and pharmacy, in the ports and colonies of France. His ingenious method of procuring fresh from sea-water, by distillation, procured him, in 1765, a pension of 12,000 livres a-year from the French government. In nil, he resigned his chair at the college of France; but, in conformity ’to an unanimous vote of the professors, continued to preside at their public meetings as long as his health would permit. M. Laiande says, that he did honour to this office “by a grand and striking figure: by the dignity of his speech the nobleness of his manner and the deservedly high estimation in which he was held by the public.” He was, during the reign of terror, imprisoned, with his whole family, by Robespierre but was liberated on the death of that monster. He died in September 1797 or 179S. He is said to have left behind him a very valuable collection of natural history, medals, and other curiosities. He wrote several treatises belonging to his profession, viz. on the fever of St. Domingo, the diseases of seamen, an abridgment of anatomy, &C.

, an eminent cardinal, and archbishop of Canterbury, was descended from the bloodroyal of England, being a younger son of sir Richard Pole, K.G. and cousin-german to Henry VII. by Margaret, daughter of George duke of Clarence, younger brother to king Edward IV. He was born at Stoverton, or Stourton castle, in Staffordshire, in 1500, and educated at first in the Carthusian monastery at Sheen, near Richmond, in Surrey, whence, at the early age of twelve, he was removed to Magdalen-college, Oxford, and there assisted in his studies by Linacre and William Latimer. In June 1515, he took the degree of B. A. and soon after entered into deacon’s orders. Without doubting his proficiency in his studies, it may be supposed that this rapid progress in academical honours was owing to his family interest and pretensions. Among the popish states abroad it was not uncommon to admit boys of noble families to a rank in the universities or the church, long before the statutable or canonical periods. One object for such hasty preferment was, that they might be entitled to hold lucrative benefices, and the rank of their family thus supported and accordingly, in March 1517, we find that Pole was made prebendary of Roscombe, in the church of Salisbury, to which were added, before he had reached his nineteenth year, the deaneries of Winbourne Minster, and Exeter, For all these he was doubtless indebted to his relation Henry VIII. who intended him for the highest dignities of the church.

Having now acquired perhaps as much learning as his country at that time afforded, he was desirous of visiting the most celebrated universities abroad, to complete his education, and being provided by the king with a pension, in addition to the profits of his preferments, he fixed his residence for some time at Padua, where he hired a house and kept an establishment suitable to his rank. The professors at Padua were at this time men of high reputation, and were not a little pleased with the opportunity of forming the mind of one who was the kinsman ana favourite of a great king, and might hereafter have it in his power amply to reward their labours and some of them even now partook nobly of his bounty, being maintained by him in his house. Here commenced his acquaintance with Bembo, Sadolet, and Longolius, which lasted the remainder of their lives, and here also his acquaintance took its rise with Erasmus, who had received from his friend Lupset a very favourable representation of Pole. He therefore entered into an epistolary correspondence with him, which he began b\ T recommending to his favour the afterwards well-known John A Lasco. (See Alasco, vol. I. p. 292.) Besides the aid which Pole received in his studies from Longolius and Lupset, who is said to have been entertained by him in his own family, he paid much attention to the lectures of Leonicus, an eminent Greek scholar, who taught Pole to relish the writings of Aristotle and Plato in the original. While Pole continued at Padua, Longinus died in 1522, and such was the regard Pole had for him that he wrote his life, which Dr. Neve thinks was not only the first but the best specimen he gave the public of his abilities. It was the production, however, of a young man who could not have known Longolius above two years, and he has therefore fallen into some mistakes. (See Longueil.)

