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

Poiitian had been indebted for his education to Lorenzo, who had early procured for him the citizenship of Florence placed him in easy and affluent circumstances; probably conferred on him the secular priory of the college of S. Giovanni, which he held and on his entrance into clerical orders, appointed him a canon of the cathedral of Florence. It was at this period that the arts and sciences began gradually to revive and flourish; philosophy “to be freed,” to use the expression of antiquaries, “from the dust of barbarism,” and criticism to assume a manly and rational appearance. The more immediate causes which brought about these desirable events, were, the arrival of the illustrious Grecian exiles in Italy the discovery of antient manuscripts; establishment of public libraries, and seminaries of education; and especially the invention of printing. No branch of science was cultivated with greater ardour than classical literature: under the peculiar patronage of Lorenzo, and of some of the chief of other states in Italy, who imitated his liberality, eminent scholars engaged with incredible ardour and diligence, in collating manuscripts, and ascertaining the genuine text 'of Greek and Latin authors: explaining their obscurities, illustrating them with commentaries, translating them into various languages, and imitating their beauties.

The-“Miscellanea” of Poiitian were first published at Florence, in 1489, and were every where received with the greatest applause, and compared by the learned to the “Noctes Atticas” of Aulus Gellius. His Latin version of Heroclian is universally allowed to be a masterly performance, and perhaps no other translation of any Greek author has been so much and so generally admired. Some critics have declared, that if the Greek of Heroclian could have been suppressed, this work might have passed among the learned for the classical and finished' production of some original pen of antiquity. Yet amidst such general approbation, there were not wanting others who accused him of having published as his own, a version previously made by Gregorius of Tiphernum M. de la Monnoye maintains that Omnibuono, a native of Lunigo, nearVicenza, commonly denominated Omnibonus Vicentinus, was the author of this prior version and endeavours to prove from a fragment of it, that Politian had seen and availed himself of it. These detractions, however, have not been generally admitted. Politian inscribed this version to Pope Innocent VIII. in a dedication which is prefixe*d to most of the ancient editions of the work, and which procured him a present from his holiness of two hundred gold crowns. Politian returned thanks i a courtly and somewhat adulatory epistle, in which he/ extols the pope’s bounty, and promises to redouble his efforts to produce something more worthy of so exalted a patron.

The“Greek Epigrams” of Politian were written, for the most part, when he was very young, but from the address to the reader prefixed to them, in the volume of his works, they appear to have been published after his death, from the original manuscript, by Zenobius Acciajolus, who did not consider them as adding much to the fame of the author, 'and some of them might have been suppressed, without injury to literature, and certainly with advantage to the moral reputation of the author. He is supposed to have written a translation of Homer, but no part of it is nowknown to exist. Of his other Latin poems, the “Manto,” “Rusticus,” and probably the “Ambra,” were occasional, and intended for public recitation and appear to have been published at the instance of some of his pupils. Perhaps his most laboured production is the “Nutricia,” which seems to be the poem sent by him to Matthias king of Hungary, as a specimen of his talents.

, an ancient Greek grammarian, was born at Naucrates, a town in Egypt, in the year 180. Having been educated under the sophists, he became eminent in grammatical and critical learning taught rhetoric at Athens, and acquired so much reputation, that he was advanced to be preceptor of the emperor Commodus. He drew up for, and inscribed to this prince while his father Marcus Antoninus was living, an “Onomasticon, or Greek Vocabulary,” divided into ten books. It is still extant, and contains a vast variety of synonymous words and phrases, agreeably to the copiousness of the Greek language, ranged under the general classes of things. The first edition of the “Onomasticon” was published at Venice by Aldus in 1502, and a Latin version was added in the edition of 1608, by Seberus; but there was.no correct and handsome edition of it, till that of Amsterdam, 1706, in folio, by Lederlin and Hemsterhuis. Lederlin went through the first seven books, correcting the text and version, and subjoining his own, with the notes of Salmasius, Is. Vossius, Valesius, and of Kuhnius, whose scholar he had been, and whom he succeeded in the professorship of the Oriental languages in the university of Strasburgh. Hemsterhuis continued the same method through the three last books. Pollux died in the year 238. He is said to have written many other works, none of which are come down to us but there was another of the same name, who is supposed to have flourished about the end of the fourth century, and wrote “Historia physica, seu chronicon ab origine mundi ad Valentis tempora.” Of this Bianconi published the first edition at Bonon. 1779, fol. and Ignatius Hardt, a second in 1792, 8vo, without knowing of the preceding.

is the name of many eminent personages recorded in ancient writers, particularly Julius Polysenus, of whom some Greek epigrams are extant, in the first book of the Anthologia. But the Polyænus who is best known, flourished in the second century, and is the author of the eight books of the “Stratagems of illustrious Commanders in war.” He appears to have been a Macedonian, and probably was a soldier in the younger part of his life; but we are more certain that he was a rhetorician, and a pleader of causes and that he enjoyed a place of trust and dignity under the emperors Antoninus and Veriis, to whom he dedicated his work. The “Strategemata” were published in Greek by Isaac Casaubon, with notes, in 1589, 12mo but no good edition of them appeared, till that of Leyden; 1690, in 8vo. The title-page runs thus: “Polygeni Strategematum libri octo, Justo Vulteio interprete, Pancratius Maasvicius recensuit, Isaaci Casauboni nee non suas notas adjecit.” This was followed, in 1756, by Mursinua’s edition, Berlin, and by that of Coray, at Paris in 1809, 8vo. We have now an excellent English translation by Mr. R. Shepherd, 1793, 4to. It contains various stratagems, of above three hundred commanders and generals of armies, chiefly Greeks and Barbarians, which are at least entertaining, and illustrative of the manners of the times in which those commanders lived but it may be doubted whether a modern soldier would gain much advantage by making himself master of this tricking study. The original has come down to us incomplete, and with the text considerably mutilated and corrupted; but the style is classical, and even elegant.

, an eminent Greek historian, was of Megalopolis, a city of Arcadia, and was the son of Lycortas, general of the Achaeans, who were then the most powerful republic in Greece. He was born in the fourth year of the 143d olympiad, or in the 548th year of the building of Rome, or about 203 years before Christ. When twentyfour years of age, the Achaeans sent him and his father Lycortas ambassadors to the king of Egypt; and the son had afterwards the same honour, when he was deputed to go to the Roman consul, who made war upon Perses, king of Macedon. In the consulships of Æmilius Paetus and Julius Pennus, a thousand Achaeans were ordered to Rome, as hostages, for the good behaviour of their countrymen who were suspected of designs against the Romans; and were there detained seventeen years. Polybius, who was one of them, and was then thirty-eight years of age, had great talents from nature, which were well cultivated by education; and his residence at Rome appears to have been of great advantage to him since he owed to it, not only the best part of his learning, but the important friendship he contracted with Scipio and Lselius and when the time of his detention expired, he accompanied Scipio into Africa. After this he was witness to the sack and destruc* tion of Corinth, and of the reduction of Achaia to tho condition of a Roman provinces Amidst these dreadful scenes, he displayed noble traits of patriotism and disinterestedness, which obtained for him so much credit, that he was entrusted with the care of settling the new form of government in the cities of Greece, which office he performed to the satisfaction both of the Romans and the Greeks. In all his journeys he amassed materials for his history, and took such observations as to render his descriptions very accurate. Although his chief object was the history of the Romans, whose language he had learned with great care, and the establishment of their empire, yet he had in his eye the general history of the times in which he lived and therefore he gave his work the name of “Catholic or Universal” nor was this at all inconsistent with his general purpose, there being scarcely any nations at that time in the known world, which had not some contest with, or dependence upon, the Romans. Of forty books which he composed, there remain but the first five entire; with an epitome of the twelve following, which is supposed to have been made by that great assertor of Roman liberty, Marcus Brutus. Brutus is said to have been so particularly fond of Polybius, that, even in the last and most unfortunate hours of his life, he amused himself not only in reading, but also in abridging his history. The space of time which this history includes, is fifty-three years, beginning, after two of introductory matter, at the third book.

How much this historian was valued by the ancients, appears by the number of statues erected to his honour, and Cicero, Strabo, Josephus, Plutarch, and others, have spoken, of him in terms of the highest applause. Livy however has been censured for calling him only auctor haudquaquam spernendus, “an author by no means to be despised,” after he had borrowed very largely from him but Casaubon and Vossius think that according to the usual phraseology of the ancients, Livy’s expression implies a rery high eulogium. Polybius’s style is by no means elegant, but the accuracy and fidelity of his narrative render his history a work of great importance. There is no historian among the ancients, from whom more is to be learned of the events which he professes to narrate, and it is much to be lamented that his history has not descended to us in a perfect state. We have only the Brst five books entire, and an abridgment of the twelve following, with some excerpta or extracts of this history, formerly made by Constantinus Forphyrogenitus which were first published in Greek by Ursinus in 1582, and in Greek and Latin by the learned Henry Valesius in 1634. Poly bi us lived to a great age; but concerning the particulars of his life much eannot be collected. He was highly honoured by the friendship of Scipio who, when the other hostages from Achaia were distributed through the cities of Italy, obtained leave by his interest for Polybius to live at Rome. He died at eighty-two years of age, of an illness occasioned by a fall from his horse.

, an apostolic father of the Christian church, was born in the reign of Nero, probably at Smyrna, a city of Ionia in Asia Minor, where he was educated at the expence of Calisto, a noble matron of great piety and charity. In his younger years he is said to be instructed in the Christian faith by Bucolus, bishop of that place but others consider it as certain that he was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and familiarly conversed with others of the apostles. At a proper age, Bucolus ordained him a deacon and catechist of his church; and, upon the death of that prelate, he succeeded him in the bishopric. To this he was consecrated by St. John who also, according to archbishop Usher, directed his “Apocalyptical Epistle,” among six others, to him, under the title of the “Angel of the Church of Smyrna,” where, many years after the apostle’s death, he was also visited by St. Ignatius. Ignatius recommended his own see of Antioch to the care and si>perintendance of Polycarp, and afterwards sent an epistle to the church of Smyrna from Troas, A. C. 107 when Polycarp is supposed to have written his “Epistle to the Philippians,” a translation of which is preserved by Dr. Cave.

From this time, for many years, history is silent concerning him, till some unhappy differences in the church brought him into general notice. It happened, that the controversy about the observation of Easter began to grow very warm between the eastern and western churches each obstinately insisting upon their own way, and justifying themselves by apostolical practice and tradition. To prevent the worst consequences of this contest, Polycarp undertook a journey to Rome, that he might converse with those who were the main supports and champions of the opposite party. The see of that capital of the Roman empire was then possessed by Anicetus and many conferences were held between the two bishops, each of them urging apostolical tradition for their practice. But all was managed peaceably and amicably, without any heat of contention; and, though neither of them could bring the other into his opinion, yet they retained their own sentiments without violating that chanty which is the great and common law of our religion. In token of this, they communicated together at the holy sacrament when Anicetus, to do honour to Polycarp, gave him leave to consecrate the eucharistical elements in his own church. This done, they parted peaceably, each side esteeming this difference to be merely ritual, and no ways affecting the vitals of religion but the dispute continued many years in the church, was carried on with great animosity, and ended at length in a fixed establishment, which remains to this day, of observing Easter on different days in the two churches: for the Asiatics keep Easter on the next Lord’s day after the Jewish passover, and the church of Rome the next Sunday after the first full moon that follows the vernal equinox.

The persecution growing violent at Smyrna, and many having already sealed their confession with their blood, the general outcry was, “Away with the impious; let Polycarp be sought for.” On this he withdrew privately into a neighbouring village, where he lay concealed for some time, continuing night and day in prayer for the peace of the church. He was thus occupied, when, one night falling into a trance, he dreamed that his pillow took fire, and was burnt to ashes; which he told his friends was a presage, that he should be burnt alive for the cause of Christ. Three days after this dream, in. order to escape the search which was carried on incessantly after him, he retired into another village, where he was discovered, although some say he had time to escape but he refused it, saying, “The will of the Lord be done.” Accordingly he saluted his persecutors with a cheerful countenance and, ordering a table to be set with provisions, invited them to partake of them, only requesting for himself one hour for prayer. This being over, he was set upon an ass, and conducted towards the city. Upon the road he was met by Herod, an Irenarch or justice of the province, and his father, who were the principal agents in this persecution. This magistrate taking him up into his chariot, tried to undermine his constancy and, being defeated in the attempt, thrust him out of the chariot with so much violence, that he bruised his thigh with the fall. On his arrival at the place of execution, there came, as is said, a voice from heaven, saying, “Polycarp, be strong, and quit thyself like a man.” Being brought before the tribunal, he was urged to swear by the genius of Caesar. “Repent,” continues the proconsul, “and say with us, Take away the impious.” On this the martyr looking round the stadium, and beholding the crowd with a severe and angry countenance, beckoned with his hand, and looking up to heaven, said with a sigh, quite in another tone than they intended, “Take away the impious.” At last, confessing himself to be a Christian, proclamation was made thrice of his confession by the crier, at which the people shouted, “This is the great teacher of Asia, and the father of the Christians; this is the destroyer of our gods, that teaches men not to do sacrifice, or worship the deities.” The fire being prepared, Polycarp, at his own request, was not, as usual, nailed, but only tied to the stake and after pronouncing a short prayer, with a clear and audible voice, the executioner blew up the fire, which increasing to a mighty flame, “Behold a wonder seen,” says Eusebius, “by us who were purposely reserved, that we might declare it to others the flames disposing themselves into the resemblance of an arch, like the sails of a ship swelled with the wind, gentty encircled the body of the martyr, who stood all the while in the midst, not like roasted flesh, but like the gold or silver purified in the furnace, his body sending forth a delightful fragrancy, which, like frankincense, or some other costly spices, presented itself to our senses. The infidels, exasperated by the miracle, commanded a spearman to run him through with a sword which he had no sooner done, but such a vast quantity of blood flowed from the wound, as extinguished the fire when a dove was seen to fly from the wound, which some suppose to have been his soul, cloathed in a visible shape at the time of its departure.” The Christians would have carried off his body entire, but were not suffered by the Irenarch, who commanded it to be burnt to ashes. The bones, however, were gathered up, and decently interred by the Christians.

, a celebrated painter of Thasos, flourished about 422 B. C. and was the son and scholar of Aglaophon. He particularly distinguished himself by a series of pictures, including the principal events of the Trojan war. He refused the presents offered him by the Grecians on this occasion which so pleased the Amphictyons, who composed the general council of Greece, that they thanked him by a solemn decree; and it was provided by the same decree, that this skilful painter should be lodged and entertained, at the public expence, in every town through which he passed. The talents of Polygnotus are celebrated by many of the best authors of antiquity, as Aristotle and Plutarch, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Pausanias, but especially Pliny, whose sentiments, as well as those of Pausanias, are criticised by Mr. Fuseli in his Lectures on Painting."

, marquis of, a famous Portuguese minister of state, whom the Jesuits, whose banishment he pronounced, have defamed by all possible means, and others have extolled as a most able statesman, was born in 1699, in the territory of Coimbra a robust and distinguished figure seemed to mark him for the profession of arms, for which, after a short trial, he quitted the studies of his native university. He found, however, a still readier path to fortune, by marrying, in spite of opposition from her relations, Donna Teresa de Noronha Almada, a lady of one of the first families in Spain. He lost her in 1739, and being sent on a secret expedition in 1745 to Vienna, he again was fortunate in marriage, by obtaining the countess of Daun, a relation of the marshal of that name. This wife became a favourite with the queen of Portugal, who interested herself to obtain an appointment for Carvalho, in which, however, she did not succeed, till after the death of her husband, John V. in 1750. Her son Joseph gave Carvalho the appointment of secretary for foreign affairs, in which situation he completely obtained the confidence of the king. His haughtiness, as well as some of his measures, created many enemies; and in 1758, a conspiracy headed by the duke d'Aveiro, who had been the favourite of John V. broke out in an attempt to murder the king as he returned from his castle of Belem. The plot being completely discovered, the conspirators were punished, not only severely but cruelly; and the Jesuits who had been involved in it, were banished from the kingdom. At the death of Joseph, in 1777, Pombal fell into disgrace, and many of the persons connected with the conspirators, who had been imprisoned from the time of the discovery, were released. The enemies of Pombal did not, however, succeed in exculpating the principal agents, though a decree was passed in 1781, to declare the innocence of those who had been released from prison. Carvalho was banished to one of his estate?, where he died in May 1782, in his eighty-fifth year. His character, as was mentioned above, was variously represented, but it was generally allowed that he possessed great abilities. A book entitled “Memoirs of the Marquis of Pombal,” was published at Paris in 1783, in four volumes, 12mo, but it is not esteemed altogether impartial.

A volume of his poems was published by himself in 1699, with a very modest and sensible preface. Two pieces of his were published after his death by a friend under the name of Philalethes one called “Reason,” and written in 1700, when the disputes about the Trinity ran high; the other, “Dies Novissima,” or, “The Last Epiphany,” a Pindaric ode. His versification is sometimes not unmusical; but there is not the force in his writings which is 'necessary to constitute a poet. A dissenting teacher of his name, and who published some rhimes upon spiritual subjects, occasioned fanaticism to be imputed to him; but from this his friend Philalethes has justly cleared him. Pomfret had a very strong mixture of devotion in him, but no fanaticism.

“The Choice,” says Dr. Johnson, “exhibits a system of life adapted to common notions, and equal to common expectations such a state as affords plenty and tranquillity, without exclusion of intellectual pleasures. Perhaps no composition in our language has been oftener perused than. Pomfret‘ s * Choice.’ In his other poems there is an easy volubility the pleasure of smooth metre is afforded to the ear, and the mind is not oppressed with ponderous, or entangled with intricate sentiment. He pleases many, and he who pleases many must have merit,” His son, John, had the office of Rouge-croix in the heralds’ office, and wrote some satirical verses on the removal of the family portraits of the Howards from the hall of the heralds’ college to Arundei castle. He died March 24, 1751, aged forty-nine.

, a laborious Benedictine of the congregation de St. Maur, was born in 1617, at Rouen. After a suitable education, he refused all offices in his order, that he might devote himself wholly to study. He died of an apoplexy at the house of the learned M. Bulreau, to whom he was paying a visit, Oct. 28, 1687, aged seventy. His works are, “L'Histoire de TAbbaye de S. Ouen de Rouen, folio and a” History of the Archbishops of Rouen,“folio, which is his best work. He published also a” Collection of the Councils and Synods of Rouen,“4to” L'Histoire de la Cath&irale de Rouen,“4to” Pratique journaliere de TAumone," a small book, exhorting to give alms to those who beg for the poor. This Benedictine’s works are not written in a pleasing style, nor are they every where accurate, but they contain many curious observations.

, or P0MPEIUS (CNEius), surnamed Magnus, or the Great, was of a noble Roman family, the son of Pompeius Strabo, and Lucilia. He was born the same year with Cicero, but nine months later, namely, in the consulship of Csepio and Serranus, 105 years before the Christian sera. His father was a general of great abilities, and under him he learned the art of war. When he was only twenty-three he raised three legions, which he led to Sylla. Three years after, he drove the opponents of Sylla from Africa and Sicily. Young as he was, he had already won the soldiers sufficiently, by his mildness and military talents, to excite the jealousy of Sylla, who therefore recalled him to Rome. His soldiers would have detained him in spite of the dictator’s orders, but he obeyed, and was rewarded on his arrival by the name of Magnus, given him by Sylla, and soon after confirmed unanimously by his countrymen. He obtained also the honours of a triumph, which the dictator permitted rather unwillingly, and was the first instance of a Roman knight, who had not risen to any magistracy, being advanced to that elevation. This was in 81 B. C. In a short time, he had obtained as much power by the voluntary favour of the people, as Sylla had before by arms and after the death of that extraordinary man, obliged Lepidus to quit Rome, and then undertook the war against Sertorius in Spain, which he brought to a fortunate conclusion. For this victory he triumphed a second time, B. C. 73, being still only in the rank of a knight. Not long afterwards he was chosen consul. In that office he re-established the power of the tribunes; and, in the course of a few years, exterminated the pirates who infested the Mediterranean, gained great advantages against Tigranes and Mithriclates, and carried his victorious arms into Media, Albania, Iberia, and the most important parts of Asia; and so extended the boundaries of the Roman empire, that Asia Minor, which before formed the extremity of its provinces, now became, in a manner, the centre of them. When he returned to receive a triumph for these victories, he courted popularity by dismissing his troops and entering the city as a private citizen. He triumphed with great splendour but not feeling his influence such as he had hoped, he united with Caesar and Crassus to form the first triumvirate. He strengthened his union with Ccesar by marrying his daughter Julia; he was destined nevertheless to find in Caesar not a friend, but too successful a rival. While Caesar was gaining in his long Gallic wars a fame and a power that were soon to be invincible, Pompey was endeavouring to cultivate his popularity and influence in Rome. Ere long they took directly contrary parties. Pompey became the hope and the support of the patricians and the senate, while Caesar was the idol of the people. On the return of the latter from Gaul, in the year 51 A. C. the civil war broke out, which terminated, as is well known, by the defeat of Pompey in the battle of Pharsalia, A. C. 49, and the base assassination of him by the officers of Ptolemy in Egypt. It appears that Pompey had not less ambition than Caesar, but was either more scrupulous, or less sagacious and fortunate in his choice of means to gratify that passion. He was unwilling to throw off the mask of virtue and moderation, and hoped to gain every thing by intrigue and the appearance of transcendant merit. In this he might have been successful, had he not been opposed to a man whose prompt and decisive measures disconcerted his secret plans, drove things a once to extremities, and forced him to have recourse to the decision of arms, in which victory declared against him. The moderate men, and those who were sincerely attached to the republic of Rome, dreaded, almost equally, the success of Pompey and of Caesar. Cato, who took the mourning habit on the breaking out of the civil war, had resolved upon death if Caesar should be victorious, and exile if sue* cess should declare for Pompey.

, marquis of, a French nobleman, still more distinguished by his talents in poetry than by his rank, was born at Montauban in 1709. He was educated for the magistracy, and became advocategeneral, and first president of the court of aids at Montauban. His inclination for poetry, however, could not be repressed, and at the age of twenty-five he produced his tragedy of “Dido,” in which he approved himself not only one of the most successful imitators of Racine, but an able and elegant poet. After this success at Paris, he returned to his duties at Montauban, which he fulfilled in the most upright manner; but having suffered a short exile, on account of some step which displeased the court, he became digusted with the office of a magistrate. As he had now also increased his fortune by an advantageous marriage, he determined to remove to Paris, where at first he was received as his virtues and his talents deserved. His sincere attachment to Christianity brought upon him a persecution from the philosophists, which, after a time, drove him back to the country. Voltaire and his associates had nowinundated France with their deistical tracts the materialism of Helvetius in his book de TEsprit, had just been brought forward in the most triumphant manner the enemies of Christianity had filled the Encyclopedic with the poison of their opinions, and had by their intrigues formed a powerful party in the French academy, when the marquis of Pompignan was admitted as an academician, in 1760. He had the courage, at his admission, to pronounce a discourse, the object of which was to prove that the man of virtue and religion is the only true philosopher. From this moment he was the object of perpetual persecution. Voltaire and his associates were indefatigable in pouring out satires against him: his religion was called hypocrisy, and his public declaration in its favour an attempt to gain the patronage of certain leading men. These accusations, as unjust as they were illiberal, mingled with every species of sarcastic wit, had the effect of digusting the worthy marquis with Paris. He retired to his estate of Pompignan, where he passed the remainder of his<laysin the practice of a true philosophy, accompanied by sincere piety and died of an apoplexy in 1784, at the age of seventy-five, most deeply regretted by his neighbours and dependents. The shameful treatment of this excellent man, by the sect which then reigned in the academy, is a strong illustration of that conspiracy against religion, so ably detailed by M. Barruel, in the first volume of his Memoirs of Jacobinism. When once he had declared himself a zealous Christian no merit was allowed him, nor any effort spared to overwhelm him with disgrace and mortification. His compositions nevertheless were, and are, esteemed by impartial judges. His “Sacred Odes,” notwithstanding the sarcasm of Voltaire, “sacred they are, for no one touches them,” abound in poetical spirit, and lyric beauties though it is confessed also that they have their inequalities. His “Discourses imitated from the books of Solomon,” contain important moral truths, delivered with elegance, and frequently with energy. His imitation of the Georgics of Virgil, though inferior to that of the abbe De Lille (whose versification is the richest and most energetic of modern French writers), has yet considerable merit and his “Voyage de Languedoc,” though not equal, in easy and lively negligence to that of Chapelle, is superior in elegance, correctness, and variety. He wrote also some operas which were not acted and a comedy in verse, in one act, called “Les Adieux de Mars,” which was represented with success at the Italian comic theatre in Paris. The marquis of Pompignan was distinguished also as a writer in prose. His “Eulogium on the Duke of Burgundy,” is written with an affecting simplicity. His “Dissertations,” his “Letter to the younger Racine,” and his “Academical Discourses,” all prove a sound judgment, a correct taste, and a genius improved by careful study of the classic models. He produced also a “Translation of some dialogues of Lucian,” and some “Tragedies of Æschylus,” which are very generally esteemed. He was allowed to be a man of vast literature, and almost universal knowledge in the fine arts. Yet such a man was to be ill-treated, and crushed if possible, because he had the virtue to declare himself a partizan of religion. Even his enemies, and the most inflexible of them, Voltaire, were unable to deny the merit of some of his poetical compositions. The following stanza in particular, in “An- Ode on the Death of Rousseau,” obtained a triumph for him in defiance of prejudice. The intention seems to be to illustrate the vanity of those who speak against religion:

“Thus on the borders of the Nile, the black inhabitant* insult by their savage cries the star of day. Vain cries, and capricious fury! But while these barbarous monsters send up their insolent clamours, the God, pursuing his career, pours floods of light upon his dusky blasphemers.” “I have hardly ever seen,” says M. la Harpe, “a grander idea, expressed by a more noble image, nor with a more impressive harmony of language. I recited the passage one day to Voltaire, who acknowledged that it united all the qualities of the sublime; and, when I named the author, still praised it more.” The marquis’s brother, John George Le Franc, a prelate of great merit, was archbishop of Vienne, and like him combated the principles of the pbilosophists. He wrote various controversial and devotional works, and some of another description, as, “A Critical Essay on the present State of the Republic of Letters,” 1743 “Pastoral Instructions for the Benefit of the new Converts within his Diocese” Devotion not at enmity with Wit and Genius“”Mandates prohibiting the Reading of the Works of Rousseau and the Abbe Raynal." He died, in 1790, soon after the revolution had begun its destructive work, which he in vain endeavoured to resist.

, a modern Aristotelian, was born at Mantua in 1462. He delivered lectures on the philosophy of Aristotle and Averroes at Padua and Bologna, where his eloquence and talents procured him many auditors. He was at Bologna when he composed his celebrated little treatise “De immortalitate Animae,” in which he was supposed to call in question the immortality of the soul, at least he maintained that all natural reason was against it, but revelation for it, and upon the latter account ie believed it. It is probable, however, that the impression it made on the public mind was not very favourable to the received opinions, as pope Leo X. thought it necessary to suppress the work by a bull; and it was at his request that Augustine Niphus wrote a treatise with the same title, “De immortalitate Animae,” in which he undertook to prove that this doctrine is not contrary to the principles of the Aristotelian philosophy. Some time after, Pomponatius’s opinions were referred to the arbitration of Bembus, who endeavoured to justify him, and succeeded so far as to obtain permission for him to issue a second edition of the work, as well as to save the author from the vengeance of the church. Brucker is of opinion that notwithstanding Pomponatius’s pretences, he had more respect for the authority of Aristotle, than for that of Jesus Christ. He adds, that though much addicted to superstition and fanaticism, and a zealous advocate for judicial astrology, as appears from his book “De Incantationibus,” “On Enchantments,” he had an understanding capable of penetrating into the depths of the Peripatetic system, in the

, an eminent Italian antiquary, all whose names were of his own choice, was the illegitimate offspring of the illustrious house of Sanseverino, in the kingdom of Naples; but this was a circumstance on which he preserved an inflexible silence, and admitted no conversation or questions on the subject. Even when that family sent him an invitation to reside with them, he rejected it by a laconic note which is preserved by Tiraboschi “Pomponius Laetus cognatis et propinquis suis salutem. Quod petitis fieri non potest. Valete.” “Pomponius Laetus to his kinsmen and relations what you ask cannot be granted. Farewell.” He went young to Home, where he studied first under a very able grammarian of that time, Pietro da Monopoli, and afterwards under Laurentius Valia. On the death of this eminent scholar in 1457, he was thought qualified to succeed him in his professorship. He now began to found an academy, the members of which were men of letters, fond of antiquary researches, like himself, but who sometimes entered upon philosophical discussions. They were mostly young men, and in their zeal for past times, the glorious days of Rome, adopted Latinized names. Our author took that of Pomponius Lsetus, and Buonaccorsi that of Callimachus Experiens, &c. In their philosophical discussions, they went so far as to compare ancient with modern institutions, not much to the credit of the latter and at length this was represented to pope Paul II. (whom we have recently noticed as the persecutor of Platina) first as inferring a contempt for religion secondly, as an attack on the church and lastly, as a conspiracy against the pope himself. The pope, either really alarmed, or pretending to be so, ordered all the members of the academy to be arrested, that could be found, and imprisoned and put them to the torture, of which one very promising young scholar died and although Pomponius was at this time (1468) at Venice, and had been indeed residing for three years with the Cornaro family, he was dragged in chains to Rome, and shared the same horrible fate as his fellow academicians; and although, after various examinations, conducted by the pope himself, no proof of guilt appeared, he and his companions remained in confinement a very considerable time. The death of their persecutor, however, restored them to liberty, and it was no inconsiderable testimony of their innocence that his successor Sixtus IV. equally strict in matters of heresy, made Platina librarian of the Vatican, and restored Pomponius to his professorship, in which office he continued to draw a great concourse of scholars. He also endeavoured to revive his academy, against which Paul It. had been so inveterate that he forbid its name to be mentioned either in jest or earnest, “vel serio vel joco,” attd we find two grand commemorations held by the members, in 1482 and 1483; the one on account of the death of Platina, the other to celebrate the foundation of Rome.

, historiographer to his Danish majesty, and to the province of Guelderland, was of a family of Harlem, but was born in Denmark, in 1571, and died in 1640, aged 69, at Harderwick, where he had taught physic and mathematics. His works are, “Historia Urbis et Rerum Amstelodamensium,” folio; “Itinerarium Gallic Narbonensis,” 12mo; “Rerum Danicarum Historia,” folio. This history, which is esteemed, comes dewn to 1548; and M. de Westphal, chancellor of Holstein, printed the Supplement in vol. II. of his “Monumenta inedita Rerum Germanicarum,” &c. Leipsic, 1740, folio which includes the reigns of Christiern I. and the five succeeding kings, with a life of Pontanus. Pontanus wrote also, “De Rheni divortiis et accolis populis adversus Ph. Cluverium,” 1617, 4to, a learned and judicious work “Discussiones Historicse,” 8vo “Historia Geldrica,” fol.; “Origines Francicse,” 4to the “Life of Frederic II. king of Denmark,” published 1737, by Dr. George Kry sing, a physician at Flensburg. Pontanus left several other works in ms.; among others, an account of women who have distinguished themselves by their learning. He also wrote some very indifferent verses published at Amsterdam itt 1634, 12mo.

, bishop of Bergen, who was born in 1698, at Aarhuus, in Denmark, and died in 1764, wrote several works respecting the history and geography of that kingdom; one of which, his “History of Norway,” was translated into English in 1755. His other publications are less known in this country. He must be distinguished from another Danish writer of both his names, author of a Danish grammar, a collection of epigrams and other articles of Latin poetry. He was born in 1616, and died in 1678.

His first publication appeared in 1654, against the Socinian tenets of John Biddle, and was entitled “The Blasphemer slain with the sword of the Spirit, or a plea for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, wherein the Deity of the Spirit is proved, against the cavils of John Biddle,” 12mo. In 1657 he went to Oxford, to be present at the installation of Richard Cromwell, who then succeeded his father Oliver, as chancellor of that university, and it was upon this occasion that Mr. Pool was incorporated M. A. In the following year he published a schemeof education under the title of, “A model for the maintaining of students of choice abilities at the university, and principally in order to the ministry. Together with a Preface before it, and after it a recommendation from the university; and two serious exhortations recommended unto all the unfeigned lovers of piety and learning, and more particularly to those rich men who desire to honour the Lord with their substance,” 1658, 4to. Among the learned persons who approved this scheme, we find the names of John Worthington, John Arrowsmith, Anthony Tuckney, Benjamin Whichcot, Ralph Cudworth, and William Dillingham. Its object was to provide a fund, out of which a certain number of young men might be maintained at the university, who could obtain no other maintenance by exhibitions, scholarships, &c. Dr. Sherlock, afterwards deaa of St. Paul’s, was indebted to this fund, being supported, out of it in taking his bachelor’s degree. The whole sum. raised was about 900l. but the restoration put a stop to any farther accumulation.

In support of the opinions of himself and his party, he published in 1659, a letter, in one sheet 4to, addressed to the lord Charles Fleetwood, and delivered to him o,n the 13th of December, which related to the juncture of affairs at that time and in the same year appeared “Quo Warran to a moderate debate about the preaching of unordained persons election, ordination, and the extent of the ministerial relation, in vindication of the Jus Divinum Ministerii, from the exceptions of a late piece, entitled” The Preacher sent.“4to. In the title-page of this” Quo Warranto“it is said to be written by the appointment of the provincial assembly at London. In 1660 he took a share in the morning exercise, a series of sermons then preached by those of the London clergy who were deemed puritans; and he contributed some of the most learned and argumentative of their printed collection. The same year he published a sermon upon John iv. 23, 24, preached before the lord mayor of London at St. Paul’s, Aug. 26, in the preface to which he informs us that he printed it exactly as it was preached, in consequence of some misrepresentations that had gone abroad one of which, says he, was” that I wished their ringers might rot that played upon the organs.“This expression he totally denies, but admits that he did dislike and speak against instrumental or vocal music when so refined as to take up the attention of the hearers” I appeal,“he adds,” to the experience of any ingenuous person, whether curiosity of voice and musical sounds in churches does not tickle the fancy with a carnal delight, and engage a man’s ear and most diligent attention unto those sensible motions and audible sounds, and therefore must necessarily, in great measure, recall him from spiritual communion with God; seeing the mind of man cannot attend to two things at once with all it’s might [to each], and when we serve God we must do it with all our mig;ht. And hence it is, that the ancients have some of them given this rule that even vocal singing [in churches] should not be too curious, sed legenti similior giiam canenti. And Paul himself gives it a wipe, Eph. v. 19, Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, making melody in your hearts to the Lord“This sermon was revived in 1698, 4to, with the title of” A reveres to Mr. Oliver’s Sermon of Spiritual Worship." The descendants of the nonconformists have, however, in our times effectually got rid of their prejudices against organs.

Along with this specimen and proposals, Mr. Pool published the opinions of “several eminent, reverend, and learned persons, bishops and others,” in favour of the work, and of his ability to execute it, of which he wa$ authorized to make this use. Among the prelates -who recommended the “Synopsis,” as a work which they “were persuaded would tend very much to the advancement of religion and learning, were Morley, bishop of Winchester, Reynolds of Norwich, Ward of Salisbury, Rainbow of Carlisle, Blandford of Oxford, Dolben and Warner of Rochester, Morgan of Bangor, and Hacket of Lichfield and Coventry and among the other divines, several of whom afterwards were raised to the episcopal bench, were Dr. Barlow, provost of Queen’s college, Oxford; Dr. WilIdns, Dr. Castell, Dr. Lloyd (whom some, as we have observed, make the first instigator), Dr. Tillotson, Mr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Whichcot; Dr. Bathurst, president of Trinity college, Oxford, Dr. Wallis and Dr. Lightfoot, with the most eminent and learned of the nonconformists, Baxter, Owen, Bates, Jacomb, Horton, and Manton. Most of these signed their opinions in a body; but bishop Hacket, Dr. Barlow, Dr. Lightfoot, and Dr. Owen, sent him separate letters of encouragement, in language which could not fail to have its weight with the pubJic. He also acknowledges, with great gratitude, the munificent aid he received from sir Peter Wentworth, K. B.” who appears to have been his chief patron, and from sir Orlando Bridgman, the earls of Manchester, Bridgwater, Lauderdale, and Donegal the lords Truro, Brooke, and Cameron, sir William Morrice, sir Walter St. John, sic Thomas Clifford, sir Robert Murray, &c. &c. &c.

With much encouragement he had also some difficulties to encounter. When the first volume was ready for the press, an obstruction which appeared very formidable was thrown in his way by Cornelius Bee, a bookseller, who, in a paper or pamphlet called “The case of Cornelius Bee,” accused Mr. Pool of invading his property. To understand this it is necessary to know that this Mr. Bee, unquestionably a man of an enterprizing spirit, equal perhaps to any instance known in our days among the trade, had published a very few years before, i. e. in 1660, the “Critici Sacri,” or a body of criticisms of the most learned men in Europe, amounting to ninety, on the Old and New Testament, given at large from their works, and extending to nine volumes folio. Bee had a patent for this work, and unquestionably deserved every encouragement and protection the law could give, but the language of his patent seems to have given him a narrow notion of literary property. It stated that no person should print the Critics either in whole or in party and therefore he considered Mr. Pool as prohibited from taking any thing from this vast collection of criticisms which separately were in every persons’ hands, or from making any abridgment, or compiling any work that resembled the “Critici Sacri,” however improved in the plan, or augmented, as Pool’s was, from a variety authors not used in it. He also complained that he should sustain a double injury by the “Synopsis:” first, in the loss of the sale of the remaining copies of his own work, for which he did Mr. Pool the honour to think there would be no longer a demand; and secondly, in being prevented from publishing an improved edition of the “Critici Sacri” which he intended.

In answer to this, Mr. Pool said, that as soon as he heard of Mr. Bee’s objections, he took the opinion of counsel, which was in favour of his proceeding with the “Synopsis” that he also offered to submit the matter to arbitration, which Bee refused, and that he, in vain proposed other terms of accommodation, offering him a fourth part of the property of the work, which Mr. Bee treated with contempt; “but,” adds Pool, “I doubt not Mr. Bee will be more reconciled to it the next time that Mr. Pool shall make him such another offer,” which we shall see proved to be true. With regard to the supposed injury that would accrue to Mr. Bee, part appears imaginary, and part contradictory. We learn from this controversy, that the price of the “Critici Sacri” (which, as well- as of the “Synopsis,” has been, in our time, that of waste paper) was originally 13l. 10s. and Bee says in his preface, and truly, that for this sum the purchaser had more works than he could have bought separately for 50l. or 60l. But as he had blamed Pool for Occasioning a depreciation of the remaining copies of the “Critici Sacri,” the latter tells him that if this was a crime, he was himself guilty of it in two ways for first when he brought down the price of divers books from 50l. or 60l. to 13l. 10s. the possessors of those books were forced to sell them at far lower prices than they cost; and secondly, Pool contends that his projected new edition of the “Critici Sacri” would be a manifest injury to hundreds who bought the old one at a dear rate, and would now find them worth little more than waste paper.

After some farther exchange of altercation, in which the prevailing opinions of the lawyers and others of that day are decidedly against Mr. Bee’s monopoly of biblical criticism, the parties in 1668 agreed to refer to two of his majesty’s privy-council, the marquis of Dorchester and the earl of Anglesey, who determined in favour of Mr. Pool, and, as it would seem, even to the satisfaction of Mr. Bee, whose name appears, as a vender in the title-page of vol. I. published in 1669. Pool had previously obtained his majesty’s patent, expressed in the same terms as that granted to Bee for the “Critici Sacri,” forbidding the printing of the “Synopsis” either in whole or in part, without his leave, for the space of fourteen years, under penalty of confiscation, &c. This is dated Oct. 14, 1667.

We have said that Mr. Pool intended to have comprized the whole in 3 vols. folio, for which the subscription price was 4l. but he had not proceeded far before he found that he had made a wrong calculation, and that it would be necessary to add a fourth. This appears to have given him great uneasiness, for he considered his first proposals as implying a sacred and inviolable compact. As soon therefore, as he perceived his error, he issued “A Proposition” concerning this fourth volume, plainly showing that it was unavoidably necessary, but at the same time betraying very serious apprehensions as to the fate of it. His subscribers, however, soon dissipated his fears, and the bishops and other divines who had originally recommended the work to the public, being now better acquainted with his merit in executing it, and with the plan he had adopted, again came forward with a new and liberal testimonial in his favour. To the former names of his clerical patrons were now added those of Dr. Mews, Dr. Allestree, Dr. Pocock, Dr. Pearson, &c. The price of this volume to subscribers was 1/, and when it became farther necessary to extend it to the size of two, as usually bound, he left it to his subscribers 7 option to receive the fifth without paying more, or, if they pleased, to contribute another sum of ten shillings. He even hopes that this last will be the case, and trusts that “he shall not be censured by any ingenuous person, as a transgressor of the rules either of justice or modesty.” The number printed, of the whole work was four thousand, and it was so favourably received that before the fifth volume appeared, there were not two hundred copies of the preceding four unsold. And notwithstanding many hindrances of the press, &c. for which Mr. Pool thought it his duty to be frequently apologizing, the other volumes appeared in the following order; vol. I. in 1669, vol. II. in 1671, vol. III. in 1673, vol. IV. in 1674, and vol. V. in 1676, the whole in about seven years, during which, according to his own account, he had very little copy before-hand, but continued supplying two presses with incredible diligence. Calamy informs us, that while employed on this work, “his common rule was to rise very early in the morning, about three or four o'clock; and take a raw egg about eight or nine, and another about twelve, and then continue his studies till the afternoon was pretty far advanced, when he went abroad, and spent the evening at some friend’s house in cheerful conversation;” in which, he observes, “he was very facetious, as well as very true to his friend.” It may be doubted whether the British press of the eighteenth century has produced many works of equal risk and value with Walton’s “Polyglot,” the “Critici Sacri,” and the “Synopsis.” The price of the two latter has within these few years advanced very considerably; but the reputation of the “Synopsis” seems to have been longer preserved abroad than in this country. Notwithstanding the impression extended to four thousand, many of which were probably disposed of on the continent, a second edition was printed at Francfort in 1678, 5 vols. fol. and a third at Utrecht, edited by Leusden, in 1686. A fourth edition was printed at Francfort in 1694, in 5 vols. 4to, in a very small type, and a fifth at the same place in 1709, 6 vols. folio. This last, as well as the former has additions and improvements, criticisms on the Apocrypha, and a defence of the learned author against the censures of father Simon.

It has been said that Pool lived and died a single man. This, however, was not the case. Niceron tells us that he had a son who died in 1697, a piece of information whicli he probably took from the account of Mr. Pool, prefixed to the Francfort edition of the “Synopsis,” 1694; and in Smith’s Obituary (in Peck’s “Desiderata”) we have a notice of the burial, Aug. 11, 1668, of “Mrs. Poole (wife to Mr. Matthew Poole preacher), at St. Andrew’s Holbornj Dr. Stillingfleet preacher of her funeral sermon.”