The affair of king Henry’s divorce drevr Pole from his retirement, and led to the singular vicissitudes of his life. This was a measure which he greatly disapproved, but he is said to have had some reasons for his disapprobation, different from what conscience, or his religious principles, might fairly have suggested. Notwithstanding his being an ecclesiastic, we are told that he had entertained hopes of espousing the princess Mary, and that this project was even favoured by queen Catherine, who had committed the care of the princess’s education to the countess of Salisbury, Pole’s mother. Whatever may be in this suspicion, which prevailed for many years, it appears that he wished to be out of the way while the matter was in agitation, and therefore obtained leave from the king to go to the university of Paris, under pretence of continuing his theological studies. Accordingly he spent a year at Paris, from Oct. 1529 to Oct. 1530, during which time the king having determined to consult the universities of Europe respecting the divorce, sent to Pole to solicit his cause at Paris. Pole, however, excused himself on account of his want of experience, and when Henry sent over Bellay, as joint commissioner, left the whole business to this coadjutor, and returning to England, went again to his. favourite retirement at Sheen, Here he drew up his reasons for disapproving of the divorce, which were shown to the king, who probably put them into Cranmer’s hands. Cranmer praised the wit and argument employed, and chiefly objected to committing the cause to the decision of the pope, which Pole had recommended. Pole’s consent to the measure, however, appears to have been a favourite object with the king; and therefore in 1531, the archbishopric of York was offered him on condition that he would not oppose the divorce but he refused this dignity on such terms, after a sharp contention, as he says in his epistle to king Edward, between his ambition and his conscience. He is said also to have given his opinion on this subject so very freely to the king, that he dismissed him in great anger from his presence, and never sent for him more.

Pole now resolved to leave the kingdom, from a dread of Henry’s revengeful temper, who, however, at first behaved rather better than might have been expected; for he not only permitted Pole to go abroad, but continued the pension which had been before granted, and which had always been regularly paid. Pole then passed a year at the university of Avignon in France, the air of which place disagreeing with him, he went in 1532 to Padua. Here he divided his time between that city and Venice, applying diligently to theological studies, and was respected, as he was before, by the learned of Italy. After he had been a considerable time abroad, his capricious relative, Henry VIII. solicited his return, but Pole, after many excuses, plainly told his majesty that he neither approved his divorce, nor his separation from the church of Rome. The king then sent him Dr. Sampson’s book in defence of the proceedings in England, on which Pole embodied his full opinion on these proceedings, in his treatise entitled “De unitate ecclesiastica.” Burnet and other protestant historians very naturally censure this work as devoid of sound argument, and Phillips and other popish writers have as highly praised it; but all must agree that in coarseness of invective it does not comport with the urbanity of style and manner hitherto attributed to Pole. Pole in fact seems to have written it as much in contempt of Hery, as with a view to convince him; and therefore, when Henry renewed his solicitations for his return, that he might talk all these matters over in an interview, he not only refused, but added to that refusal such a repetition of irritating language that no hope of reconciliation could be entertained. Henry therefore withdrew his pension, and stripped him of his ecclesiastical preferments.

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

In 1539, when Pole returned to Rome, the pope thought it necessary to counteract the plots of Henry’s emissaries by appointing him a guard for the security of his person. He likewise conferred on him the dignity of legate of Viterbo, an office in which, while he maintained his character as an example of piety and a patron of learning, he is said to have shown great moderation and lenity towards the protestants. He was here at the head of a literary society, some of the members of which were suspected of a secret attachment to the doctrines of the reformation and Immanuel Tremellius, who was a known protestant, was converted from Judaism to Christianity in Pole’s palace at Viterbo, where he was baptised, the cardinal and Flaminius being his godfathers.

Pole continued at Viterbo till 1542, when the general council for the reformation of the church, which had been long promised and long delayed, was called at Trent, and is known in ecclesiastical history as the famous “Council of Trent.” It did not, however, proceed to business until 1545, when Pole went thither, with the necessary escort of a troop of horse. For the proceedings of this extraordinary assembly, we must refer the reader to father Paul’s history. The principal circumstance worthy of notice respecting the cardinal was his writing a treatise on the nature and end of general councils, just before he left Rome, in which he proves himself the determined advocate for the boundless prerogative of the pope. He Continued at Trent until a rheumatic disorder, which fell into one of his arms, obliged him to go to Padua for medical advice; and afterwards, the council being prorogued, he went to Rome at the request of the pope, who wished to avail himself of his pen in drawing up memorials and vindications of the proceedings of the see of Rome; and Pole, a man of superior talents to most of the Italian prelates, knew how to render these very persuasive, at a time when freedom of discussion was not allowed.