He was taught to read by an aunt who was particularly fond of him, and to write by copying printed books, which he did all his life with great skill and dexterity, although his ordinary hand was far from elegant. At the age of eight he was placed under the care of Taverner, a Homish priest, who taught him the rudiments of the Greek antfi Latin languages at the same time, a method very rarely practised. Having improved considerably under Taverner, he was sent to a celebrated seminary of catholics at Twyford, near Winchester - y but in consequence of his writing a lampoon on his master, one of his first efforts in poetry, he was again removed to a school kept near Hyde-parkcorner. His master’s name here is not mentioned by any of his biographers, but it was probably John Bromley, who was curate of St. Giles’s in the fields in the beginning of James II. 's reign, soon after became a decided catholic, and losing his employment at the revolution, taught a school with good reputation. Dodd was infornaed that Pope was one of his pupils. Before his removal to this last place he had been much a reader of Ogilby’s Homer, and Sandys 7 Ovid, and frequently spoke, in the latter part of his life, of the exquisite pleasure which the perusal of these two writers gave him. He now had an opportunity of visiting the playhouse, and became so delighted with theatrical exhibitions, that he formed a kind of play from, the chief events of the Iliad as related by Ogilby, with some verses of his own intermixed. He persuaded a few of the upper boys to act in this piece; the master’s gardener represented the character of Ajax; and the actors were dressed after the pictures of his favourite Ogilby, which indeed were designed and engraved by artists of note.

How early Pope began to write cannot be ascertained some think the “Ode to Solitude,” written at twelve years of age, was his earliest production but Dodsley, who lived in intimacy with him, had seen pieces of a still earlier date. I At fourteen, he employed himself in some of those transis lations and imitations which appear in the first volume of his works and still zealous in the prosecution of his poetical studies, he appears at this time ambitious to exhibit specimens of every kind of poetry. He wrote a comedy, a tragedy, and an epic poem, with panegyrics on all the princes of Europe; and, as he confesses, “thought himself the greatest genius that ever was.” Most, however, of these puerile productions he afterwards destroyed. At sixteen he wrote his “Pastorals,” which laid the foundation of lasting hostility between Philips and himself, but were the means of introducing him to the acquaintance and friendship of Sir William Trumbull, who had formerly been much, in public life, as a statesman, and was then retired within a short distance of Binfield. TrwnbuH, who was pleased to find in his neighbourhood a youth of such abilities and taste as young Pope, circulated his “Pastorals” among his friends, and introduced him to Wycherley and Walsh, and the wits of that time. They were not however published until 1709, and then only in Tonsori’s Miscellany. Of their poetical merit, it seems now agreed that their chief excellence lies in correctness and melody of versification, and that the discourse prefixed to them, although much of it is borrowed from Rapin and other authors, is elegantly and elaborately written. From this time the life of Pope, as an author, may be computed, and having now declared himself a candidate for fame, and entitled to mix with his brethren, he began at the age of seventeen to frequent the places where they used to assemble. This was done without much interruption to his studies, his own account of which was, that from fourteen to twenty he read only for amusement, from twenty to twenty-seven for improvement and instruction that in the first part of his time he desired only to know, and in the second he endeavoured to judge. His next performance greatly increased his reputation this was the “Essay on Criticism,” written in 1709, and published in 1711, which Dr. Johnson has characterized, as displaying “such extent of comprehension, such nicety of distinction, such acquaintance with mankind, and such knowledge both of ancient and modern learning, as are not often attained hy the maturest age and longest experience.” It found its way, however, rather slowly into the world but when the author had sent copies to Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Buckingham, and other great men, it began to be called for. It was in this “Essay” he made his attack on Dennis, which provoked those hostilities between them that never were completely appeased. Dennis’s reply was sufficiently coarse, but he appears to have been the first who discovered that leading characteristic of Pope, his propensity to talk too frequently of his own virtues, and that sometimes when they were least visible' to others.

The “Messiah” appeared first in the Spectator, 1712, with a warm recommendation -. by Steele, and raised the highest expectations of what the author was capable of performing; but he was not so happy in his “Ode on St. Cecilia’s Day.” This was followed by the beautiful little ode, “The Dying Christian to his Soul,” written at Steele’s desire, to-be set to music. In this he owns his obligations to the verses of Adrian, and the fragment of Sappho, but says nothing of Flatman, whose ode he not only imitated, but copied some lines of it verbatim. - The very pathetic “Elegy to the memory of an unfortunate Lady” was probably written about thistime, but who the lady was remains a matter of conjecture. One story, in a note appended to Dr. Johnson’s life of Pope, is, that her name was Withinbury, or Winbury that she was in love with Pope, and would have married him that her guardian, though she was deformed in person, looking upon such a match as beneath her, sent her to a convent, &c. where she committed suicide but all this has been contradicted, and nothing substituted in its room much more worthy of belief.

Having amply established his fame by so many excellent, and by two incomparable, poems, the “Rape of the J-oc]t” and the “Eloisa,” he now meditated what Warton, somewhat incautiously, calls “a higher effort,” his translation of Homer. A higher effort it certainly was not than the poems just mentioned, but we may allow it was “something that might improve and advance his fortune as well as his fame.” A clamour was raised at the time that he had uot sufficient learning for such an undertaking and Dr. Johnson says, that considering his irregular education, and course of life, it is not very likely that he overflowed with Greek but this, it is known, he supplied by the aid of his friends, or by scholars employed, of whom he had no personal knowledge, as the celebrated Dr. Jortin, who, when a soph at Cambridge, made extracts from Eustathius for his notes. This translation Pope proposed to publish by subscription, in six vols. 4to. at the price of six guineas, and his list of subscribers soon amounted to 575, who engaged for 654 copies. The greatness of the design, and popularity of the author, and the attention of the literary world, naturally raised such expectations of the future sale, that the booksellers made their, offers with great eagerness but the hi-ghest bidder was Bernard Lintot, who became proprietor, on condition of supplying, at his own expence, all the copies which were to be delivered to subseribeYs, 4or pre,­sentecl to friends, and paying 200l. for every volume, so ­that Pope obtained, on the whole, the sum of 5S20J. 4s. Thk money he partly laid out in annuities, particularly one of 200l. a year, or as some say 500l. from the Duke of Buckingham, and partly in the purchase of a house at Twickenham, to which he now removed, having persuaded his father to sell his little property at Binfield.

During the publication of the Iliad, Pope found leisure to gratify his favourite passion of laying out grounds, which he displayed with great taste and judgment at his newly purchased house at Twickenham. This spot was visited and admired by the first men of this country, and frequently by Frederick, prince of Wales, who contributed some ornamental articles and for nearly a century it continued to be an object of curiosity; but in 1807 the house was entirely pulled down, and the grounds, from the many alterations they have undergone, can no longer be associated with the taste and skill of Pope* Here in 1717 his father died, after having lived to spend thie greater part of the 20,000l. which he acquired in trade, but which, being disaffected to government, he would not trust in any of its funds, and therefore he went on consuming the principal. His son celebrated him with equal elegance, tenderness, and gratitude, in the “Epistle to Arbuthnot.” The year before he had published in folio a collection of all his poems, with that sensible preface whichnow usually stands at the. head of his works.

Soon after this Pope issued proposals for a translation of the “Odvssey” but of this he performed only twelve books, namely the third, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-fourth. The rest were translated by Fenton and Broome, and Pope is said to have given the former three hundred, and the latter five hundred pounds for their assistance; but as the number of subscribers equalled that of the Iliad, his own profits must have been very considerable. About this time he was full of grief and anxiety, on account of the impeachment of his friend bishop Atterbury, for whom he seems to have felt the greatest affection and regard; and being summoned before the Lords at the trial, to give some account of At* lerbury’s domestic life and employments, not being used to speak in a large assembly, he made several blunders in the few words he had to utter. It is remarkable that the day which deprived him of Atterbury, restored to him another friend, Bolingbroke, who continued in habits of intimacy with him during the whole of his life.

In 1727, Swift, who had long corresponded withhiai, coming to England, joined with Pope in publishing in 4 vols. 8vo, their miscellanies in prose and verse. To these Pope wrote a preface, complaining, among other instances, of the ill usage he had received front booksellers, and of the liberty one of them (Curll) had taken in this same year to publish his juvenile letters, purchased from a Mrs. Thomas, a mistress of his correspondent Mr. Cromwell. Pope had been intimate with this lady in his young days, but was now so seriously hurt at the publication of his letters, although he knew that she did it from distress, that he took a severe revenge in a poem called “Corinna,” and in the “Dunciad,” which appeared in the following year. The object of this celebrated satire was to crush all his adversaries in a mass, by one strong and decisive blow. His own account of this attempt is very minutely related by Pope himself, in a dedication which he wrote to Lord Middlesex, under the name of Savage the poet, who assisted Pope in finding out many particulars of these adversaries. If we may credit this narrative, Pope contemplated his victory over Dunces with great exultation and such, says Dr. Johnson, was his delight in the tumult he had raised, that for a while his natural sensibility was suspended, and he read reproaches and invectives without emotion, considering them only as the necessary effects of that pain which he rejoiced in having given. He would not however have long indulged this reflection, if all the persons he classed among the Dunces had possessed the spirit which animated some of them. Ducket demanded and obtained satisfaction for a scandalous imputation on his moral character and Aaron Hill expostulated with Pope in a manner so much superior to all mean solicitation, that Pope “was reduced to sneak and shuffle, sometimes to deny, and sometimes to apologize: he first endeavours to wound, and is then afraid to own that he meant a blow.” There are likewise some names introduced in this poem with disrespect which could receive no injury from such an attack. His placing the learned Bentley among dunces, could have occurred to Pope only in the moment of his maddest revenge Bentiey had spoken truth of the translation of the Iliad he said it was “a fine poem, but not Homer.” This, which has ever since been the opinion of the learned world, was not to be refuted by the contemptuous lines in which Bentley is mentioned in the “Dunciad.” On the other hand, the real Dunces, who are the majority in this poem, were beneath the notice of a man who now enjoyed higher fame than any poetical contemporary, and greater popularity, and greater favour with men of rank. But it appears’ to have been Pope’s opinion that insignificance should be no protection, that even neutrality should not be safe, and that whoever did not worship the deity he had set up, should be punished. Accordingly we find in this poem contemptuous allusions to persons who had given no open provocation, and were nowise concerned in the author’s literary contests. The “Dunciad” indeed seems intended as a general receptacle for all his resentments, just or unjust; and we find that in subsequent editions he altered, arranged, or added to his stock, as he found, or thought he found new occasion; and the hero of the “Dunciad,” who was at first Theobald, became at last Gibber.

The “Dunciad” first appeared in 1729; and two years after, Pope produced his “Epistle to Richard Earl of Burlington, occasioned by his publishing Palladio’s designs of the Baths, Arches, Theatres, &c. of ancient Rome, &c.” Of the merit of this highly-finished poern, there is no difference of opinion but it gave rise to an attack on Pope’s private character which was not easily repelled. Dr. Warton says, “The gang of scribblers immediately rose up together, and accused him of malevolence and ingratitude, in having ridiculed the house, gardens, chapel, and dinners, of the Duke of Chandos at Canons (who had lately, as they affirmed, been his benefactor) under the name of Timon. He peremptorily and positively denied the charge, and wrote an exculpatory letter to the Duke, with the asseverations of which letter, as the last Duke of Chandos told me, his ancestor was not perfectly satisfied.” It was not therefore the “gang of scribblers” who brought this accusation, but all the family and connections of the Duke of Chandos, and no defence has yet been advanced which can induce any impartial reader to think the accusation unjust. What seems to have injured Pope most at the time was, that the excuses he offered were of the same shuffling kind which he employed in the case of Aaron Hill, and which, wherever employed, have the effect of doubling the guilt of the convict. This was one of the circumstances which induce us to think that Pope greatly injured his personal character by the indiscriminate attacks in his “Dunciad,” and by the opinion he seems to have taken up that no man was out of his reach.

In 1732, Pope published his epistle “On the use of Riches,” addressed to Lord Bathurst, which he has treated in so masterly a way, as to have almost exhausted the subject. His observation of human life and manners was indeed most extensive, and his delineations most exact and perfect. It is very hazardous to come after him in any subject of ethics which he has handled. Between this year and 1734, he published the four parts of his celebrated “Essay on Man,” the only work from his pen which equally engaged the attention of the moral, the theological, and the poetical world. He appears himself to have had some fears respecting it, for it appeared without his name, and yet it is wonderful that the style and manner did not betray him. When discovered it was still read ds an excellent poem, abounding in splendid and striking sentiments of religion and virtue, until Crousjaz endeavoured to prove, and not unsuccessfully, that it contained tenets more favourable to natural than to revealed religion. Crousaz was answered by a writer who a considerable time before had produced and read a dissertation against the doctrines of the “Essay on Man,” but now appeared as their vigorous defender. This was the learned and justly celebrated Warburton, who wrote a series of papers in the monthly journals called “The Republic of Letters” and “The Works of the Learned,” 'Which were afterwards collected into a volume. Pope was so delighted with this vindication, that he eagerly sought the acquaintance of Warburton, and told him he understood his opinions better than he did himself; which may be true, if, as commonly understood, Bolingbroke furnished those subtle principles by which Pope at first, and his readers afterwards, were deceived. The consequence* of this acquaintance tp Warburton were indeed momentous, for Pope introduced him to Murray, afterwards the celebrated Lord Mansfield, by whose interest he became preacher at Lincoln’s Inn and to Mr. Allen, “who gave him his niece and his estate, and by consequence a bishopric” and when he died he left him the property of his works.

Few pieces, in Warton’s opinion, can be found that, for depth of thought and penetration into the human mind and heart, excel the Epistle to lord Cobham, which Pope published in 1733, and which produced from his lordship two very sensible letters on the subjects and characters introduced in that epistle. In the same year appeared the first of our author’s Imitations of Horace, and in 1734, the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, which was considerably altered. It was first called “A Prologue to the Satires,” and then “A Dialogue.” Pope did not always write with a decided preference of form or manner, for his admirable poem pa “The Use of Riches” he called an epistle to lord Bathurst, although that nobleman is introduced as speaking, and speaking so insignificantly, that, as Warton informs us, he never mentioned the poem without disgust. Pope’s affectionate mention of his mother in this Epistle to Arbuthnot must always be quoted to his honour. Of all his moral qualities, filial affection was most predominant. He then, in 1735, produced the Epistle on the “Characters of Women,” in an advertisement to which he asserted that no one character was drawn from life. Pope had already lost some credit with the public for veracity, and this assertion certainly was not believed, nor perhaps did he wish it to be believed, for in a note he informed his readers that the work was imperfect, because part of his subject was tt Vice too high" to be yet exposed. This is supposed to allude to the character of the first duchess of Marlborough under the name of Atossa, which was inserted after her death, in a subsequent edition, although Pope received £1000 from her to suppress it. This is said to rest on the sole authority of the late Horace Walpole, lord Orford but if told by him as we find it in Warton’s and Bowles’s editions of Pope’s works, it confutes itself. The fact as they relate it is, that Pope received £lOOO. from the duchess, promising on these terms to suppress the character, and that he took the money and then published it. But Pope could not have published it, for it did not appear, according to Warton’s account, until 1746, two years after his death I It might then probably have been found among Mr. Pope’s Mss. and inserted without any great blame by those who knew nothing of the bargain with the duchess, if there was even such a bargain.

"Such care had been taken to make them public, that they were sent at once to two booksellers; to Curll, who was likely to seize them as a prey; and to Lintot, who might be expected to give Pope information of the seeming injury. Lintot, I believe, did nothing; and Curll did what was expected. That to make them public was the only purpose, may be reasonably supposed, because the numbers offered to sale by the private messenger, shewed that hope of gain could not have been the motive of the impression. __

Returning to his more original publications, Pope nowissued those two dialogues which were named, from the year in which they appeared, “Seventeen hundred and thirty eight,” and are among the bitterest of satires. Ever/ species of sarcasm and mode of style are here alternately employed ridicule, reasoning, irony, mirth, seriousness, lamentation, laughter, familiar imagery, and high poetical painting. Although many persons in power were highly provoked, he does not appear to have been very directly menaced with a prosecution; but Paul Whitehead, who about this time wrote his “Manners,” and his publisher Dodsley, were called to an account, which was supposed to have been intended rather to intimidate Pope, than to punish Wintehead> and Pope appears to have taken the hint; for he discontinued a Third Dialogue, which he had begun, and never afterwards attempted to join the patriot with the poet. He had been led into this by his connection with the prince of Wales and the opposition, but he could not have long been of service to them. Had they come into office, he must have been either silent, or offensive, for he was both a Jacobite and a papist. Dr. Johnson says very justly that he was entangled in the opposition now, and had forgot the prudence with which he passed, in his earlier years, uninjured and unoffending, through much more violent conflicts of faction.

Ceasing therefore from politics, for which he was so unfit, he amused himself, in 1740, in republishing “Selecta Carmina Italorum,” taken, withgut acknowledgement, from the collection called “Anthologia,” 1684, 12mo, attributed to Atterbury, falsely, as Warton asserts, but justly accorcling to every other opinion. The work however is more imperfect than it would have been had he consulted other collections of the kind. His last performance shewed either that his own judgment was impaired, or that he yielded too easily to thatot Warburton, who now ad vised him to write the fourth book of the “Dunciad” and in 1743 he betrayed a yet greater want of judgment by printing a new edition of the Dunciad, in which he placed Cibber in the room of Theobald, forgetting how opposite their characters were. He had before this introduced Cibber with contemptuous mention in his satires, and Cibber resented both insults in two pamphlets which gave Pope more uneasiness than he was willing to allow.

In constitution he was constantly a valetudinarian. His person was deformed, and he was so feeble as not to be able to dress or undress himself without assistance. Such a state of body generally produces a certain degree of irritability and peevishness, which must naturally be greatly exasperated by a life of literary warfare. This was surely not the proper life for a man who, in his private habits was capricious and offensive, and who expected that every thing should give way to his humour. He was thus provoking contradictions, and risking mortifications, from which he. might have been free, if he could have lived on his own. ample treasures of genius and fame. But if Pope created enemies, he also conciliated friends, and had a pleasure in enumerating the men of high rank with whom he was acquainted, and to gain whose favour he practised no meanness or servility. It is indeed allowed that he never flattered those whom he did not love, or praised those whom he did not esteem. And as, from his infirmities and his capricious habits, he must have been a very disagreeable guest, his frequent reception in the houses and at the tables of men of high rank is a proof that there was much in his character to admire or esteem, and a presumption that some of the failings which have been reported of him may have been exaggerated by his enemies. “A man,” says his ablest biographer, “of such exalted superiority, and so little moderation, would naturally have all his delinquencies observed and aggravated: and those who could not deny that he was excellent, would rejoice to find that he was not perfect.” Unfortunately some of those imperfections were too obvious for concealment. Pope was, among other instances, with all his defects of person, a man of gallantry, and besides his presumptuous and ridiculous love for lady Mary Wortley Montague, carried on an intercourse with the Misses Blount, which certainly was not of the Platonic kind. From the account given by Mr. Bowles, in his recent Life of Pope, and the new Letters published in Mr. Bowles’s edition of his works, no great obscurity now rests on the nature of that connection.

This transient notice of the Misses Blount leads to a remark that he was not always fortunate in his friendships. Martha Blount, to whom he was most attached, deserted him in his last illness and Bolingbroke, whom we have seen weeping over the dying bard, and pouring out the effusions of the warmest affection for the friend he was about to lose, soon employed the hireling Mallet to blacken Pope’s character in the very article for which he thought him most estimable, the purity and honour of his friendships. We have already noticed this affair in our account of Mallet, (vol. XXI. p. 195,) and shall now only briefly say that, on Pope’s death, it was disclosed to Lord Bolingbroke by Mallet, who had his information from a printer, that Pope had printed an edition of the Essay on a “Patriot King.” But, as there has been much misconception and misrepresentation respecting this affair, we are happy to bd able, in this place, to state the circumstances attending it on unquestionable authority, that of a gentleman to whom the following particulars were more than once related by the late earl of Marchmont, and who, besides the obliging communication of them, has conferred the additional favour of permitting us to use his name, the Right Hon. George Rose.

"The Essay (on the Patriot King) was undertaken at the pressing instance of lord Cornbury, very warmly supported by the earnest entreaties of lord Marchmont, with which lord Bolingbroke at length complied. When it was written, it was shewn to the two lords, and one other confidential friend, who were so much pleased with it, that they did not cease their importunities to have it published, till his lordship, after much hesitation, consented to print it; with a positive determination, however, against a publication at that time, assigning, as his reason, that the work was not finished in such a way as he wished it to be, before it went into the world.

“Qn th circumstance being made known to lord Bolingbroke, who was then a guest in his own house at Battersea with lord Marchmont, to whom he had lent it for two or three years, his lordship was in great indignation; to appease which, lord Marchmont sent Mr. Grevenkop (a German gentleman who had travelled with him, and was afterwards in the household of lord Chesterfield when lord lieutenant of Ireland,) to bring out the whole edition, of which a bonfire was instantly made on the terrace at Battersea.” This plain unvarnished tale, our readers will probably think, tends very much to strengthen the vindication which Warburton offered for his deceased friend, although he was ignorant of the concern Allen had in the matter; but it will be difficult to find an excuse for Bolingbroke, who, forgetting the honourable mention of him in Pope’s will, a thing quite incompatible with any hostile intention towards him, could employ such a man as Mallet to blast the memory of Pope by telling a tale of "breach of faith/ 1 with every malicious aggravation, and artfully concealing what he must have known, since lord Marchmont knew it, the share Allen had in the edition* of the Patriot King.

Some of these appointments, it is probable, he owed ta Sir Thomas More, with whom he was early acquainted, and some to lord Audley, both lord chancellors,; but in 1539 he received one of greater importance, being constituted by the king, treasurer of the court of augmentations. on its first establishment byact of parliament. The business of this court was, to estimate the lands of the dissolved monasteries, vested in the crown, receive their revenues, and sell the monastic possessions for the king’s service 5 and it was so called from the increase which the royal revenue thus received. The treasurer’s office was a post of considerable profit, and of considerable dignity, as the person holding it ranked with the principal officers of state, and was privileged to retain in his house a chaplain, having a benefice with cure of souls, who should not be compelled to residence. What the emoluments of this office were, is not s,o clear, but they were greater than the allowance of sir John Williams, treasurer in Edward Vlth’s reign, who had 320l. yearly: and it may be supposed the office gave those advantages in the purchase of the dissolved possessions which probably formed the foundation of sir Thomas’s vast fortune.

Sir Thomas Pope was thrice married. His first wife was Elizabeth Gunston, from whom he was divorced July 11, 1536. His second was Margaret Dodmer, widow, to whom he was married July 17, 1536. Her maiden name was Townsend, a native of Stamford in Lincolnshire, and the relict of Ralph Dodmer, knight, sheriff and lord-mayor of London. By sir Thomas Pope she had only one daughter, Alice, who died very young, but she had two sons by her former husband, whom sir Thomas treated as his own. She died in 1538, after which, in 1540, he married Elizabeth the daughter of Walter Blount, esq. of Blount’s Hall, in Staffordshire. She was at that time the widow of Anthony Basford, or Beresford, esq. of Bently, in Derbyshire, by whom she had one son, but no children by sir Thomas Pope. After Sir Thomas’s death she married sir Hugh Powlett, of Hinton St. George, in Somersetshire, the son of sir Amias Powlett, who was confined in the Temple by the order of cardinal Wolsey. Sir Hugh joined her cordially in her regard and attentions to the college, of which she was now styled the foundress. She died at an advanced age, Oct. 27, 1593, at Tyttenhanger, in Hertfordshire, the favourite seat of sir Thomas Pope, and was interred, in solemn pomp, in the chapel of Trinity college.

Mr. Warton’s character of sir Thomas Pope must not be omitted, as it is the result of a careful examination of his public and private conduct. He appears to have been a man eminently qualified for business; and although not employed in the very principal departments of state, he possessed peculiar talents and address for the management and execution of public affairs. His natural abilities were strong, his knowledge of the world deep and extensive, his judgment solid and discerning. His circumspection and prudence in the conduct of negociations entrusted to his charge, were equalled by his fidelity and perseverance. He is a conspicuous instance of one, not bred to the church, who, without the advantages of birth and patrimony, by the force of understanding and industry, raised himself, to opulence and honourable employments. He lived in an age when the peculiar circumstances of the times afforded obvious temptations to the most abject desertion of principle; and few periods of our history can be found which exhibit more numerous examples of occasional compliance with frequent changes. Yet he remained unbiassed and uncorrupted amid the general depravity. Under Henry VIII. when on the dissolution of the monasteries he was enabled by the opportunities of his situation to enrich himself with their revenues by fraudulent or oppressive practices, he behaved with disinterested integrity; nor does a single instance occur upon record which impeaches his honour. In the succeeding reign of Edward VI. a sudden check was given to his career of popularity and prosperity: he retained his original attachment to the catholic religion; and on that account lost those marks of favour or distinction which were so liberally dispensed to the sycophants of Somerset, and which he might have easily secured by a temporary submission to the reigning system. At the accession of Mary he was restored to favour; yet he was never instrumental or active in the tyrannies of that queen which disgrace our annals. He was armed with discretionary powers for the suppression of heretical innovations; yet he forbore to gratify the arbitrary demands of his bigoted mistress to their utmost extent, nor would he participate in forwarding the barbarities of her bloody persecutions. In the guardianship of the princess Elizabeth, the unhappy victim of united superstition, jealousy, revenge, and cruelty, his humanity prevailed over his interest, and he less regarded the displeasure of the vigilant and unforgiving queen, than the claims of injured innocence. If it be his crime to have accumulated riches, let it be remembered, that he consecrated a part of those riches, not amid the terrors of a death-bed, nor in the dreams of old age, but in the prime of life, and the vigour of understanding, to the public service of his country; that he gave them to future generations for the perpetual support of literature and religion.

On St. Swithin’s day, July 15, 1556, the founder visited his college, accompanied by the bishops of Winchester and Ely, Whyte and Thirlby, and other eminent personages, who were entertained sumptuously in the hall, the whole expenses of which were paid by him to the bursar on the same day. Nor was this a singular act of liberality, for it appears that during his life-time he paid all the university expences of degrees, regencies, and determinations, for the fellows and scholars. He also continued to send various articles of rich furniture for the chapel and hall, and a great quantity of valuable plate, and made considerable additions to the permanent endowment, by new revenues for five obits or dirges, yearly, to be sung and celebrated ss festivals in his college. About the same time he founded four additional scholarships, from the endowment of the school intended to have been established at Hokenorton, but which intention he now abandoned, thinking it more beneficial to the public to increase the number of scholars in the university. In December 1557, he announced his intention of building a house at Garsington, near Oxford, to which the society might retire in time of the plague. This was built after his death, pursuant to his will, in a quadrangular form; and it appears from the college books that they took refuge here in 1570-1, and again in 1577. On the former occasion they were visited by sir Hugh Powlett. At this house they performed the same exercises, both of learning and devotion, as when in college. In 1563, before this house was completed, they retired, during a plague, to Woodstock.

Dr. Pope was a man of humour and a satirist, and in both characters had published in 1670 the “Memoirs of Mons. Du Vail, with his last speech and epitaph.” Du Vail was a notorious highwayman, who was hanged in 1669 at Tyburn, and having been much admired and bewailed by the ladies, our author by this piece of biography endeavoured to cure them of such weakness or affectation, and to direct their esteem to more worthy objects. In 1693, he published his well-known song called “The Wish,” or “The Old Man’s Wish,” which may be seen in Mr. Nichols’s collection of Miscellany Poems, and perhaps in every collection of English songs. Vincent Bourne wrote a beautiful imitation of it in Latin. This wish seems to have been in some measure accomplished in his own case, for in his life of bishop Ward, published in 1697, he says, “I thank God, I am arriv‘d to a good old age without gout, or stone, with my external senses but little decayed; and my intellectuals, tho’ none of the best, yet as good as ever they were.” In the following year he was involved in a tedious law-suit, which gave him much uneasiness, but what the subject was, his biographer has not discovered. In 1699 he withdrew from the Royal Society, designing Yery probably to retire into the country, and enjoy himself in some respects agreeably to his “Wish.” Accordingly he spent much of his time afterwards at Epsom, but at last settled in Bunhill fields, then a suburb of London, where he died, in a very advanced age, in June 1714, and was buried in the church of St. Giles’s Cripplegate.

, an English lawyer of eminence, was the eldest son of Edward Popham, esq. of Huntworth in Somersetshire, and born in 1531. He was some time a student at Baliol college in Oxford, being then, as Wood says, given at leisure hours to manly sports and exercises. When he removed to the Middle Temple, he is said at first to have led a dissipated life, but applying diligently afterwards to the study of the law, he rose to some of its highest honours. He was made serjeant at law about 1570, solicitor-general in 1579, and attorney-general in 1581, when he also bore the office of treasurer of the Middle Temple. In 1592, he was promoted to the rank of chief justice of the court of king’s-bench; not of the common pleas, as, from some expressions of his own, has been erroneously supposed, and at the same time he was knighted. In 1601 he was one of the lawyers detained by the unfortunate earl of Essex, when he formed the absurd project of defending himself in his house; and on the earl’s trial gave evidence against him relative to their detention. He died in 1607, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried at Wellington in his native country, where he had always resided as much as his avocations would permit. He was esteemed a severe judge in the case of robbers; but his severity was welltimed, as it reduced the number of highwaymen, who before had greatly infested the country. If Aubrey may be credited, his general character was liable to many serious exceptions. His works are, 1. “Reports and Cases, adjudged in the time of queen Elizabeth,” London, 1656, fol. 2. “Resolutions and Judgements upon Cases and Matters agitated in all the Courts at Westminster in the latter end of queen Elizabeth,” London, 4to. Both lord Holt and chief justice Hyde considered the Reports as of no authority.

, a Neapolitan of the fifteenth century, is said to have been a swineherd in his youth, from which circumstance he had the name of Porcellus. He was born about 1400, and therefore could not have lived in the time of Petrarch, as Vossius and Baillet have asserted. How he emerged from obscurity is not known, but it is certain that he calls himself secretary to the king of Naples, and was much esteemed by Frederic, duke of Urbino, a celebrated general, who died 1482. He was also in the Venetian army in 1452, which gave him occasion to write the history of count James Picinini, who fought for the Venetians at his own expence, and not only honoured Porcellus with his esteem, but lodged him in his house, and admitted him daily to hisiable. Muratori published this fragment of history, 1731, in vol. XX. of his historical collections. He had written a supplement to it which remains in ms. and some Epigrams, in a simple and natural style, which were printed with other Italian poems, Paris, 1539, 8vo. He died some time after 1452.

, known by the former name, from the village of Pordenone, about twentyfive miles from Udino, in which he was born in 1484, had a strong talent for historical painting, which he carried to a high degree of perfection, without any other aid than the careful study of the works of Giorgione. He painted at first in fresco, but afterwards in oil, and was particularly distinguished by his skill in foreshortening his figures. His invention was fertile, his taste good, his colouring not unlike that of Titian, and his designs had the merit of uniting force and ease. A strong emulation subsisted between him and Titian and it is certainly no small merit that he was able to sustain any competition with such a master. It is said, however, that they who endeavoured to support him in this rivalship, were actuated by malignity and envy towards Titian. It is related also, that when he worked in the same town with Titian, he was so afraid of the effects of his jealousy, that he never walked out without arms offensive and defensive. Pordenone painted at Genoa for prince Doria, but did not there give entire satisfaction; he then returned to Venice, and was afterwards invited to Ferrara by the duke of that state, from whom he received many signal marks of favour and esteem. He died in 1540, at the age of fifty-six, and his death has been by some authors attributed to poison given by some painters at Ferrara, jealous of the distinctions he received at court. The most considerable picture which Rome possesses of him, is that with the portraits of his family, in the palace Borghese. But perhaps his most splendid work in oil is the altar-piece at S. Maria dell' Orto, at Venice, which represents a S. Lorenzo Giustiniani, surrounded by other saints, among whom a St. John Baptist surprises no less by correctness of forms, than a St. Augustin by a boldness of foreshortening which makes his arm start from the canvas.

The frescoes of Pordenone are spread over the towns and castles of Friuli some are found at Mantua, Genoa, Venice, but the best-preserved ones are at Piacenza and Cremona. In these he is not always equal, but all bear marks of innate vigour and bold conception of a mind, as eager to form as to resolve difficulties in variety of expression, singularity of perspective, novelty of fore-shortening, and magic resources of chiaroscuro. He had an imitator in Bernardino Licinio, who from the surname may be supposed to have been related to him: and Sandrart mentions, in a high strain of praise, Giulio Licinio de Pordenone, as his nephew and scholar; who, according to that author, quitted Venice, and left frescoes of extraordinary beauty at Augsburg.

, a zealous and learned Jesuit, was born in 1675, at Vendees, near Caen, and after pursuing his theological studies at Paris, in 1708, he was nominated to the chair of rhetoric in the college of Louis le Grand, which he filled with great diligence, success, and reputation, for thirty-three years, and formed many pupils that did honour to the instructions of their master. He died in 1741, at the age of sixty-six. His writings are numerous, chiefly in the Latin language there are two “Collections of Harangues,” published in 1735 and 1747 also six Latin tragedies and five Latin comedies. He was also author of several fugitive pieces in prose and verse. He had a brother, Charles Gabriel, who died in 1770, at the age of 85, a considerable writer, but known principally for a work entitled “Nouvelles Liieraires de Caen,” in 3 vols. 8vo, being a collection of pieces in prose and verse, written by the academicians of that city, and also for “Forty-four Dissertations on different subjects,” read before the academy of Caen, of which he was a member more than thirty years.

, a philosopher of great name among the ancients, was born A. D. 233, in the reign of Alexander Severus. He was of Tyre, and had the name of Malchus, in common with his father, who was a Syrophcenician. St. Jerome and St. Augustin' have called him Bataneotes whence Fabricius suspects, that the real place of his nativity was Batanea, a town of Syria and that he was carried thence with a colony to Tyre. His father very early introduced him to the study of literature and philosophy under the Christian preceptor Origen, probably while he was teaching at Caesarea in Palestine. He then went to Athens, where he had the famous Longinus for his master in rhetoric, who changed his Syrian name Malchus, as not very pleasing to Grecian ears, into that of Porphyrius, which answers to it in Greek. It is in a great measure owing to this able teacher, that we find so many proofs of erudition, and so much elegance of style, in the writings of PorphyFrom this time, we have little information concerning him until he proceeded to Rome, where, at thirty years of age, he heard Plo'tinus, whose life he has written, and inserted in it many particulars concerning himself*. Five years after, he went to reside at Lilybseum in Sicily, on which account he is sometimes called Siculus and here, as Eusebius and Jerome relate, he composed those famous books against the Christians, which, for the name and authority of the man, and for the acuteness and learning with, which they were written, were afterwards thought so considerable, as to be suppressed by particular edicts, under the reigns of Constantine and Theodosius. Some have surmised, that these books are still extant, and secretly preserved in the Duke of Tuscany’s library; but there is little doubt that they were destroyed by the mistaken zeal of the Christians. The circumstances of Porphyrius’s life, after his arrival in Sicily, are little known except that he died at Rome, towards the end of Dioclesiari’s reign, about the year 304. Some have imagined that he was. in the early part of his life a Christian, but afterwards, through some disgust or other, deserted that profession, and became its decided enemy; while others have hinted, that he embraced Christianity when he was old, and after he had written with great acrimony against it; but for neither of these opinions is there any good authority.

him in refuting the objections of his dissuaded by his master, who advised

with the charge of methodising and man, who lived near Lilybaaum. Porcorrecting his works. The fanatical pbyrius followed the advice of Plotinus,

phyrius addicted himself,concurred with lity of his mind.“Brucker. his natural propensity towards melanwould have reaped any great benefit from these, since neither his judgment nor his integrity was equal to his learning; and neither the splendour of his diction, nor the variety of his reading, can atone for the credulity or the dishonesty, which fill the narrative parts of his works with so many extravagant tales; or interest the judicious reader in the abstruse subtleties, and mystical flights of his philosophical writings. Of his works which remain, the four following,” De abstinentia ab esu animalium“” De vita Pythagone“” Sententite ad intelligibilia ducentes“” De Antro Nymphorum“with a fragment” De Styge,“preserved by Stobaeus, were printed at Cambridge in 1655, 8vo, with a Latin version, and the Life of Porphyry subjoined, by Lucas Holstenius. The” Life of Pythagoras,“which, however, is but a fragment, has since been published by Kusterus, at Amsterdam, 1707, in 4to, in conjunction with that written by Jamblichus, who was a disciple of this philosopher. It should have been observed, that the above pieces of Pythagoras, printed at Cambridge, were published jointly with Epictetus and Arrian’s Commentary, and the Tabula Cebetis. His treatise” De Antro Nymphorum“was reprinted in Greek and Latin, with notes, by R. M. Van Goens, at Utrecht in 1765, 419; anc1jac.de Rhoer published a new edition of the treatise” De Abstinentia" at the same place in 1767.

, a late eminent Greek scholar and most accomplished critic, was born at East Ruston, in Norfolk, Dec. 25, 1759, and was first initiated in knowledge by his father, Mr. Huggin Person, the parish-clerk of East Ruston, who, though in humble life, and without the advantages himself of early education, 'laid the basis of his son’s unparalleled acquirements. From the earliest dawn of intellect, Mr. Person began the task of fixing the attention of his children, three sons and a daughter; and he had taught Richard, his eldest son, all the common rules of arithmetic, without the use of a book or slate, pen or pencil, up to the cube root, before he was nine years of age. The memory was thus incessantly exercised; and by this early habit of solving a question in arithmetic, he acquired such a talent of close and intense thinking, and such a power of arranging every operation that occupied his thought, as in process of time to render the most difficult problems, which to other men required the assistance of written figures, easy to the retentive faculties of his memory. He was initiated in letters by a process equally efficacious, and which somewhat resembled Dr. Bell’s admirable plan. His father taught him to read and write at one and the same time. He drew the form of the letter either with chalk on a board, or with the finger in sand; and Richard was made at once to understand and imitate the impression. As soon as he could speak he could trace the letters; and this exercise delighting his fancy, an ardour of imitating whatever was put before him was excited to such a degree that the walls of the house were covered with characters delineated with great neatness and fidelity. At nine years of age, he and his youngest brother, Thomas, were sent to the village school, kept by a Mr. Summers, a plain but intelligent man, who having had the misfortune in infancy to cripple his left hand, was educated for the purpose of teaching, and he discharged his duties with the most exemplary attention. He professed nothing beyond English, writing, and arithmetic but he was a good accountant, and an excellent writing-master. He perfected Mr. Richard Porson in that delightful talent of writing, in which he so peculiarly excelled but which we are doubtful whether to consider as an advantage, or a detriment to him, in his progress through life. It certainly had a considerable influence on his habits, and made him devote many precious moments in copying, which might have been better employed in composition. It has been the means, however, of enriching his library with annotations, in a text the most beautiful, and with such perfect imitation of the original manuscript or printing, as to embellish every work which his erudition enabled him to elucidate. He continued under Mr. Summers for three years; and every evening during that time he had to repeat by heart to his father the lessons and the tasks of the day; and this not in a loose or desultory manner, but in the rigorous order in which they hadbeen taught; and thus again the process of recollection was cherished and strengthened, so as to become a quality of his mind. It was impossible that such a youth should remain unnoticed, even in a place so thinly peopled, and so obscure, as the parish of East Ruston. The reverend Mr. Hewitt, vicar of the parish, heard of his extraordinary propensities to study, his gift of attention to whatever was taught him, and the wonderful fidelity with which he retained whatever he had acquired. He took him and his brother Thomas under his care, and instructed them in the classics. The progress of both was great, but that of Richard was most extraordinary, and when he had reached his fourteenth year, had engaged the notice of all the gentlemen in the vicinity. Among others, he was mentioned as a prodigy to an opulent and liberal man, the late Mr- Norris, or‘ Grosvenorplace, who, after having put him under an examination of the severest kind, from which an ordinary boy would have shrunk dismayed, sent him to Eton in August 1774, when he was in his 15th year. In that great seminary, he almost, from the commencement of his career, displayed such a superiority of intellect, such facility of acquirement, such quickness of perception, and sucli a talent of bringing forward to his purpose all that he had ever read, that the upper boys took him into their society, and promoted the cultivation of his mind by their lessons, as well, probably, as by imposing upon him the performance of their own exercises . He was courted’ by them as the never-failing resource in every difficulty and in all the playful excursions of the imagination, in their frolics, as well as in their serious tasks, Person was the constant adviser and support. He used to dwell on this lively part of his youth with peculiar complacency, and used to repeat a drama which he wrote for exhibition in their long chamber, and other compositions, both of seriousness and drollery, with a zest that the recollection of his enjoyment at the time never failed to revive in him. A very learned scholar, to whom the public was indebted for “A short account of Mr. Person,” published soon after his death, has the following remarks on his progress at Eton “By his own confession he learnt nothing, or added little to his stock, at school and perhaps for a good reason, since he had every thing that was given him to read, where he was first placed, by heart; that is, he could repeat all the Horace, and all the Virgil, commonly read at Eton, and the Iliad, and extracts from the Odyssey, Cicero, and Livy, with the Ambubaiarum of Horace, the Eclogues and Georgics, and the Culex, Ciris, and Catalecta, which they do not read. But still, though he would not own it, he was much obliged to the collision of a public school for the rapidity with which he increased his knowledge, and the correction of himself by the mistakes of others.”

In 1795, Mr. Porson married Mrs. Lunan, the sister of Mr. Perry, the proprietor and conductor of the Morning Chronicle, which had to boast of many of his fugitive pieces. This lady died, in consequence of a decline, in April 1797. He had long before enjoyed the friendship of her brother, who for many years contributed more to the comfort of Mr. Person’s life than any one man we are able to mention. Porson had a proud and independent spirit; it was difficult, therefore, to confer an obligation on him, although his situation rendered many such necessary but Mr. Perry, by a thousand acts of kindness, had completely engaged his confidence, and had the art of conferring his favours in a manner which removed the painful sense of obligation. Porson knew that Mr. Perry was perfectly disinterested, and accepted from him what he would have rejected with indignation if offered by one who assumed the airs of the patron; and Mr. Perry, by carefully studying his temper, was enabled to anticipate his wishes, and on various occasions contrived to exercise a salutary controul over his failings, which his delicacy and judgment rendered imperceptible.

When the London Institution was established, professor Porson was selected to fill the situation of principal librarian. This office, which was rewarded with a salary of 200l. a year, and a suite of rooms, provided very amply for a man in whose eyes money had little value, unless as it enabled him to pursue his studies but it was rather convenient in that view, than gratifying with respect to its duties. The number of those who in his time availed themselves of the fine library of the Institution was too small to require the assistance of such a man as Porson yet in the few instances which occurred of young men attending there for the serious purposes of study, he delighted to be their instructor; and, as one of his biographers has observed, “his mode of communication, liberal in the extreme, was truly amiable, as he told you all you wanted to know in a plain and direct manner, without any attempt to display his own superiority, but merely to inform you.” We have often been surprized that the business of tuition was never recommended to him but perhaps in this, as in other instances, the irregularity of his habits would have been a great obstruction.