On the death of Henry VIII. in 1547, he endeavoured to renew his designs, in order, as his partial historian says, “to repair the breaches which Henry had made in the faith and discipline of the church.” On this occasion he solicited the pope’s assistance, and wrote to the privycouncil of England, partly soothing and partly threatening them with what the pope could t do; but all this had no effect, and the members of the privy-council refused to receive either the letter or him who brought it. The cardinal also drew up a treatise, and inscribed it to Edward VI. which contained an elaborate vindication of his conduct towards the late king, but it does not appear that it ever came into Edward’s hands. Pole therefore remained still attainted, and was one of the few excepted in the acts of grace which passed at the accession of the young king.

In 1549, our cardinal had the prospect of advancement to all of power and dignity which the church of Rome had to bestow, the chair of St. Peter itself. On the death of pope Paul III. he was proposed in the conclave as his successor by cardinal Farnese, and the majority of votes appeared to be in his favour, when an opposition was excited by the French party, with cardinal Caraffa at their head, who hoped, if Pole were set aside, to be chosen himself. It was necessary, however, to show some strong grounds for opposing cardinal Pole and these, bad they been proved, were certainly strong enough, heresy and incontinency he had been lenient to the protestants at Viterbo, and he was the reputed father of a young girl, at this time a nun. But against both these charges Pole vindicated himself in the most satisfactory manner, and his party determined to elect him. Why they did not succeed is variously related. It is said that they were so impatient to bring the matter to a conclusion as to go late at night to Pole’s house to pay their adorations to him, according to custom, and that Pole refused to accede to such a rash and unseasonable proceeding, and requested they would defer it until morning. They then retired, but immediately after two of the cardinals came again to him, and assured him that they required nothing of him but what was usual upon which he gave his consent, but afterwards repented, and endeavoured to retract. The cardinals, in the mean time, of their own accord had deferred proceedings until next morning, when a very different spirit appeared in the conclave, and the election fell upon cardinal de Monte, who reigned as pope by the name of Julius, 111. a man of whom it is sufficient to say that he gave his cardinal’s hat to a boy who had the care of his monkey. When Pole appeared, with the other cardinals, to perform his adoration to the new pope, the latter raised him up and embraced him, telling him, that it was to his disinterestedness he owed the papacy. How far our cardinal was really disinterested, is a matter of dispute. Some suppose that he still had in view a marriage with the princess Mary, and the hopes of a crown; and it is certain that he had hitherto never taken priest’s orders, that he might be at liberty to return to the secular world, which his being only a cardinal would not have opposed.

The cardinal was at a convent of the Benedictines at Maguzano, in the territory of Venice, whither he had retired when the tranquillity of Rome was disturbed by the French war, when the important news arrived of the accession of the princess Mary to the throne of England, by the death of her brother Edward VI. It was immediately determined by the court of Rome that he should be sent as Jegate to England, in order to promote that object to which his family had been sacrificed, the reduction of the kingdom to the obedience of the holy see. Pole, however, who did not know that his attainder was taken off, determined first to send his secretary to England to make the necessary inquiries, and to present letters to the queen, who soon dissipated his fears by an ample assurance of her attachment to the catholic cause. He then set out in Oct. 1553, but in his way through Germany, was detained by the emperor, who was then negociating a marriage between his son Philip and the queen of England, to which he imagined the cardinal would be an obstacle. This delay was the more mortifying as the emperor at the same time refused to admit him into his presence, although he had been commissioned by the pope to endeavour to mediate r a peace between the emperor and the French king. But the greatest of all his mortifications came from queen Mary herself, who under various pretences, which the cardinal saw in their proper light, contrived to keep him abroad until her marriage with Philip was concluded.