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

, an eminent Florentine artist, whose surname is not known, was called Baccio dellaPorta, from a study which he kept when a youth, near a gate of the city; and this name was afterwards changed to the more celebrated one of Fra Bartolommeo di S. Marco, when he entered the order of that Dominican convent. Sometimes he is only called “il Frate.” He was born in 1469, and studied under Cosimo Roselli but soon grew enamoured of the grand chiaro-scuro of Lionardo da Vinci, and strove to emulate it. His progress was rapid, and he became the instructor of Raphael in colour, who gave him lessons in perspective, and taught him to unite gracefulness with grandeur of form. The composition of his sacred subjects, and he painted little else, is that which adhered to Raphael himself, and was not dismissed by the Florentine school before the epoch of Pontormo; but he disguised its formality by the introduction of architecture and majestic scenery. To repel the invidious charge of incapacity for large proportions, he produced the sublime figure of St. Marc, which alone fills an ample pannel, and is, or was lately, among the spoils of the Louvre. His St. Sebastian, for skill in the naked, and energy of colour, obtained every suffrage of artists and of critics, but being considered as indecent, the monks thought proper to sell and send it to France. In drapery he may be considered as an inventor; no artist of his school formed it with equal breadth or dignity, or so natural and expressive of the limits; and if he were the instructor, he was certainly not the slave, of the layman. One work of his, of prodigious grandeur and beauty, is unnoticed by Mr. Fuseli, whose account we have nearly followed hitherto, viz. the Assumption of the Virgin, at Lucca. Its situation being retired, this picture is little known to travellers, though it is one of the most sublime productions of the pencil. Mr. West, the president of the Royal Academy, has in his possession a considerable part of the Studies mentioned by Vasari as having been left to his scholar, a nun of St. Catharine at Florence; and among them several drawings for this picture and its various parts. They are accompanied by about two hundred drawings of figures, draperies, and limbs, studied from nature with great care and taste; and exhibit the industry and uncommon zeal with which he laid the basis of his justly-acquired fame. He died in 1517.

, a Neapolitan gentleman, who made himself famous by his application to letters and to science, particularly mathematics, medicine, and natural history, was born in 1445, and becoming eminent for his knowledge, held a kind of literary assembly at his house, in which, according to the notions of those times, they treated occasionally on the secrets of magic. The court of Rome on this account forbad these meetings; but his house was always the resort of literary men, foreign as well as Neapolitan. He not only established private schools for particular sciences, but to the utmost of his power promoted public academies. He had no small share in establishing the academy at Gli Ozioni, at Naples; and that in his own house, called de Secret!, was accessible only to such as had made some new discoveries in nature. He composed dramas, both tragic and comic, which had some success at the time, but are not now extant. He died in 1515. The chief of his works now extant are, 1. “De Magia naturali,” Amsterdam, 1664, 12mo; a work in which he teaches how to produce wonderful effects by natural causes but in which are some extravagances. 2. “De Physiognomia,” printed at Leyden in quarto, 1645. He judges of the physiognomy of men chiefly by comparing them to different animals and with his other fancies mixes those of judicial astrology. 3. “De occultis literarumnotis” in which he treats of the modes of writing in cypher which he does with great copiousness and diligence. 4. “Phytognomica,” a pretended method of knowing the inward virtues of things by inspection, Naples, 1583, folio. 5. “De Distillationibus,” Rome, quarto. To him is attributed the invention of the Camera Obscura, which was perfected by s’Gravesande. He is said to have formed the plan of an Encyclopaedia.

, a late eminent English prelate, was born at York May 8, 1731. He was the youngest but one of nineteen children. His father and mother were natives of Virginia, but retired to this country, much to the injury of their private fortune, solely for the honourable purpose of giving every possible advantage of education to their children. Dr. Porteus received the first rudiments of his education at York and at Ripon, whence at a very early age he became a member of Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he was admitted a sizar. Humble as this station was, his private merits and studious accomplishments advanced him, as might naturally be expected, to a fellowship of his college, and the active exertions of his friends soon afterwards procured him the situation of squire beadle, an office of the university, both advantageous and honourable, but not precisely adapted to the character of his mind or habits of his life. He did not therefore long retain it, but wholly occupied himself with the care of private pupils, among whom was the late lord Grantham, who distinguished himself not only as secretary of state, but as ambassador of Spain. Whilst employed in this meritorious office, he had some difficulty in obtaining a curacy, and has been heard to say, with good humour, that at this time, so limited was his ambition, he thought it an extraordinary piece of good fortune, to receive an invitation to go over every Sunday to the house of sir John Maynard, at Easton, a distance of sixteen miles from Cambridge, to read prayers to the family. In 1757 he was ordained deacon, and soon afterwards priest. His first claim to notice as an author was his becoming a successful candidate for Seaton’s prize for the best English poem on a sacred subject. His subject was “Death,” on which he produced an admirable poem, characterized by extraordinary vigour, warm sensibility, genuine piety, and accurate taste.

In 1787, on the death of bishop Lowth, Mr. Pitt recommended Dr. Porteus to his majesty as a fit person to Succeed to the diocese of London, and his majesty having given his entire approbation, he was accordingly installed. The first object which engaged his attention on his promotion to this important see, was the king’s proclamation against immorality and profaneness and the good effects of his exertions on this subject were immediate and important; but his pastoral zeal was displayed to most advantage a few years after, when all moral and religious principle became endangered by the pernicious influence of the French revolution. The object of the authors of that convulsion was to degrade and vilify the truths of revelation, and to propagate in its place a blasphemous and infidel philosophy. The attempt succeeded but too effectually in their own country, and the contagion soon spread to tbis. No efforts were spared, which could tend to contaminate the public mind, and obliterate from it all reverence for our civil and religious establishments; and had it not been for the vigorous measures of that great minister, who was then at the head of thq administration, and to whom, under providence, we owe our preservation, we might have witnessed here the same frightful scenes, which convulsed and desolated a neighbouring kingdom. At a crisis such as this, in which all that is (Tear to us hung suspended on the issue, it was plainly every man’s bounden duty to exert himself to the utmost for the public welfare and, in a situation so responsible as the see of London, comprehending a vast metropolis, where the emissaries of infidelity were most actively occupied in their work of mischief, the bishop felt himself called upon to counteract, as far as in him lay, the licentious principles which were then afloat, and to check, if possible, the progress they had too evidently made in the various ranks of society. The best mode, as he conceived, of doing this, was to rouse the attention of the clergy to what was passing around them; and nothing surely was ever better calculated to produce that effect, than the charge which he addressed to them in 1794. We know not where, in a short compass, the character of the French philosophy is more ably drawn, or its baneful influence more strikingly developed. He had marked its course with an observing eye. He had read all that its advocates could allege in its favour. He had traced the motives which gave it birth, the features by which it was marked, and the real objects which it was designed to accomplish. It was not therefore without much deliberation and a full knowledge of his subject, that he drew up for his second visitation that eloquent and most impressive address, in which he gave such a picture of the infidel school of that day, and of the industry which was then employed to disseminate its principles in this country, as at once carried conviction to the mind, and most powerfully awakened the attention of every serious and thinking man. But it was on the clergy, in an especial manner, that he was anxious to leave a strong and fixed persuasion of the necessity of increased assiduity and vigilance in the discharge of their religious functions. Christianity, attacked as it was on every side,required more than common efforts, and more than ordinary zeal on the part of its natural defenders and he therefore called upon them to repel with vigour and effect all those charges pf fraud, falsehood, and fanaticism, which had been so liberally thrown upon it; at such a perilous crisis to contend with peculiar earnestness for “the faith once delivered to the saints” and to shew that it is not, as our enemies affirm, “a cunningly devised fable,” but “a real revela-> tion from heaven.”

This excellent prelate continued to exert all the influence of his high office, and to display all the energies of his character in whatever comprehended the extension, and benefit of religion, morality, and literature. His address, in particular, to those who came to him for confirmation when he visited his diocese for the fourth time in 1802, is an admirable piece of eloquence. His charge on his last visitation, is more particularly deserving of attention, as it answered the objections of those who represented his lordship as friendly to sectaries. The part he took on the subject of the Curates’ Bill, and residence of the clergy, evinces his tenacious zeal in whatever seemed in his opinion to be connected with his duty.

This worthy prelate had for some years been subject to ill health, which at length brought on a general debility, and on the 14th of May, 1808, he sunk under the pressure of accumulated disease, being in the 78th year of his age. He left behind him a justly-acquired reputation for propriety of conduct, benevolence to the clergy, and a strict attention to episcopal duties. As a preacher, he obtained the character of an accomplished orator; his language was chaste, his manner always serious, animated, and impressive, and his eloquence captivating. He seemed to speak from conviction, and being fully persuaded himself of the truth of those doctrines which he inculcated, he the more readily persuaded others. In private life he was mild, affable, easy of access, irreproachable in his morals, of a cheerful disposition, and ever ready to listen to and relieve the distresses of his fellow-creatures. In his behaviour towards dissenters from the established church, he discovered great moderation and candour. While he was a sincere believer in the leading doctrines contained in the thirty-nine articles, he could make allowance for those who did not exactly come up to the same standard. Toward the latter part of his life, he was accused of becoming the persecutor of the rev. Francis Stone, a clergyman of his own diocese, against whom he formally pronounced a sentence of deprivation for preaching and publishing a sermon in direct hostility to the doctrines of the church to which he belonged. Mr. Stone had for many years avowed his disbelief of the articles of faith which he had engaged to defend, and for the support of which he had long received a handsome income, but no notice whatever was taken of the unsoundness of his creed. He preached the offensive sermon before many of his brethren of different ranks in the church yet perhaps even, this attack, which could scarcely be deemed prudent or even decent, would have been unnoticed, had he contented himself with promulgating his opinions from the pulpit only but when he made the press the vehicle of disseminating opinions contrary to the articles of his church, the prelate took the part which was highly becoming the high office which he held.

, a very ingenious but visionary man, was by birth a Norman, of a small hamlet called Dolerie where he was born in 1510. Never did genius struggle with more vigour against the extremes of indigence. At eight years old, he was deprived of both his parents by the plague when only fourteen, unable to subsist in his native place, he removed to another near Pontoise, and undertook to keep a school. Having thus obtained a little money, he went to Paris, to continue his studies but there was plundered and suffered so much from cold, that he languished for two years in an hospital. When he recovered, he again collected a little money by gleaning irv the country, and returned to Paris, where he subsisted by waiting on some of the students in the college of St. Barbe; but made, at the same time, so rapid a progress in knowledge, that he became almost an universal scholar. His acquirements were so extraordinary, that they became known to the king, Francis I. who, touched with so much merit, under such singular disadvantages, sent him to the East to collect manuscripts. This commission he executed so well, that on his return, he was appointed royal professor of mathematics and languages, with a considerable salary. Thus he might appear to be settled for life; but this was not his destiny. He was, unfortunately for himself, attached to the chancellor Poyet, who fell under the displeasure of the queen of Navarre and Postel, for no other fault, was deprived of his appointments, and obliged to quit France. He now became a wanderer, and a visionary. From Vienna, from Rome, from the order of Jesuits, into which he had entered, he was successively banished for strange and singular opinions; for which also he was imprisoned at Rome and at Venice. Being released, as a madman, he returned 10 Paris, whence the same causes again drove him into Germany. At Vienna he was once more received, and obtained a professorship; but, having made his peace at home, was again recalled to Paris, and re-established in his places. He had previously recanted his errors, but relapsing into them, was banished to a monastery, where he performed acts of penitence, and died Sept. 6, 1581, at the age of seventy-one. Postel pretended to be much older than he was, and maintained that he had died and risen again which farce he supported by many tricks, such as- colouring his beard and hair, and even painting his face. For the same reason, in most of his works, he styles himself, “Postellus restitntus.” Notwithstanding his strange extravagances, he was one of the greatest geniuses of his time; had a surprising quickness and memory, with so extensive a knowledge of languages, that he boasted he could travel round the world without an interpreter. Francis I. regarded him as the wonder of his age Charles IX. called him his philosopher; and when he lectured at Paris, the crowd of auditors was sometimes so great, that they could only assemble in the open court of the college, while he taught them from a window. But by applying himself very earnestly to the study of the Rabbins, and of the stars, he turned his head, and gave way to the most extravagant chimeras. Among these, were the notions that women at a certain period are to have universal dominion over men that all the mysteries of Christianity are demonstrable by reason that the soul of Adam had entered into his body that the angel Raziel had revealed to him the secrets of heaven and that his writings were dictated by Jesus Christ himself. His notion of the universal dominion of women, arose from his attachment to an old maid at Venice, in consequence of which he published a strange and now very rare and high-priced book, entitled “Les tres-marveilieuseS victoires des Femmes du Nouveau Monde, et comme elles doivent par raison a tout le monde commander, et me' me a; eeux qui auront la monarchic du Monde viel,” Paris, 1553, 16mo. At the same time, he maintained, that the extraordinary age to which he pretended ttf have lived, was occasioned hy his total abstinence from all commerce with that sex. His works are as numerous as, they are strange and some of them are very scarce, hut very little deserve to be collected. One of the most important is entitled “De orbis concordia,” Bale, 1544, folio. In this the author endeavours to bring all the world to the Christian faith under two masters, the pope, in spiritual affairs, and the king of France in temporal. It is divided into four books; in the first of which he gives the proofs of Christianity; the second contains a refutation of the Koran; the third treats of the origin of idolatry, and all false religions and the fourth, on the mode of converting Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, Of his other works, amounting to twenty-six articles, which are enumerated in the “Dictionnaire Historique,” and most of them by Brunet as rarities with the French collectors, many display in their very titles the extravagance of their contents; such as, “Clavis absconditorum a, constitutione ixmndi,” Paris, 1547, 16mo; “De Ultimo judicio;” “Proto-evangelium,” &c. Some are on subjects of more real utility. But the fullest account of the whole may be found in a book published at Liege in 1773, entitled “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur 3a Vie et les ouvrages de Guillaume Postel,” by father des Billons. The infamous book, “De tribus impostoribus,” has been very unjustly attributed to Postel, for, notwithstanding all his wildness, he was a believer.

, a writer of reputation on subjects of trade and commerce, was slightly mentioned in our last edition, but without any particulars of his life; nor have we yet many to communicate. He was bora about the year 1707 but where, of what parents, or how educated, we have not discovered. In the introductory discourse to his work entitled “Great Britain’s true System,” he informs us, that nature having given him a very tender and weak constitution, he studiously declined and avoided, as much as he could, every degree of public life, as being inconsistent with, and indeed destructive of, that small snare of health which he had several years enjoyed, and which his studies had not mended and yet he preferred the studious life, as being more independent, He complains, however, of want of encouragement; and “humbly hopes that some people will be candid and ingenuous enough to think that he has a right to be treated upon a footing something different from that of an upstart idle schemist or projector, who has never given proof of any talents that might deserve the public regard and attention.” Whether this complaint was redressed, we know not. He died Sept. 17, 1767, and probably not in very opulent circumstances, as he was buried in Old-street church-yard. The coffin, at his own request, was filled with unslacked lime. His death was sudden, as he always wished it might be.

His most valuable publications were, the “Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce,” 2 vols. folio, of which a second edition was published in 1757 and “Great Britain’s true System” one part of which is to recommend, during war, to raise the supplies within the year. His other publications, with the merits of which we are less acquainted, were, <6 1. “The Merchant’s public Counting House,” 4to. 2. “State of the French Trade and Navigation,” 8vo. 3. “Britain’s Commercial Interest explained and improved,” 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “The Importance of the African Expedition considered,” &c. In the papers of 1763, we find mention of a James Postlethwayt, F. R. S. who wrote “The History of the public Revenue,” folio, but whether related to Malachi is uncertain. Malachi was chosen F. S. A. March 21, 1734.

, an English gentleman of talents, was the son of John Potenger, D. D. who was appointed master of Winchester School Aug. 1, 1642, which he was obliged to resign, in order to preserve his loyalty and principles, and died in Dec. 1659. He was born in St. Swithin’s parish, Winchester, July 21, 1647, admitted on the foundation of the college in 1658, and thence removed to a scholarship of Corpus Christi college, Oxon, where he took the degree of B. A. and afterwards entered of the Temple, and was regularly called v to the bar. The office of comptroller of the pipe, which he held to the day of his death, he purchased, in 1676, of sir John Ernie, then chancellor of the Exchequer, whose daughter he married. Speaking of his father, in one of his writings, he expresses himself thus- “About the thirteenth year of my age, the Christmas before the return of king Charles the Second, I lost a loving father; I was not so young but I was deeply sensible of the misfortune, knowing at what an unseasonable time I was deprived of him, when he should have received a reward for his loyal sufferings. He would often discourse with me, though, young, about the unhappy times, amid lament the church’s and the king’s misfortunes, which made a great impression on me; and laid the foundation, I hope, of my being a true son of the church of England, and an obedient subject to my lawful prince.” In 1692 his wife died, leaving him only one daughter, who, in 1695, was married to Richard Bingham, esq. of Mtlcombe Bingham, in the county of Dorset. Thither he retired many years before his death, which happened on Dec. 18, 1733, in the 87th year of his age. He was buried by his wife in Blunsden church, in the parish of Highworth, Wilts. Mr. Potenger also published “A Pastoral Reflection on Death,” a poem, in 1691 and “The Life of Agricoia,” from Tacitus, and perhaps other select pieces but the far greater part of his works, consisting, of “Poems, Epistles, Translations, and Discourses,” both in prose and verse, was reserved only for the entertainment of his private friends, who often importuned him to make them public. Two original letters to him from Dr. South, are printed in Nichols’s Select Collection of Poems.

son of a counsellor to the presidial of Orleans, was born in that city January 9, 1699, and was appointed counsellor to the same presidial himself at the age of twenty-one. A particular taste induced him to study the Romanlaw and the public are indebted to his labours on that subject for an edition of Justinian’s Pandects, very exactly arranged, which he published 1748, 3 vols. folio. This work made M. Pothier known to the chancellor D'Aguesseau, who appointed him, unsolicited, to the professorship of French law, vacant at Orleans in 1749 after which, he applied particularly to that branch. He died, unmarried, at Orleans, May 2, 1772. Though constantly employed in the service of his fellow citizens, and of all those who consulted him, he found opportunity, by his indefatigable diligence, to publish the following works: 1. “Coutume d'Orleans,” 1740, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo, and 1773, 4to. 2. “Coutumes du Duch, &c. d'Orleans,” 2 vols. 12mo, and 1760 and 1772, 4to: The introductions to this work are reckoned masterly. 3. “Tr. des Obligations,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo, which has been followed by, 4. “Le Contrat de Vente de Constitution de Louage de Societe et a Cheptels de Bienfaisance de Depot, et Nantissement” these form five volumes, which are sold separately. “Traité des Contrats aleatoires,” 3 vols. “de Manage,” 2 vols. “Traité du Douaire,” 1 vol.; “Tr. du Droit d'Habitation,” “Don mutuel,” &c. 1 vol.; “Traité du Domaine, de Propriete de Possession,” 2 vols. All these works were reprinted, 1774, 4 vols. 4to. A Treatise on Fiefs has since appeared, Orleans, 1776, 2 vols. folio. He left many other manuscript works, which have not been printed

, an English surgeon of the highest eminence, was born in Thread needle-street, London, in December 1713. His father dying before he was quite four years old, he was left, in some degree, to the protection and patronage of Wilcox, bishop of Rochester, who was a distant relation of his mother. The profession of surgery was his own decided choice, though the connection above mentioned might naturally have led him to the church; and, in 1729, he was bound apprentice to Mr. Nourse, one of the surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, under whom he was profoundly instructed, in what, at that time, was taught only by a few, the science of anatomy. His situation brought with it an abundance of practical knowledge, to which his own industry led him to add all that can be gained from a sagacious and careful perusal of the early writers on surgery. Thus qualified, he was admirably calculated to reform the superfluous and awkward modes of practice which had hitherto disgraced the art. In 1736, having finished his apprenticeship, he took a house in Fencburch-street, and quickly was distinguished as a young man of the most brilliant and promising talents. In 1745, he was elected an assistant surgeon; and, in 1749, one of the principal surgeons of St. Bartholomew’s hospital. It was one of the honours of Mr. Pott’s life, that he divested surgery of its principal horrors, by substituting a mild and rational mode of practice (notwithstanding the opposition of the older surgeons), instead of the actual cautery, and other barbarous expedients which had hitherto been employed and he lived to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing his improved plan universally adopted. Though he possessed the most distinguished talents for communicating his thoughts in writing, it seems to have been by accident that he was led to become an author. Immersed in practice, it does not appear that hitherto he had written any thing, except a paper “on tumours attended with a softening of the bones,” in the forty-first volume of the Philosophical Transactions; but, in 1756, a compound fracture of the leg, occasioned by a fall of his horse in the streets, gave him leisure to plan, and in part to write, his Treatise on Ruptures. The flattering reception of his publications attached him afterwards to this mode of employing his talents, so that he was seldom long without being engaged in some work. His leg was with difficulty preserved, and he returned to the labours of his profession. In 1764, he had the honour of being elected a fellow of the Royal Society; and in the ensuing year he began to give lectures at his house, which was then in Watling-street; but finding it necessary, from the increase of his business, to choose a more central situation, he removed, in 1769, to Lincoln’s-rnn-fields, and in 1777 to Hanover-square. His reputation had now risen nearly to the greatest height, bj means of his various publications, and the great success of his practice. He was universally consulted, and employed by persons of the first rank and situation; and received honorary tributes to his merit from the royal college of surgeons at Edinburgh and in Ireland. In 1787, he resigned the office of surgeon to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, “after having served it,” as he expressed himself, “man and boy, for half a century” and in December 1788, in consequence of a cold caught by going out of town to a patient in very severe weather, he died, at the age of seventy-five. He was buried near his mother, in the church of St. Mary Aldermary, Bow-lane, where a tablet was affixed to his memory, inscribed by his son, the rev. J. H. Pott, the present archdeacon of London, and vicar of St. Martin’s-­in-the-fields.

, nephew to the preceding, was born also within the barony of Kendal in Westmorland, about 1591, and became clerk of Queen’s college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1606. On April 30, 1610, he took the degree of B.A.and July 8, 1613, that of M.A.; and the same year was chosen chaplain of the college, and afterwards fellow of it. He was then a great admirer of Dr. Henry Airay, provost of that college, some of whose works he published, and who was a zealous puritan, and a lecturer at Abingdon in Berks, where he was much resorted to for his preaching. 'On March the 9th, 1620, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and February 17, 1626-7, that of doctor, having succeeded his uncle Dr. Barnabas Potter in the provostship of his college on the 17th of June, 1626. “Soon after,” says Mr. Wood, “when Dr. Laud became a rising favourite at court, he, after a great deal of seeking, was made his creature, and therefore by the precise party he was esteemed an Arminian.” On March the 15th, 1628, he preached a Sermon on John xxi. 17. at the consecration of his uncle to the bishopric of Carlisle at Ely House in Hoiborn which was printed at London, 1629, in 8vo, and involved him in a short controversy with Mr. Vicars, a friend of his, who blamed him for a leaning towards Arminianism. In 1633 he published his “Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet, entitled, Charity mistaken.” The cause was this A Jesuit who went by the name of Edward Knott, but whose true name was Matthias Wilson, had published in 1630, a little book in 8vo, called “Charity mistaken, with the want whereof Catholicks are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do with grief, that Protestancy un repented destroies Salvation.” Dr. Potter published an answer to this at Oxford, 1633, in 8vo, with this title: “Want of Charitie justly charged on all such Romanists as dare (without truth or modesty) affirme, that Protestancie destroy eth Salvation; or, an Answer to a late Popish pamphlet, intituled, Charity mistaken, &c.” The second edition revised and enlarged, was printed at London, 1634, in 8vo. Prynne observes, that bishop Laud, having perused the first edition, caused some things to be omitted in the second. It is dedicated to King Charles I. and in the dedication Dr. Potter observes, that it was “undertaken in obedience to his majesty’s particular commandment.”

In 1635 he was promoted to the deanery of Worcester, having before had a promise of a canonry of Windsor, which he never enjoyed. In 1640 he was vice-chancellor of the university of Oxford, in the execution of which office he met with some trouble from the members of the long parliament. Upon breaking out of the civil wars, he sent all his plate to the king, and declared, that he would rather, like Diogenes, drink in the hollow of his hand, than that his majesty should want; and he afterwards suffered much for the royal cause. In consideration of this, upon the death of Dr. W r alter Balcanqual, he was nominated to the deanery of Durham in January 1645-6; but was prevented from being installed by his death, which happened at his college March the 3d following. He was interred about the middle of the chapel there and over his grave was a marble monument fastened to the north wall, at the expence of his widow Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. Charles Sonibanke, some time canon of Windsor, afterwards wife of Dr. Gerard Langbaine, who succeeded Dr. Potter in the provostship of Queen’s college. He was a person esteemed by all that knew him to be learned and religious exemplary in his behaviour and discourse, courteous in his carriage, and of a sweet and obliging nature, and comely presence. But he was more especially remarkable for his charity to the poor; for though he had a wife and many children, and expected daily to be sequestered, yet he continued his usual liberality to them, having, on hearing Dr. Hammond’s sermon at St. Paul’s, been per* suaded of the truth of that divine’s assertion, that charity to the poor was the way to grow rich. He translated from Italian into English, “Father Paul’s History of the Quarrels of Pope Paul V. with the State of Venice,” London, 1626, 4to and left several Mss. prepared for the press, one of which, entitled “A Survey of the Platform of Predestination,” falling into the hands of Dr. William Twisse, of Newbury, was answered by him. This subject perhaps is more fully discussed in his controversy with Mr. Vicars, which was republished at Cambridge in 1719, in a “Collection of Tracts concerning Predestination and Providence.” The reader to whom this “Collection” may not be accessible, will find an interesting extract, from Dr.Potter’s part, in Dr. Wordsworth’s “Ecclesiastical Biography,” vol. V. p. 504, &c. Chillingworth likewise engaged in the controversy against Knott.

Dr. Potter had a son, Charles, who was born at Oxford in 1633, and admitted a student of Christ Church in 1647, but after completing his master’s degree, he left the university, and when abroad with James Croits, afterwards created duke of Monmouth, he embraced the Roman Catholic religion. He was afterwards one of the gentlemen ushers to his great uncle, Dr. Barnabas Potter, bishop of Carlisle. The “Theses Quaclragesiiriales in scholis Oxoniensibus publice pro forma discussae,” Oxon, 1649, 12mo, was published with his name, but the real author was his college tutor, Mr. Thomas Severn.

This treatise was afterwards translated into French, Dutch, and Latin. The Latin version was made by several hands. One edition was all or most translated by Mr. Thomas Gilbert, of Edmund Hall, in Oxford, and printed at Amsterdam 1677, in 8vo; part of the Latin translation is inserted in the second part of the fourth volume of Pool’s “Synopsis Criticorum.” Our author’s treatise was attacked by Mr. Lambert Morehouse, minister of Prestwood, near Kilmington, who asserts, that 25 is not the true, but propinque root of 666. Mr. Potter wrote a Reply to him. Mr. Morehouse gave a manuscript copy of this dispute to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Sarum, in 1668. Our author, while he was very young, had a good talent at drawing and painting, and the founder’s picture in the hall of Trinity college is of his copying. He had likewise an excellent genius for mechanics, and made several inventions for raising of water, and water-engines; which being communicated to the Royal Society, about the time of its first establishment, were highly approved of, and he was admitted a member of that society. Mr. Wood likewise observes, that about 1640, “he entertained the notion of curing diseases by transfusion of blood out of one man into another; the hint whereof came into his head from Ovid’s story of Medea and Jason; which matter he communicating to the Royal Society about the time of its first erection, it was entered into their books. But this way of transfusion having (as it is said) been mentioned long before by Andr. Libavius, our author Potter (vfrho I dare say never saw that writer) is not to be the first inventor of that notion, nor Dr. Richard Lewen, but rather an advancer.” He became blind before his death, and died at Kilmington about April 1678, and was buried in the chancel of the church there. His memory was preserved in Trinity college until 1670 by a dial, which he constructed and placed on the north side of the old quadrangle, but there is now another in its room. There are many anecdotes of him in the Aubrey Mss. but none perhaps more worth transcribing than the following. “The last time I saw him,” says Aubrey, “I asked him why he did not get some cousin or kinsman to be with him, and look to him now in his great age? He answered me, that he had tried that way, and found it not so well; for they did begrudge what he spent, that it was too much, and went from them, whereas his servants (strangers) were kind to him, and took care of him.” Aubrey adds, that in the “troublesome times it was his happiness never to be sequestered. He was once maliciously informed against to the committee a* Wells (a thing very common in those times); but when he came before them, one of them (I have forgot his name) gave him a pint of wine, and gave him great praise, and bade him go home, and fear nothing.” He seems to have wanted only opportunities of conversing more frequently with his learned contemporaries to have made a distinguished figure in the infancy of the Royal Society.

His brother, Dr. Hannibal Potter, who had been his tutor at college, was, upon the death of Dr. Kettle, elected president of Trinity college, but was ejected by the parliamentary chancellor, lord Pembroke in person, attended by the parliamentary visitors and a guard of soldiers. His only subsistence afterwards was a poor curacy of 20l. a year, from which he was also ejected for using some part of the Liturgy.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Potter, a linen draper at Wakefield in Yorkshire, where he was born about the year 1674. He was educated at a school at Wakefield, and it is said, made an uncommon progress, in a short time, especially in the Greek languague. That this, however, was a private school seems to be taken for granted by Dr. Parr, who, after mentioning that our author’s Latin productions are not free from faults, says that he would have been taught to avoid these “in our best public seminaries.” At the age of fourteen, Mr. Potter was sent to Oxford, and entered a battler of University college in the beginning of 1688. There is every reason to think that his diligence here was exemplary and successful; for, after taking his bachelor’s degree, he was employed by the master of his college, the learned Dr. Charlett, to compile a work for the use of his fellow students, entitled, “Variantes lectiones et notae ad Plutarchi librum de audiendis poetis, item Variantes lectiones, &c. ad Basilii Magni orationem ad juvenes, quomodo cum fructu legere possint Graecorum libros,” 8vo. This was printed at the University press, then in the Theatre, in 1693, at the expence of Dr. Charlett, who used to present copies of it, as a new-year’s-gift, to the young students of University college, and to others of his friends.

In the beginning of 1708, he succeeded Dr. Jane as regius professor of divinity, and canon of Christ Church, who brought him back to Oxford. This promotion he owed to the interest of the celebrated duke of Marlborougb, and to the opinion held concerning him that he was a Whig; whereas Dr. Smalridge, whom the other party wished to succeed in the professorship and canonry, had distinguished himself by opposition to the whig-measures of the court. In point of qualification these divines might be equal, and Dr. Potter certainly, both as a scholar and divine, was liable to no objection. It was probably to the same interest that he owed his promotion, in April 1715, to the see of Oxford. Just before he was made bishop he published, what had occupied his attention a very considerable time, his splendid and elaborate edition of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus, 2 vols. fol. Gr. and Lat. an edition, says Harwood, “worthy of the celebrity of the place where it was published, and the erudition of the very learned prelate, who has so happily illustrated this miscellaneous writer.” In this he has given an entire new version of the “Cohortations,” and intended to have done the same for the “Stromata,” but was prevented by the duties of his professorship. In his preface he intreats the reader’s candour as to some typographical errors, he being afflicted during part of the printing by a complaint in his eyes, which obliged him to trust the correction of the press to others.

His eldest son, John Potter, born in 1713, after a private education, was entered a member of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1727, and took his master’s degree in 1734. After he went into orders, he obtained from his father the vicarage of Blackburne, in the county of Lancaster, and in 1739, the valuable sinecure of Elme cum Emneth, in the isle of Ely, In 1741 his father presented him to the archdeaconry of Oxford. His other promotions were the v y icarage of Lydde in Kent, the twelfth prebend of Canterbury, and the rich benefice of Wrotham in Kent, with which he retained the vicarage of Lydde. In 1766 he was advanced to the deanery of Canterbury, on which he resigned the archdeaconry of Oxford. He died at Wrotham Sept. 20, 1770. He offended his father very much by marrying one of his servants, in consequence of which, although the archbishop, as we have seen, gave him many preferments, he left his personal fortune, which has been estimated at 70,000l. some say 90,000l. to his second son, Thomas Potter, esq. who followed the profession of the law, became recorder of Bath, joint vice-treasurer of Ireland, and member of parliament for Aylesbury and Oakhampton. He died June 17, 1759.

, an excellent landscape painter, was born at Enkhuysen, in 1625, and learned the principles of painting from his father, Peter Potter, who was but a moderate artist; yet, by the power of an enlarged genius and uncommon capacity, which he discovered even in his infancy, his improvement was so extraordinary, that he was considered as a prodigy, and appeared an expert master in his profession at the age of fifteen.

, an eminent French painter, was born at Andely, a little town in Normandy, in 1594. His family, however, were originally of Soissons in which city there were some of his relations officers in the Presidial court. John Poussin, his father, was of noble extraction, but born to a very small estate. His son, seeing the narrowness of his circumstances, determined to support himself as soon as possible, and chose painting for his profession, having naturally a strong inclination to that art. At eighteen, he went to Paris, to learn the rudiments of it. A Poictevin lord, who had taken a liking to him, placed him with Ferdinand, a portrait-painter, whom Poussin left in three months to place himself with Lalleraant, with whom he staid but a month he saw he should never learn any thing from such masters, and he resolved not to lose his time with them; believing he should profit more by studying the works of great masters, than by the discipline of ordinary painters. He worked a while in distemper, and performed it with extraordinary facility. The Italian poet Marino being at that time in Paris, and perceiving Poussin’s genius to be superior to the small performances on which he was employed, persuaded him to go with him into Italy Poussin had before made two vain attempts to undertake that journey, yet by some means or other was hindered from accepting this opportunity. He promised, however, to follow in a short time; which he did, though not till he had painted several other pictures in Paris, among which was the Death of the Virgin, for the church of Ndtre-Dame. Having finished his business, he set out for Rome in his thirtieth year.

He there met with his friend, the cavalier Marino, who rejoiced to see him and that he might be as serviceable as he could, recommended him to cardinal Barberini, who desired to be acquainted with him. Yet by some means or other, he did not emerge, and could scarcely maintain, himself. He was forced to give away his works for sums that would hardly pay for his colours. His courage, however, did not fail he prosecuted his studies assiduously, resolving, at all events, to make himself master of his profession. He had little money to spend, and therefore the more leisure to retire by himself, and design the beautiful objects in Rome, as well antiquities as the works of the famous Roman painters. It is said, that he at first copied some of Titian’s pieces, with whose colouring, and the touches of whose landscapes, he was infinitely pleased. It is observable, indeed, that his first pieces are painted in a better style of colouring than his last. But he soon shewed, by his performances, that, generally speaking, he did not much value the part of colouring; or thought he knew enough of it, to make his pictures as perfect as he intended. He had studied the beauties of the antique, the elegance, the grand gusto, the correctness, the variety of proportions, the adjustments, the order of the draperies, the nobleness, the fine air and boldness of the heads the manners, customs of times and places, and every thing that is beautiful in the remains of ancient sculpture, to such a degree, that one can never enough admire the exactness with which he has enriched his painting in all those particulars.

He used frequently to examine the ancient sculptures in the vineyards about Rome, and this confirmed him more and more in the love of. those antiquities. He would spend several days together in making reflections upon them by himself. It was in these retirements that he considered the extraordinary effects of nature with respect to landscapes, that he designed his animals, his distances, his trees, and every thing excellent that was agreeable to his taste. He also made curious observations on the works of Raphael and Domenichino; who of all painters, in his opinion, invented best, designed most correctly, and expressed the passions most, vigorously three things, which Poussin esteemed the most essential parts of painting. He neglected nothing that could render his knowledge in these three parts perfect he was altogether as curious about the general expression of his subjects, which he has adorned with every thing that he thought would excite the attention of the learned. He left no very large compositions behind him; and all the reason we can give for it is, that he had no opportunity to paint them; for we cannot imagine that it was any thing more than chance, that made him apply himself wholly to easel pieces, of a size proper for a cabinet, such as the curious required of him.

Poussin, having lived happily to his seventy-first year, died paralytic in 1665. He married the sister of Caspar Dughet, by whom he had no children. His estate amounted to no more than sixty thousand livres; but he valued his ease above riches, and preferred his abode at Rome, where he lived without ambition, to fortune elsewhere. He never made words about the price of his pictures; but put it down at the back of the canvas, and it was always given him. He had no disciple. The following anecdote much illustrates his character. Bishop Mancini, who was afterwards a cardinal, staying once on a visit to him till it was dark, Poussin took the candle in his hand, lighted him down stairs, and waited upon him to his coach. The prelate was sorry to see him do it himself, and could not help saying, “1 very much pity you, Monsieur Poussin, that you have not one servant.” “And I pity you more, my lord,” replied Poussin, “that you have so many.”

He left a very learned son, Gabriel Powell, who was born at Ruabon, in 1575, and educated at Jesus college, Oxford, after which he became master of the free-school at Ruthen, in his native county. Not however finding his situation here convenient for the studies to which he was addicted, ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the fathers, he returned to Oxford, and took up his abode in St. Mary Hall. Here principally he wrote those works which procured him great reputation, especially among the puritans. Dr. Vaughan, bishop of London, invited him to the metropolis, and made him his domestic chaplain, and would have given him higher preferment had he lived. It was probably Vaughan’s successor who gave him the prebend of Portpoole, in 1609, and the vicarage of Northall, in Middlesex, in 1610. He died in 1611. His works enumerated by Wood are chiefly controversial, against the papists, except one or two in defence of the silenced puritans. Several of them, being adapted to the circumstances of the times, went through numerous editions, but are now little known. Wood says he was esteemed a prodigy of learning, though he died when a little more than thirty years old (thirty-six), and had he lived to a greater maturity of years, it is “thought he would have exceeded the famous Dr. John Rainolds, or any of the learned heroes of the age.” Wood adds that he “was a zealot, and a stiff puritan.” By one of his works, entitled “The unlawfulness and danger of Toleration of divers religions, and connivance to contrary worship in one monarchy or kingdom,” it would appear that he wrote against toleration while he was claiming it for himself and his puritan brethren.

, a learned popish divine, was bora about the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was educated at Oxford. He appears to have been fellow of Oriel college in 1495, and afterwards became D. D. and was accounted one of the ornaments of the university. In November 1501, he was made rector of Bledon, in the diocese of Wells, and in July 1503 was collated to the prebend Centum solidorum, in the church of Lincoln, as well as to the prebend of Carleton. In 1508, by the interest of Edmund Audley, bishop of Salisbury, he was made prebendary of that church, and in 1525 became prebendary of Sutton in Marisco, in the church of Lincoln. In November 1514, Pope Leo gave him a licence to hold three benefices, otherwise incompatible. His reputation for learning induced Henry VIII. to employ him to write against Luther, which he did in a work entitled “Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii evangelici, ac septenarii sacramentorum numeri adversus M. Lutherum, fratrem famosum, et Wickliffistam insignem,” Lond. 1523, 4to. This performance, says Dodd, was commonly allowed to be the best that had hitherto been published. There are two public letters from the university of Oxford, one to the king, the other to bishop Audley, applauding the choice of a person so well qualified to maintain the cause of the church and in these letters, they style him the glory of their university, and recommend him as a person worthy of the highest preferment. But all this could not protect him from the vengeance of Henry VIII. when he came to employ his learning and zeal in defence of queen Catherine, and the supremacy of the see of Rome, on both which articles he was prosecuted, hanged, drawn, and quartered in Smithfield, July 30, 1540, along with Dr. Thomas Abel, and Dr. Richard Fetherstone, who suffered on the same account. He wrote in defence of queen Catherine, “Tractatus de uon dissolvendo Henrici regis cum Catherina matrimonio” but it is doubtful if this was printed. Stow, indeed, says it was printed in 4to, and that he had seen it, but no copy is now known. Mr. Churton, in his “Lives of the Founders of Brazenose college,” mentions Dr. Powell’s preaching a Latin sermon, in a very elegant style, at the visitation of bishop Smyth at Lincoln.

, an eminent lawyer, and an upright judge, was a native of Gloucester, which city he represented in parliament in 1685. He was called to the coif April 24, 1686, appointed a justice of the common pleas April 21, 1687, at which time he received the honour of knighthood, and was removed to the court of king’s bench April 26 in the following year. He sat hi that court at the memorable trial of the seven bishops, and having declared against the king’s dispensing power, James II. deprived him of his office in July 1688; but William III. placed him again in the common pleas, Oct. 28, 1695, and queen Anne advanced him to the queen’s bench June 18, 1702, where he sat until his death, at Gloucester, on his return from Bath, June 14, 1713, far advanced in life. He was reckoned a sound lawyer, and in private was to the last a man of a cheerful, facetious disposition. Swift, in one of his letters, mentions his meeting with him at Lord Oxford’s, and calls him “an old fellow with grey hairs, who was the merriest old gentleman I ever saw, spoke pleasing things, and chuckled till he cried again.” In his time the laws against witchcraft being unrepealed, one Jane Wenman was tried before him, and her adversaries swore that she could fly “Prisoner,” said our judge, “can you fly?” “Yes, my lord.” “Well then you may; there is no law against flying.”

The office of master of the college, says Mr. Cole, he maintained with the greatest reputation and honour to himself, and credit and advantage to the society. Some years before he attained this office, a relation with whom he had very little acquaintance, and less expectation from, Charles Reynolds, of Peldon Hall, esq. left him the estate and manor of Peldon Hall in Essex, together with other estates at Little Bentley in the same county and, adds Mr. Cole, to do him justice he well deserved it, for he was both hospitable and generous, and being a single man had ample means to exercise his generosity. In Feb. 1773, when St. John’s college had agreed to undertake two very expensive works, the new casing the first court with stone, and laying out their gardens under the direction of the celebrated Mr. Brown, who told them that his plan would cost them at least 800l. the master recommended an application to those opulent persons who had formerly been members of the college, and told the fellows that if they thought proper to make such application, and open a subscription, he would begin it with a donation of 500l. which he immediately subscribed. On all such occasions, where the honour and reputation of his college, or the university, was concerned, no one displayed his liberality more in the sumptuousness and elegance of his entertainments, but in other cases he was frugal and ceconomical.

The late celebrated poet, Mr. Mason, in his life of Whitehead, takes occasion to pay a high compliment to Dr. Powell on that part of his literary character concerning which he may be thought the least liable to be mistaken, and pronounces Dr. Powell’s taste in works of imagination to have been as correct as his judgment was in matters of more abstruse speculation. “Yet this taste,” adds Mr. Mason, “always appeared to be native and his own he did not seem to have brought it with him from a great school, nor to have been taught it by a celebrated master. He never dealt in the indiscriminate exclamations of excellent and sublime: but if he felt a beauty in an author, was ready with a reason why he felt it to be such a circumstance which those persons, who, with myself, attended his lectures on the Poetics of Aristotle, will both acknowledge and reflect upon with pleasure.”