All obstacles being now removed, he proceeded homewards, and arrived at Dover, Nov. 20, 1554, where he was received by some persons of rank, and reaching London, was welcomed by their majesties in the most honourable manner. No time was now lost in endeavouring to promote the great objects of his mission. On the 27th of November, the cardinal legate went to the House of Peers, where the king and queen were present, and made a long Speech, in which he invited the parliament to a reconciliation with the apostolic see from whence, he said, he was sent by the common pastor of Christendom, to bring back them who had long strayed from the inclosure of the church; and two days after the Speaker reported to the House of Commons the substance of this speech. What followed may be read with a blush. The two Houses of Parliament agreed in a petition to be reconciled to the see of Rome, which was presented to the king and queen, and stated, on the part of the parliament, that “whereas they had been guilty of a most horrible defection and schism from the Apostolic see, they did now sincerely repent of it; and in sign of their repentance, were ready to repeal all the laws made in prejudice of that see; therefore, since the king and queen had been no way defiled by their schism, they prayed them to intercede with the legate to grant them absolution, and to receive them again into the bosom of the church.” This petition being presented by both Houses on their knees to the king and queen, their majesties made their intercession with the legate, who, in a long speech, thanked the parliament for repealing the act against him, and making him a member of the nation, from which he was by that act cut off; in recompense of which, he was npw to reconcile them to the body of the church. After enjoining them, by way of penance, to repeal the laws which they had made against the Romish religion, he granted them, in the pope’s name, a full absolution, which they received on their knees; and he also absolved the whole realm from all ecclesiastical censure. Bin however gratifying to the court or parliament all this mummery might be, the citizens of London and the people at large felt no interest in the favours which the pope’s representative bestowed. In London, during one of his processions, no respect was paid to him, or to the cross carried before him and so remiss were the people in other parts in their congratulations on the above joyful occasion, that the queen was obliged to write circular letters to the sheriffs, compelling them to rejoice.

After the dissolution of parliament, the first thing taken into consideration was, in what manner to proceed against the heretics. Pole, as we have before noticed, had been charged by some with favouring the protestants; but he now expressed a great detestation of them, adding probably something of personal resentment to his constitutional bigotry, and would not now converse with any who had been of that party, except sir William Cecil. Since his arrival as legate, his temper appeared to have undergone an unpleasant alteration: he was reserved to all except Priuli and Ormaneto, two Italians whom he brought with him, and in whom he confided. Still for some time he recommended moderate measures with respect to heretics, while Gardiner laboured to hasten the bloody persecution which followed'; but, either out-argued by Gardiner, or influenced by the court, we find that -he granted commissions for the prosecution of heretics, as one of the first acts of his legantine authority. If in this he was persuaded contrary to his opinion and feelings, he must have been the most miserable of all men; for the consequences, it is well known, were such as no man of feeling could contemplate without horror.

In March 1555, pope Julius III. died, and in less than a month, his successor Marcel Jus II. on which vacancy, the queen employed her interest in favour of cardinal Pole, but without effect; nor was he more successful when he went to Flanders this year, to negociate a peace between France and the emperor. To add to his disappointments, the new pope, Paul IV. had a predilection for Gardiner, and favoured the views of the latter upon the see of Canterbury, vacant by the deposition of Cranmer; nor although the queen nominated Pole to be archbishop, would the pope confirm it, till after the death of Gardiner. The day after Cranmer was burnt, March 22, 1556, Pole, who now for the first time took priest’s orders, was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. Having still a turn for retirement, and being always conscientious in what he thought his duties, he would now have fixed his abode at Canterbury, and kept that constant residence which became a good pastor, but the queen would never suffer him to leave the court, insisting that it was more for the interest of the catholic faith that he should reside near her person. Many able divines were consulted on this point, who assured the cardinal that he could not with a safe conscience abandon her majesty, “when there was so much business to be done, to crush the heretics, and give new life to the catholic cause.”