A letter of Mr. Markland’s having been published in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” reflecting on Dr. Powell as if he had died rich in consequence of accumulation, and had been saving of his money to the last, produced a satisfactory defence of him from a member of St. John’s college, part of which it is but justice to Dr. Powell’s memory to copy. “It is true,” says this writer, “that Dr. Powell died in very affluent circumstances but the greatest part of his fortune was left to him in 1759 by Mr. Reynolds, a relation of his mother, and the remainder was the wellearned fruits of his labours in educating his pupils while tutor. During the ten years he was master, he lived in great splendour and magnificence, and had considerably diminished his private fortune before his death. When it was determined to rebuild the first court, he generously made a present of 500l. to the society to several undergraduates he occasionally gave sums of money, and to others he allowed annual stipends to enable them to complete their studies: at his own expence he bestowed prizes upon those who distinguished themselves at the public examinations. By his will, which had been made a considerable time before his death, he bequeathed 1000l. to his friend Dr, Balguy to six 'actual fellows, to ten who had been fellows, and to four who had only been of the college, 100l. each; and to four fellows his books.”

, a gentleman of considerable learning and political knowledge, was born in 1722, and educated at Lincoln. His first appearance in public life was when appointed secretary to the commissioners for trade and plantations in 1745, subjects with which he must have made himself early acquainted, as he had not yet reached his twenty-fourth year. In 1753 he went to America, and in the following year was concerned in a matter which eventually proved of great importance. At the beginning of what has been called the seven years’ war with France, which commenced in America in 1754, two years before it broke out in Europe, a number of persons, styled commissioners, being deputed from each colony, assembled at Albany, to consider of defending themselves against the French, who were making alarming encroachments on their back settlements. This assembly was called the Albany Congress, and became the precedent for that other more remarkable congress established at the revolution in 1773. As soon as the intention of the colonies to hold a congress at Albany was known in England, Mr. Pownall immediately foresaw the danger to the mother country, if such a general union should be permitted, and presented a strong memorial to lord Halifax, the secretary of state, on the subject, in 1754. The plan which the congress had in view was, to form agreat council of deputies from all the colonies, with a governor-general to be appointed by the crown, and empowered to take measures for the common safety, and to raise money for the execution of their designs. The ministers at home did not approve of this plan; but, seeing that they could not prevent the commissioners meeting, they resolved to take advantage of this distress of the colonies, and turn the subject of deliberation to their own account. For this purpose they sent over a proposal, that the congress should be assisted in their considerations by two of the king’s council from each colony, be empowered to erect forts, to levy troops, and to draw on the treasury in London for the money wanted and the treasury to be reimbursed by a tax on the colonies, to be laid by the British parliament; but this proposal was peremptorily rejected, because it gave the British parliament a power to tax the colonies. Although Mr. Pownall did not agtee with the ministry in the whole extent of their proposal, yet they thought him so well acquainted with the affairs of the colonies, that in 1757 they appointed him governor of Massachusetts bay.

Governor Pownall was twice married first, in 1765, to lady Fawkener, relict of Sir Everard Fawkener, and daughter of lieutenant-general Churchill, who died in 1777 and secondly, in 1784, to Mrs. Astell, of Everton-house, in Bedfordshire; but had no issue by either.

, successively bishop of Rochester and Winchester, in the reign of Edward VI. was born in the county of Kent, about the year 1516, and was educated in King’s college, Cambridge, where his adversaries allow he was distinguished for his learning;. He was not only skilled in Greek and Latin, but in some of the modern languages, particularly Italian and Dutch. In early life he proved himself an able mathematician and mechanist. He constructed a clock, which pointed both to the hours of the day, the day of the month, the sign of the Zodiack, the lunar variations, and the tides, which was presented to Henry VIII. and considered by him and others as a very extraordinary performance. Heylin, who is seldom partial to the early English reformers, tells us, that he was “well-studied with the ancient fathers.”

At what time he imbibed the principles of the Reformation is uncertain; but it appears that he was accounted a champion for that great change in the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. when he was made bishop of Rochester, although only in his 33d year. He was then D.D. and chaplain to archbishop Cranmer. When Gardiner was deprived, he was the following year, 1551, translated to Winchester, and was one of the bishops appointed to make a new code of ecclesiastical laws. He had frequently preached be fore king Edward who, on account of his zealous efforts for the reformation, desired that he might have the above dignities. He had before this, however, some lesser preferment. By Newcourt we find, that Cranmer gave him the rectory of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, Nov. 15, 1543, which he held, in commendam, until May 15, 1551, when he was translated to Winchester. He was a frequent preacher, and wrote several treatises in defence of the Reformation but his most remarkable performance was what is commonly called “King Edward’s Catechism,” which appeared in 1553, in two editions, the one Latin, the other English, with the royal privilege. That it was not hastily adopted, however, appears by king Edward’s letter prefixed to it, in which he says “When there was presented unto us, to be perused, a short and playne order of Catechisme, written by a certayne godlye and learned man: we committed the debatinge and diligent examination thereof to certain byshoppes and other learned men, whose judgment we have in greate estimation.” This catechism has been attributed to Nowell; but the late excellent biographer of that eminent divine considers it as unquestionably Poynet’s, although Nowell took much from it into his own catechism.

When queen Mary came to the crown, Povnet, with many others, retired to Strasburgh, where he died April 11, 1556, not quite forty years of age. Dodd says he was obliged to leave England for treasonable practices; as he had not only encouraged Wyat’s rebellion, but personally appeared in the field against the queen and government. This may be true; but no treason was necessary to render England an unsafe place for a man so zealous for the reformation, a professed opponent of Gardiner, and who succeeded that tyrannical prelate in the see of Winchester. Strype informs us, that immediately on the accession of Mary, bishop Poynet was ejected and imprisoned, and deprived of episcopacy, for being married. He doubts whether he ever was concerned with Wyat, but says he was a great friend to the learned Ascham. Milner accuses him of signing away a great number of the most valuable possessions of the see of Winchester. He accuses him also of being of an intolerant spirit, and that he persecuted the learned physician, Andrew Borde. Borde, however, was guilty of irregularities, which it was not unbecoming in his diocesan to punish. If Poynet was intolerant, what shall we say of the favourites of the popish historians?

His lordship had the reputation of having presided in that court with a dignity, weight, and impartiality, never exceeded by any of his predecessors and when the celebrated John Wilkes was seized and committed to the Tower, upon a general warrant, his lordship granted him an Habeas Corpus; and when Wilkes was brought before the court of Common Pleas, discharged him from his confinement in the Tower, on May 6, 1763, after stating the case, in a speech which did him great honour. His wise and spirited behaviour upon this occasion, and in the consequent judicial proceedings, between the printers of the “North Briton” and others concerned in that publication, or in apprehending the authors, was so acceptable to the nation, that the lord mayor, aldermen, and common-council of the city of London, presented him with the freedom of their corporation in a gold box, an,d desired him to sit for his picture, which was put up in the Guildhall in 1764, with a suitable inscription at the bottom of the frame. The guild of merchants of the city of Dublin, also voted him the freedom of their guild, in a gold box the corporation of barber- surgeons of that city voted him his freedom thereof; and the sheriffs and commons of Dublin presented him their thanks “for the distinguished zeal and loyalty which he has shewn in asserting and maintaining the rights and liberties of the subject, in the high station whichhe now fills, with remarkable dignity and for his particular services to this kingdom, in the office of attorney-general.” Other towns sent him testimonies of their regard, and his popularity was now at its height. In 1765 he was created a peer of Great Britain by the title of lord Camclen, baron Camden in the county of Kent and on July 30, 1766, his majesty, upon the resignation of lord Northington, delivered the great seal to his lordship, as lord high chancellor of Great Britain. It was the Rockingham administration who promoted his lordship’s advancement to the peerage; but they did not thereby obtain his entire support in parliament for when the declaratory bill, asserting the right of parliament to make laws, binding the colonies in all cases whatever, was brought into the House of Lords, he opposed it with the greatest vigour. Lord Camden, whatever might be thought of his opinions, was uniformly independent, and incurred a portion of popular odium for supporting the suspension of the law, in order to prevent the exportation of corn at a time when scarcity was impending. On this occasion he happened to make a sarcastic reply to lord Temple, which drew upon him the wrath of Junius; but for this he had as little regard as for the more sober invectives of party. As a lord chancellor, he appears to have conciliated the good opinion of all parties. His acuteness and judgment, and the perspicuity with w'hich he delivered his opinions, and his general politeness, mixed with a becoming regard to the dignity of his office, all produced the highest respect and confidence in his decisions. But as he still adhered to his opinion against the taxation of the Americans, which he strongly and publicly opposed on every occasion, he was removed from his high office in 1770.

a priest of the oratory, son of a Serjeant at Chalons-sur-Saone, was born in 1648. He went to Paris early in life, and, having finished his studies there, entered into the service of father Malebranche, who, finding he had a genius for the sciences, taught him mathematics, in which the young pupil made so rapid a progress, that, at the age of seventeen he published the first edition of his “Elemens de Mathematiques.” In the same year, 1675, he entered the congregation of the oratory, and taught mathematics with distinguished reputation, particularly at Angers. He died June 8, 1690, at Mechlin. The best edition of his “Elements,” is that of 1689, 2 vols. 4to. They contain many curious problems.

, a celebrated divine in the beginning of the seventeenth century, descended from the Prestons, of Preston in Lancashire, was born at Heyford, in Northamptonshire, in Oct. 1587. An uncle on the mother’s side, who resided at Northampton, undertook the care of his education, and placed him at first at the free-school of that town, and afterwards under a Mr. Guest, an able Greek scholar, who resided in Bedfordshire. With him he remained until 1584, when he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge. Here he applied to what his biographer tells us was at that time the genius of the college, viz. music, studied its theory, and practised on the lute but thinking this a waste of time, he would have applied himself to matters of more importance, could he have remained here, but as not coming from Eton school, he could not be upon the foundation. Being therefore incapable of preferment, he removed to Queen’s college, and by the instructions of Oliver Bowles, an able tutor, he soon became distinguished for his proficiency, especially in the philosophy of Aristotle, and took his degrees with uncommon reputation. Bowles leaving college for a living, his next tutor was Dr. Porter, who, astonished at his talents, recommended him to the notice of the master, Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, by whose influence ie was chosen fellow in 1609. This he appears to have thought rather convenient than honourable, for at this time his mind was much set on public life, and on rising at court. He continued, however, to pursue his studies, to which he now added that of medicine; and, although he did this probably without any view to it as a profession, we are told that when any of his pupils were sick, he sometimes took the liberty to alter the physicians’ prescriptions. Botany and astronomy, or rather astrology, also engrossed some part of his attention. But from all these pursuits he was at once diverted by a sermon preached at St. Mary’s by Mr. Cotton, which made such an impression on him, that he immediately resolved on the study of divinity, and began, as was then usual, by perusing the schoolmen. “There was nothing,” says his biographer, “that ever Scotus or Occam wrote, but he had weighed and examined; he delighted much to read them in the first and oldest editions that could be got. I have still a Scotus in a very old print, and a paper not inferior to parchment, that hath his hand and notes upon it throughout yet he continued longer in Aquinas whose sums he would sometimes read as the barber cut his hair, and when it fell upon the place be read, he would not lay down his book, but blow it off,”

"The opponent urged that they could an Enthymeme (said he) is a lawful and real syllogism, but dogs can make them he instanced in an hound who had the major proposition in his mind, namely, ‘the hare is gone either this or that way’ smells out the minor with his nose, namely, ‘she is not gone that way,’ and follows the conclusion, ‘Ergo, this way with open mouth.’ The instance suited the auditory, and was applauded and put the answerer to his distinctions, that dogs might have sagacity but not sapience, in things especially of prey, and that did concern their belly, might be nasutuli, but not logici had much in their mouths, little in their minds, unless it had relation to their mouths that their lips were larger than their understandings which the opponent, still endeavouring to wipe off with another syllogism, and put the dogs upon a fresh scent, the moderator, Dr. Reade, began to be afraid, and to think how troublesome a pack of hounds, well followed and applauded, at last might prove, and so came to the answerer’s aid, and told the opponent that his dogs, he did believe, were very weary, and desired him to take them off, and start some other argument and when the opponent would not yield, but halloed still and put them on, he interposed his authority, and silenced him. The king in his conceit was all the while upon Newmarket heath, and iiked the sport, and therefore stands up, and tells the moderator plainly he was not satisfied in all that had been answered, but did believe an hound had more in him than was imagined. I had myself (said he) a dog, that straggling far from all his fellows, had light upon a very fresh scent, but considering he was all alone, and had none to second and assist him in it, observes the place, and goes away unto his fellows, and by such yelling arguments as they best understand, prevailed with a party of them to go along with him, and bringing them unto the place, pursued it into an open view. Now the king desired for to know how this could be contrived and carried on without the use and exercise of understanding, or what the moderator could have done in that case better; and desired him that either he would think better of his dogs, or not so highly of himself.

“The opponent also desired leave to pursue the king’s game, which he had started, unto an issue but the answerer protested that his majesty’s dogs were always to be excepted, who hunted not by common law, but by prerogative. And the moderator, fearing the king might let loose another of his hounds, and make more work, applies himself with all submisse devotion to the king, acknowledged his dogs were able to out-do him, and besought his majesty for to believe they had the better That he would consider how his illustrious influence had already ripened and concocted all their arguments and understandings; that whereas in the morning the reverend and grave divines could not make syllogisms, the lawyers could not, nor the physicians now every dog could, especially his majesty’s”

Mr. Preston’s part in this singular disputation might have led to favour at court, if he had been desirous of it and sir Futk Greville, afterwards lord Brook, was so pleased with his performance that he settled 50l. per ann. upon him, and was his friend ever after; but he was now seriously intent on the office of a preacher of the gospel, and having studied Calvin, and adopted his religious opinions, he became suspected of puritanism, which was then much discouraged at court. In the mean time his reputation for learning induced many persons of eminence to place their sons under his tuition and Fuller tells us, he was “the greatest pupil- monger ever known in England, having sixteen fellow-commons admitted into Queen’s college in one year,” while he continued himself so assiduous in his studies as considerably to impair his health. When it came to his turn to be dean and catechistof his college, he began such a course of divinity -lectures as might direct the juniors in that study; and these being of the popular kind, were so much frequented, not only by the members of other colleges, but by the townsmen, that a complaint was at length made to the vice-chancellor, and an order given that no townsmen or scholars of other colleges should be permitted to attend. His character for puritanism seems now to have been generally established, and he was brought into trouble by preaching at St. Botolph’s church, although prohibited by Dr. Newcomb, commissary to the chancellor of Ely, who informed the bishop and the king, then at Newmarket, of this irregularity. On the part of Newcomb, this appears to have been the consequence of a private pique; but whatever might be his motive, the matter came to be heard at court, and the issue was, that Mr. Preston was desired to give his sentiments on the 1U turgy at St. Botolph’s church by way of recantation. He accordingly handled the subject in such a manner as cleared himself from any suspicion of disliking the forms of the liturgy, and soon after it came to his turn to preach before the king when at Hinchingbrook. The court that day, a Tuesday, was very thin, the prince and the duke of Buckingham being both absent. After dinner, which Mr. Preston had the honour of partaking at his majesty’s table, he was so much complimented by the king, that when he retired, the marquis of Hamilton recommended him to his majesty to be one of his chaplains, as a man “who had substance and matter in him.” The king assented to this, but remembering his late conduct at Cambridge, declined giving him the appointment.

Such, however, was Mr. Preston’s weight at this time that it was recommended to the duke of Buckingham by all means to patronize him, and thus do an act highly acceptable to the puritans who might prove his grace’s friends, in case his other friends should fail. The duke accordingly applied in his behalf to the king, who still demurred, but at last fancied that his favours to Preston might have a different effect from what the duke meditated. The duke wished to court him, as the head of a party; the king thought that by giving him preferment, he should detach him from that party. In this conflict of motives, it occurred to some of Mr. Preston’s friends that it would be preferable to appoint him chaplain to the prince (afterwards Charles I.), who now was grown up and had a household. Sir Ralph Freeman, a relation of Mr. Preston’s, suggested this to the duke, who immediately sent for the latter, and receiving him with such a serious air as he thought would be acceptable, told him that the prince and himself having the misfortune to be absent when he preached, would be obliged to him for a copy of his sermon, and entreated him to believe that he would be always ready to serve him to the best and utmost of his power. The sermon was accordingly written out in a fair hand, and presented, and the preacher having been introduced to the prince, was formally admitted one of his six chaplains in ordinary.

About the time that Mr. Preston was thus honoured, Dr. Dunn, the preacher of Lincoln’s-inn, died, and the place was offered to our author, and accepted by him, as he could now “have an opportunity of exercising his ministry to a considerable and intelligent congregation, where, he was assured, many parliament men, and others of his best acquaintance, would be his hearers, and where in term-time he should be well accommodated.” His usual popularity followed him here, yet he was not so much reconciled to the situation as he would have been to a similar one at Cambridge. There he would have students for his hearers who would propagate the gospel, which he thought the lawyers were not likely to do; and his Cambridge friends seemed to be of the same opinion, and wished him again among them. To promote this object, some of the fellows of Emanuel college endeavoured to prevail upon their master, Dr. Chaderton, who was old, and “had outlived many of those great relations which he had before,” to resign, in which case they hoped to procure Mr. Preston to succeed him, who was “a good man, and yet a courtier, the prince’s chaplain, and very gracious with the duke of Buckingham.” Two obstacles presented themselves to this design; the one Dr. Chaderton’s unwillingness to be laid aside without some provision for his old age; and the second, their dread lest some person might procure a mandate to succeed who was disagreeable to them, and might be injurious to the interests of the college that had flourished under Dr. Chaderton’s management. This last apprehension they represented to him in such a manner that, after some hesitation, he entered into their views, and desired that Mr. Preston might employ his interest with his court-friends to prevent any mandate being granted, and likewise to secure some provision for himself. Accordingly by a letter from the duke of Buckingham addressed to Dr. Chaderton, dated Sept. 20, 1622, we find that both these objects were attained, and Mr. Preston admitted master of Kmanuel before the news had transpired of his predecessor’s resignation. When his promotion became known, it affected the two parties into which the kingdom was then divided according to their different views. The puritans were glad that “honest men were not abhorred as they had been at court,” and the courtiers thought him now in a fair way of being their own. All considered him as a rising man, and respected him accordingly, and the benchers of Lincoln’sInn, whose preacher he still continued, took some credit to themselves for having been the first who expressed their good opinion of him. Such indeed was his consequence, that even the college statutes, which seemed an insuperable objection to his holding both places, were so interpreted by the fellows as to admit of his repairing to London at the usual periods. He now took his degree of D. D. The object of the courtiers, we have already observed, was to detach Dr. Preston from the puritans, of which he was considered as the head. They were therefore much alarmed on hearing that he had been offered the lectureship of Trinity-church Cambridge, which was in future to be dreaded as the head-quarters of puritanism. So much was it an object to prevent this, that the matter was seriously debated not only by the duke of Buckingham, but by the king himself; but here again their private views clashed. The duke, although he endeavoured to dissuade Dr. Preston from accepting this lectureship, and offered him the bishopric of Gloucester, then vacant, in its stead, would not otherwise exert himself against the doctor. because he would not lose him while the king, having no other object than wholly to detach him from the puritans, sent his secretary to inform him that if he would give up this lectureship, any preferment whatever was at his service. Dr. Preston, however, whose object, as his biographer says, “was to do good, and not to get good,” persisted, and: was appointed lecturer, and the king could not conceal his displeasure that Buckingham still sided with him.

Dr. Preston happened to be at Theobalds, in attendance as chaplain, when king James died, and on this melancholy occasion had many interviews both with the duke of Buckingham, and the prince; and as soon as the event was announced, went to London in the same coach with his new sovereign and the duke, and appeared to be in high favour; but the duke was ultimately disappointed in his hopes of support from Dr. Preston and his friends. In a public conference Dr. Preston disputed against the Arminian doctrines in a manner too decided to be mistaken; and when on this account he found his influence at court abate, he repaired to his college, until finding his end approaching, he removed to Preston, near Heyford in his native county, where he died in July 1628, in the forty-first year of his age. His remains were deposited in Fausley church. Fuller, who has classed him among the learned writers of Queen’s college, says, “he was all judgment and gravity, and the perfect master of his passions, an excellent preacher, a celebrated disputant, and a perfect politician.” Echard styles him “the most celebrated of the puritans,” and copies the latter part of what Fuller had said. He wrote various pious tracts, all of which, with his Sermons, were published after his death. The most noted of these works is his “Treatise on the Covenant,” 1629, 4U).

, an English dramatic writer, who flourished in the earlier part of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was first M. A. and fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, and afterwards created a doctor of civil law, and master of Trinity-hall in the same university, over which he presided about fourteen years, and died in 1598. In 1564, when queen Elizabeth was entertained at Cambridge, this gentleman acted so admirably well in the Latin tragedy of Dido, composed by John Ritvvise, one of the fellows of King’s college, and disputed so agreeably before her majesty, that as a testimonial of her approbation, she be* stowed a pension of twenty pounds per annum upon him; nor was she less pleased with him on hearing his disputations with Mr. Cartwright, and called him “her scholar,” and gave him her band to kiss. The circumstance of the pension Mr. Steevens supposes to have been ridiculed by Shakspeare in the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” at the conclusion of act the fourth. On the 6th of Sept. 1566, when the Oxonian Muses, in their turn, were honoured with a visit from their royal mistress, Preston, with eight more Cantabrigians, were incorporated masters of arts in the university of Oxford. Mr. Preston wrote one dramatic piece, in the old metre, entitled “A Lamentable Tragedy full of pleasant Mirth, conteyning the Life of Cambises King of Percia, from the beginning of his Kingdome unto his Death, his one good Deed of Execution after the many wicked Deeds and tyrannous Murders committed by and through him, and last of all, his odious Death by God’s Justice appointed, doon on such Order as folio weth.” This performance Langbaine informs us, Shakspeare meant to ridicule, when, in his play of Henry IV. part i. act 2. he makes Falstaff talk of speaking “in king Cambyses’ vein.” In proof of which conjecture, he has given his readers as a quotation from the beginning of the play, a speech of king Cambyses himself.