It was cardinal Pole’s misfortune that he was never long successful in that line of conduct which he thought would have most recommended him; and now, when he was doing every thing to gratify the Roman see, by the persecution of the protestants, &c. the pope, Paul IV. discovered a more violent animosity against him than before. The cause, or one of the causes, was of a political nature. Paul was now engaged in a war with Philip, king of Spain and husband to Mary, and he knew that the cardinal was devoted to the interests of Spain. He therefore wanted a legate at the court of England like himself, vigorous and resolute who, by taking the lead in council, and gaining the queen’s confidence, might prevent her from engaging in her husband’s quarrels. But while Pole remained in that station, he was apprehensive that by his instigation she might enter into alliances destructive to his politics. Upon various pretensions, therefore, Paul IV. revived the old accusation against the cardinal, of being a suspected heretic, and summoned him to Rome to answer the charge. He deprived him also of the office of legate, which he conferred upon Peyto, a Franciscan friar, whom he had made a cardinal for the purpose, designing also the see of Salisbury for him. This appointment took place in Sept. 1557, and the new legate was on his way to England, when the bulls came into the hands of queen Mary, who having been informed of their contents by her ambassador, laid them up without opening them, or acquainting Pole with them. She also directed her ambassador at Rome to tell his holiness, “that this was not the method to keep the kingdom steadfast in the catholic faith, but rather to make it more heretical than ever, for that cardinal Pole was the very anchor of the catholic party.” She did yet more, and with somewhat of her father’s spirit, charged Peyto at his peril to set foot upon English ground. Pole, however, who by some means became acquainted with the fact, displayed that superstitious veneration for the apostolic see which was the bane of his character, and immediately, laid clown the ensigns of his legantine power and dispatched his friend Ormaneto to the pope with an apology so submissive, that, we are told, it melted the obdurate heart of Paul. The cardinal appears to have been restored to his power as legate soon after, but did not live to enjoy it a full year, being seized with an ague which carried him ff Nov. 18, 1558, the day after the death of queen Mary. With them expired the power of the papal see over the political or religious constitution of this kingdom, and all its fatal effects on religion, liberty, and learning.

Cardinal Pole was, in person, of a middle stature, and thin habit; his complexion fair, with an open countenance and cheerful aspect. His constitution was healthful, although not strong. He was learned and eloquent, and naturally of a benevolent and mild disposition, but his bigoted attachment to the see of Rome occasioned his being concerned in transactions which probably would not have originated with him yet we have no reason to think that he dissuaded the court of queen Mary from its abominable cruelties and it is certain that many of them were carried on in his name. Mr. Phillips, who wrote an elaborate biographical vindication of cardinal Pole, but who would not openly vindicate the cruelties of Mary’s reign, has unfortunately asserted, that not one person was put to death in the diocese of Canterbury, after the cardinal was promoted to that see but Mr. Ridley has clearly proved that no less than twenty-four were burnt in one year in that diocese, while Pole was archbishop. Gilpin, however, seems to be of opinion that he “would certainly have prevented those reproaches on his religion which this reign occasioned, had his resolution been equal to his judgment.” Of both we have a remarkable example, alluded to already, but more fully quoted by the same author in his life of Latimer, which seems to be conclusive as to the cardinal’s real character. When, in a council of bishops, it was agitated how to proceed with heretics, the cardinal said, “For my part, I think we should be content with the public restoration of religion; and instead of irritating our adversaries by a rigorous execution of the revived statutes, I could wish that every bishop in his diocese would try the more winning expedients of gentleness and persuasion.” He then urged the example of the emperor Charles V. who, by a severe persecution of the Lutherans, involved himself in many difficulties, and purchased nothing but dishonour. Notwithstanding the liberality and humanity of these sentiments, when Gardiner, Bonner, and others equally violent, were heard in favour of severe measures, Pole had not the courage to dissent; and the result was a commission issued by himself, impowering the bishops to try and examine heretics, agreeably to the laws which were now revived.

a celebrated French cardinal, was born Oct. 11, 1661, at Puy, in Velay, and was the son of Louis Armand, viscount de Polignac, descended from one of the most ancient families in Languedoc. He was.sent early to Paris, where he distinguished himself as a student, and was soon noticed as a young man of elegant manners and accomplishments. In 1689, cardinal de Bouillon carried him to Rome, and employed him in several important negociations. It was at one of his interviews with pope Alexander VIII. that this pontiff said to him, “You seem always, sir, to be of my opinion, and yet it is your own which prevails at last.” We are likewise told that when, on his return to Paris, Louis XIV. granted him along audience, he said as he went out, <4 I have been conversing with a man, and a young man, who has contradicted me in every thing, yet pleased me in every thing.*' In 1693, he was sent as ambassador into Poland, where he procured the prince of Conti to be elected and proclaimed king in 1696; but, this election not having been supported, he was obliged to retire, and return to France, where he arrived in 1698, after losing all his equipage and furniture, which was seized by the Dantzickers. The king then banished him to his abbey at Bonport, but recalled him to court with great expressions of regard in 1702, and in 1706 appointed him auditor of the Rota. M. Polignac then set out again for Rome and cardinal de la Tremouille, who conducted the French affairs there, having the same opinion of him as cardinal de Bouillon had, employed him in several negociations. Going back to France three years after, his majesty sent him as plenipotentiary into Holland in 1710, with marechal d'Uxelles. He was also plenipotentiary at the conferences and peace of Utrecht, in 1712 and 1713. The king, satisfied with his services, obtained a cardinal’s hat for him the same year, and appointed him master of his chapel. During the regency, cardinal de Polignac was banished to his abbey of Anchin in 1718, and not recalled till 172L. In 1724, he went to Rome for the election of pope Benedict XIII. and remained there eight years, being entrusted with the affairs of France. In 1726, he was made archbishop of Auch, returned to his native country in 1732, and died at Paris, November 10, 1741, aged 80. He was a member of the French academy, the academy of sciences, and that of belles lettres. He is now chiefly remembered for his elegant Latin poem, entitled “Anti-Lucretius,” in which he refutes the system and doctrine of Epicurus, according to the principles of Descartes’ philosophy. This he left to a friend, Charles de Rothelin, who published it in 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. It has since been often reprinted, and elegantly translated by M. de Bougainville, secretary to the academy of belles lettres. His Life was published at Paris, 1777, 2 vols. 12mo, by F. Ghrysostom Faucher. The reviewer of this life very justly says, that the man who compiled the “Anti-Lucretius,” and proposed a plan for forming a new bed for the Tiber, in order to recover the statues, medals, basso-relievos, and other ancient monuments, which were buried there during the rage of civil factions, and the incursions of the barbarians, deserves an eminent place in literary biography. Few works have been more favourably received throughout Europe than the cardinal’s celebrated poem, although he was so much of a Cartesian. The first copy that appeared in England was one in the possession of the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and such was its reputation abroad at that time, that this copy was conveyed by a trumpet from marshal Saxe to the Duke of Cumberland, directed for the earl of Chesterfield, It was sent to him both as a judge of the work, and a friend of the writer.

, a most ingenious and learned Italian, was born July 14, 1454, at Monte Pulciano in Tuscany and from the name of this town, in Latin Mons Politianus, he derived the surname of Politian. His father was a doctor of the civil law. His name, according to M. Baillet, was Benedictus de Cinis, or, de Ambroginis, for he considers the former as a corruption of the latter. Politian, who gave early proofs of an extraordinary genius; had the advantage of Christophero Landino’s instructions in the Latin language. His preceptors in the Greek were Andronicus of Thessalonica and John Argyropylus. His abilities, at a very early period of his life, attracted the notice of Lorenzo and Julius de Medici. An Italian poem, the production of his juvenile pen, in which he celebrated an equestrian spectacle, or Giostra, wherein the latter bore away the prize, greatly contributed to establish his reputation. He was thence honoured with the peculiar patronage of the Medicean family; and, among other persons remarkable for genius and learning, whom the munificence of Lorenzo attracted to Florence, Politian was seen to shinq as a star of the first magnitude. Lorenzo confided to him the education of his own children and in this honourable employment he passed a great part of his life, favoured with the peculiar friendship of his patron, and the society and correspondence of men of letters. Among the more intimate associates of Poiitian, was Picus of Mi ran ­dula, and between these eminent scholars there was a strict attachment, and a friendly communication of studies. The Platonic philosopher, Marsilius Ficinus, completed this literary triumvirate.