, was born at Hesdin, a small town in the province of Artois, in 1697. He studied with the Jesuits, but soon relinquished that society for the army, into which he entered as a volunteer, but being disappointed in his views of promotion, he returned to the Jesuits. Still, however, his attachment to the military service seems to have been predominant for he soon left the college again, and a second time became a soldier. As an officer he acquired distinction, and some years passed away in the bustle and dissipation of a military life. At length, the unhappy consequence of an amour induced him to return to France, and seek retirement among the Benedictines of St. Maur, in the monastery of St. Germain des Pres, where he continued a few years. Study, and a monastic life, could not, however, entirely subdue his passions. Recollection of former pleasures probably inspired a desire again to enjoy them in the world. He took occasion, from a trifling disagreement, to leave the monastery, to break his vows, and renounce his habit. Having retired to Holland in 1729, he sought resources in his talents, with success. In the monastery at St. Germain, he had written the two first parts of his “Memoires d'un Homme de Qualite.” The work was soon finished, and, when it was published, contributed no less to his emolument than his reputation. A connexion which he had formed at the Hague with an agreeable woman, and which was thought to have exceeded the boundaries of friendship, furnished a subject of pleasantry to the abbe Lenglet, the Zoilus of his time. In his journal entitled “Pour & Centre,” Prevot thus obviates the censure “This Medoro,” says he, speaking of himself, “so favoured by the fair, is a man of thirty-seven or thirty-eight years, who bears in his countenance and in his humour the traces of his former chagrin who passes whole weeks without going out of his closet, and who every day employs seven or eight hours in study; who seldom seeks occasions for enjoyment, who even rejects those that are offered, and prefers an hour’s conversation with a sensible friend, to all those amusements which are called pleasures of the world, and agreeable recreation. He is, indeed, civil, in consequence of a good education, but little addicted to gallantry of a mild but melancholy temper; in fine, sober, and regular in his conduct.”

Whether the accusations of his enemies were true or not, there were reasons which obliged him to pass over into England at the end of 1733, and the lady followed him. There, according to Palissot, he wrote the first volumes of “Cleveland.” The first part of his “Pour & Contre,” was published this year, a journal which brought down upon him the resentment of many authors whose works he had censured. His faults were canvassed, and perhaps exaggerated; all his adventures were brought to the public view, and related, probably, not without much misrepresentation. His works, however, having established his reputation, procured him protectors in France. He solicited and obtained permission to return. Returning to Paris in the autumn of 1734, he assumed the habit of an abbé. Palissot dates this period as the epoch in which his literary fame commenced but it is certain, that three of his most popular romances had been published before that time. He now lived in tranquillity under the protection of the prince of Conti, who gave him the title of his almoner and secretary, with an establishment that enabled him to pursue his studies. By the desire of chancellor d'Aguesseau, he undertook a general history of voyages, of which the first volume appeared in 1745. The success of his works, the favour of the great, the subsiding of the passions, a calm retreat, and literary leisure, seemed to promise a serene and peaceful old age. But a dreadful accident put an end to this tranquillity, and the fair prospect which had opened before him was closed by the hand of death. To pass the evening of his days in peace, and to finish in retirement three great works which he had undertaken, he had chosen and prepared an agreeable recess at Firmin near Chantilly. On the 23d of Nov. 1763, he was discovered by some peasants in an apoplectic fit, in the forest of Chantilly. A magistrate was called in, who unfortunately ordered a surgeon immediately to open the body, which was apparently dead. A loud shriek from the victim of this culpable precipitation, convinced the spectators of their error. The instrument was withdrawn, but not before it had touched the vital parts. The unfortunate abbé opened his eyes, and expired.

, in Latin Pricæus, a learned writer, originally of a Welsh family, was born in 1600 at London. He was brought up at Westminster-school, whence in, 1617 he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford. He made >grcat proficiency in learning, and was esteemed one of the ablest critics of his day, but espoused the Roman catholic religion which for some time he appears to have concealed. On leaving college he was entertained in the earl of Arundel’s family, with which he travelled into Italy, and there was made doctor of law?. On his return to England, he became acquainted with the earl of Strafford, who 'being pleased with his talents and learning, took him with him to Ireland, where he likewise became acquainted with archbishop Usher, and was one of his correspondents, their biblical studies forming a bond of union. When his noble patron was prosecuted, Dr. Price shared in his misfortunes, and returned to England in 1640. During the rebellion he endeavoured to support the royal cause by his pen, and wrote several pamphlets, for which he was imprisoned for a considerable time. After his release he went abroad, and took up his residence in Florence, where the grand duke made him superintendant of his museum, which was then One of the finest in Europe. By the interest of this prince, he was appointed Greek professor at Pisa, and filled that office with great reputation. Resigning it, however, probably owing to bad health, he went to Venice, with a view to publish Hesychius’s Lexicon, but not succeeding in the design, he went to Rome, and was entertained by cardinal Francis Barberini. When advanced in years, he retired to St. Augustine’s convent at Rome, where he died in 1676, aged seventy-six. His works are 1. “Notoe et observationes in apologiam L. Apuleii Madaurensis, philosophi Platonici,” Paris, 1635, 4to. These are to be found in the Gouda edition of Apuleius, 1650, 8vo, but the original is very scarce. 2. “Matthaeus, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustratus,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 3. “Annotationes in epist. Jacobi,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 4. “Acta Apostolorum, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustrata,” Paris, 1647, 8vo. 5. “Index Scriptorum, qui in Hesychii Graeco vocabulario laudantur, confectus et alphabetico ordine dispositus,” 1668. See Schrevelius’s Lexicon at the end. 6. “Comment, in varios Novi Test. Hbros,” inserted in the 5th vol. of the “Critici Sacri.” Dr. Price is praised by Sarravius, in his letters by archbishop Usher on St. Ignatius’s epistles by Heinsius, in an epistle to Carlo Dati by Selden more than once, in the second book “de Synedriis Ebraeorum” by Vossius, in his “Harmonia Evangelica” by Morus, in his notes on the New Testament by Redi, in his treatise on the Generation of Insects but especially by Axenius on Phaedrus.

, an eminent dissenting minister and political writer, was born Feb. 23, 1723, at Tynton, in the parish of Langeinor, in Glamorganshire. His father, who was many years minister of a dissenting congregation at Bridgend in the same county, intended him for trade, but gave him a good education, in the course of which, however, he became dissatisfied with his son’s departure from his own views of religion, which were Calvinistic. He died in 1739, while his son was a scholar at a seminary at Talgarth, and a scholar of more than ordinary thinking. In 1740 we are told that he first engaged in studying Butler’s “Analogy,” a work which never ceased to be the subject of his praise and admiration. In his eighteenth year, by the advice of his paternal uncle, the rev, Samuel Price, who officiated as co-pastor with the celebrated Dr. Watts, he was removed to a dissenting academy in London, founded by Mr. Coward, and of which Mr. Eames was at that time the principal tutor, where he devoted his whole time with “ardour and delight” as he used to say, to the study of mathematics, philosophy, and theology. On completing his course of education, he was removed, by the recommendation of his uncle, to Stoke Newington, and resided there for near thirteen years, in the family of a Mr. Streatfield, as his chaplain and companion.

Mr. Price had hitherto confined his studies almost exclusively to moral and religious subjects, and had long considered his profession as excluding him from taking any part in the temporal affairs of this world but from this opinion he now began gradually to depart, and first bestowed a share of his attention on philosophical studies, which produced many valuable papers inserted in the “Philosophical Transactions” of the Royal Society of London, of which he had been chosen a fellow in 1765. So intent was his mind in one of his investigations, that we are told, the colour of his hair, which was naturally black, became changed in different parts of his head into spots of perfect white. In 1769 he published his valuable “Treatise on Reversionary Payments,” which contained, among a variety of other matters, the solution of many questions in the doctrine of annuities; schemes for establishing societies for the benefit of age and widows on just principles; and an exposure of the inadequacy of the societies of this kind which were continually forming in London and other parts of the kingdom. Altogether this was perhaps his most useful performance. About the end of 1769, the university of Glasgow, conferred on him the degree of doctor of divinity, without any solicitation or knowledge on his own part, but, as his biographer candidly acknowledges, in consequence of the application of some of his clerical friends in Londo.n, who paid the usual fees, and left him to suppose that the honour was entirely gratuitous.

This work was followed in 1772 by his <c Appeal to the public on the National Debt, 77 the principal object of which was to restore the sinking fund which had been extinguished in 1733; and although the proposition then met with much opposition, we have lived to see it adopted by parliament, and become one of the chief bulwarks of our public credit. We have also lived to see that the view he took of public affairs, and his dread of a lessened population, which he represented in the most gloomy colours, were not founded on facts, nor have been confirmed by experience. The same opinions, with others of a more general kind, led him to oppose the measures which ended in a war with America. In 1775 he published “Observations on Civil Liberty and the Justice and Policy of the War with America, 77 which was followed, in the same spirit, in 1777, by another pamphlet entitled” Observations on the Nature of Civil Government. 77 The principles of both these works encountered a variety of opinions, being both extravagantly praised and censured: by some esteemed without fault; while by others they are deemed visionary and chimerical, mischievous in their theory, and tending in their effect to the unhinging of all government That their influence was very great, cannot be denied but that their author was firmly persuaded of their usefulness, seems to be generally believed by those who have had the best opportunities of knowing his sentiments. For writing this last pamphlet, he had the honour to receive the thanks of the Court of common-council the 14th of March, 1776, as having laid down those principles upon which alone the supreme legislative authority of Great Britain over her Colonies could be justly or beneficially maintained and for holding forth those public objects without which it must be totally indifferent to the kingdom who were in or who were out of power. At the same time he also received a gold box of the value of fifty pounds.

With these two pamphlets he had determined to take no further part in the political contentions of that period; but, his biographer observes, he certainly mistook the disposition of his own mind. Whenever therefore government appointed a fast, he considered it more as a political than a religious ordinance, and always took an opportunity on that day, to deliver his sentiments on the conduct of the war, and on the evil consequences which were likely to result from it. This insured him at least one overflowing congregation in the year, for curiosity brought foes as well as friends to hear him on such occasions. But of all those discourses, he only published two which he delivered on the fast days in 1779 and 1781. So many exertions in behalf of America procured him an invitation from the congress to “come and reside among a people who knew how to appreciate his talents,” but this he thought proper to decline. In 1779 he published an “Essay on the population of England,” which, being founded on incorrect information, was in proportion incorrect in its conclusions.

In 1784 Dr. Price published “Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, and the Means of making it useful to the World;” to which are added a letter from M. Turgot, and the last will of M. Fortune Ilicard, which exhibits an amusing, and rather humorous application of Dr. Price’s account of the powers of compound interest, and the uses to which it may be applied for the benefit of mankind. In 1786 he published a volume of sermons, partly on practical, and partly on doctrinal subjects in the latter he states, and defends with animation and zeal, the Arian hypothesis, to which he himself was attached, against Trinitarians on the one hand, and modern Unitarians on the other. He always felt hurt, we are told, at the conduct of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Lindsay, in assuming to themselves and their sect exclusively, the appellation of Unitarians, which belongs equally to Jews and Mahometans, and in treating with so much contumely the opinions of those who differed from them. As to the practical sermons in this volume, they were very generally approved. The subjects are, the security and happiness of a virtuous course, the goodness of God, and the resurrection of Lazarus.

* To read any of the invectives presses himself in terms of contempt against Mr. Burke, one would suppose in regard to the French revolution he was the only human being who and after asking rather too severely looked with an evil eye on the French what good was to be expected from a Revolution. But Dr. Price’s biogra- nation of atheists, he concludes with pher has found another among Dr. foretelling the destruction of a million Price’s intimate correspondents, and of human beings as a probable conno less a pereonage than John Adams, sequence of it. Such a letter, in our the late American ambassador. In opinion, outweighs an hundred of those a loug letter which he wrote to Dr. which Dr. Price received at this time Price at this- time, so far from congra- from his enlightened friends in France, tulating him on the occasion, he exsevere and very painful disorder, by which he had been many years threatened. This he bore with fortitude and resignation, though occasionally his spirits and strength were entirely exhausted by the agonies which he endured. He died on the nineteenth of March, 1791, in the sixtyeighth year of his age, and was interred in Bunhill-fields burying-ground, the funeral being followed by a great concourse of his friends and admirers, to whom he had long been endeared by his private as well as public character. His manners were peculiarly amiable, and whoever was admitted to his conversation, or even perused his works, could not avoid being struck by contrasting his mild and placid temper with that of some of the controversial writers with whom he generally co-operated. He was for many years one of the trustees to the estates of the late Dr. Daniel Williams, which is the most important concern belonging to the London Dissenters. During the applications of the dissenting ministers to parliament, from 1772 to 1779, for relief from subscription to the articles of the church of England, required by the act of Toleration, he was chosen one of the committee appointed to concert and pursue the necessary measures for obtaining that object; but when he found that it could not be obtained without a declaration of faith in the Holy Scriptures, which he contended the civil magistrate had no right to demand, he divided with a small minority of his brethren against the rest of the committee, refusing an enlargement of religious liberty on terms which, according to their views of things, and according to the true principles of dissent, implied submission to the authority of the civil magistrate in matters of conscience, to whom, in matters of this kind, they owed no obedience whatever. In 1783 the degree of LL. D. was conferred upon him by Yale college, in Connecticut, and he was afterwards elected a fellow of the American Philosophical Societies at Philadelphia and Boston. In 1786, when a new academical institution among the dissenters was established at Hackney, Dr. Price was appointed tutor in the higher branches of the mathematics but soon found himself incapable of attending to the duties, of this office, and therefore resigned it the second year. He approved the plan, however, and, says his biographer, “from the circumstance of his having bequeathed a small legacy towards its support, died inconscious of the ignorance and folly which were accelerating its destruction.” Among Dr. Price’s numerous correspondents were, the marquis of Lansdowne, the earls Chatham and Stanhope the bishops of Carlisle, St. Asaph, and Llandaff; Mr. Harris, the author of Philosophical Arrangements, &c. Mr. Howard, Dr. Franklin, the duke de Rochefoucault, the celebrated Turgot, and several of the most distinguished members of the first national assembly.

Although it might have been expected that king William would have, in his turn, resented this conduct of Mr. Price, yet he appears not only to have acquiesced in the decision of parliament, but knowing Mr. Price’s abilities as a lawyer, made him, in 1700, a judge of Brecknock circuit. After sitting in parliament for Weobly from 1682 to 1702, he resigned his seat in favour of his son Thomas, and was made serjeant-at-law, and one of the barons of the exchequer. In this character he distinguished himself in the memorable case of the Coventry election, in 1706, defending the conduct of the magistrates who had called in the aid of the military, not to influence the election, but to suppress a riot which tended to destroy its freedom. In 1710, as his fortune was considerably increased by his preferment, he built an alms-house at the place of his birth for six poor people, and amply endowed it.

, a learned English divine, was born at Padstow, in Cornwall, May 3, 1648. He was the son of Edmund Prideaux, esq. of an ancient and honourable family in that county, and was equally well descended by his mother, the daughter of John Moyle, esq. of Bake, in Cornwall. After some elementary education at Liskard and Bodmin, he was placed under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1668 admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, by dean Fell. His attainments here must have distinguished him very early: for we find that in 1672, when he took his bachelor’s degree, Dr. Fell employed him to add some notes to an edition of Florus, then printing at the university press: and soon after, he was requested to be the editor of Malela, a Greek historian, from a ms. in the Bodleian library but having represented this as a work not worth the printing, being fabulous and trifling, the design was laid aside, until Dr. Hody, who was of a different opinion, undertook the task. Mr. Prideaux, about the same time, was employed in giving a history of the Arundelian marbles, with a comment, which was published in May 1676, under the title *' Marmora Oxoniensia,“folio. Such a work was well calculated to advance his reputation abroad, as well as at home; and there was such a demand for it, that within a few years it could not be procured but at a very high price. It suffered, however, very much from the carelessness and neglect of a Mr. Bennet, then corrector to the university press, and contained so many typographical errors, that Mr. Prideaux never could speak of it with complacency. A more correct edition was published by Maittaire, in 1732. In 1675 Mr. Prideaux took his degree of M. A. Having, by order, presented one of the copies of the” Marmora“to the lord chancellor Finch, this introduced him to his lordship’s patronage, who soon after placed one of his sons under him, as tutor at Christ Church and in 1679 presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s, in the suburb of Oxford, where he officiated for several years. The same year he published two tracts out of Maimonides in Hebrew, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title ec De Jure pauperis et peregrini apud Judeos.” This he did in consequence of having been appointed Dr. Busby’s Hebrew lecturer in Christ Church, and with a view to teach students the rabbinical dialect, and to read it without points. In 1681, the lord chancellor Finch, then earl of Nottingham, presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of- Norwich. In Nov. 1682, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, and on the death of lord Nottingham, found another patron in his successor sir Francis North; who, in February of the following year, gave him the rectory of Bladen, with Woodstock chapelry, in Oxfordshire; and as Mr. Prideaux had been appointed librarian to Christ Church, to which no salary belongs, he was allowed to hold this living with his student’s place.

He now devoted himself entirely to his studies and the duties of his function, going constantly to Bladen and Woodstock every Sunday; and he kept a resident curate at Woodstock, for the discharge of all parochial duties; for whose convenience, as well as that of his successors, Dr. Fell, now bishop of Oxford, built, at his own expence, a house. The terms of the purchase and building he left to Mr. Prideaux, who completed it in 1685. In college he exerted himself in reforming many abuses, and restoring discipline, which was not very acceptable to many of "the students, but procured him the friendship and esteem of his learned contemporaries at the university, particularly bishop Fell and Drs. Pocock, Marshall, Bernard, Mills, Godolphin, &c. On the death of bishop Fell, when king James imposed a popish dean on Christ Church, Mr. Prideaux determined to quit Oxford, and settle on his cures; and accordingly, having, in 1686, proceeded doctor in divinity, he exchanged his living of Bladen for the rectory of Saham. in Norfolk, and then left Oxford, to which he never returned. A few days before this he attended the funeral of his revered friend, Dr. Fell.

When he came to settle at Norwich, such was his reputation for judgment and integrity, that the whole management of the affairs of the cathedral was committed to him, and throughout life he was concerned in placing them in a much better situation than he found them, great irregularities having prevailed in the keeping of the accounts, and the registers and other documents belonging to the church being much neglected. All these he sought out, examined, and arranged in a proper manner; and ordered, from time, to time, some very necessary repairs in the church. He was also, soon after his arrival here, engaged in a controversy with the popish party, whose emissaries, taking encouragement from the conduct of king James II. were now more than usually industrious. Those who had visited Norfolk, particularly, insisted on the invalidity of the orders of the church of England “for, having no priesthood, we could have no sacraments, and consequently could be no church nor could salvation he had among us.” In reply to this, Dr. Prideaux published a work entitled “The Validity of the Orders of the Church of England made out against the objections of the papists in several letters to a gentleman of Norwich, &c.” 1688, 8vo reprinted in 1715. He also preached in the cathedral against several of the tenets of popery, at a time when many of his brethren were intimidated by the determination of the king to establish that religion. One good effect of this was, that his brethren caught a portion of his spirit, and handled the same subjects in their respective churches; and, by other seasonable measures, the mischief was delayed until the abdication of the king; and the consequent proceedings upon that important event dispelled the fears of the friends of the protestant religion.

In December of this year (1688) Dr. Prideaux was collated to the archdeaconry of Suffolk by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich. In May 1689 he made his first visitation of his archdeaconry; and the new oaths to government being then the general subject of debate among the clergy, his chief business was to give the best satisfaction he could to those who had any doubts about them which he performed with such success, that out of three hundred parishes, there were only three clergymen in all that jurisdiction who refused to take them, In the winter following he attended the convocation, which was called to consider of alterations and amendments of the liturgy, the canons, ordinances, and constitutions, the reformation of the ecclesiastical courts, &c. &c. but, after sitting ten days, no progress was made in any of these measures, and the convocation was. adjourned. Dr. Prideaux, who was of opinion that many alterations in the liturgy were necessary, wrote a pamphlet on the subject, entitled “ALetter to a Friend, relating to the present Convocation at Westminster,” of which several thousands were sold within a fortnight.

In the first session of parliament after the new bishops (appointed in the room of those who refused to take the oaths to government) made their appearance, two bills were brought into the House of Lords, relating to the church, in both of which Dr. Prideaux was concerned the first was to take away pluralities of benefices, the other to prevent clandestine marriages. Bishop Burnet intended to introduce the first, but submitted it previously to Dr, Prideaux, who drew up a bill, which all the prelates friendly to the measure thought would be less liable to objection, and therefore it was brought into the House, but rejected the other, to prevent clandestine marriages, was introduced by one of the peers and its object was, to make it felony in the minister who should solemnize or officiate at such marriage. This matter being warmly debated, Dr. Kidder, then bishop of Bath and Wells, wrote to Dr. Prideaux, desiring his opinion on it. The doctor, in a very long letter, proved that the ecclesiastical laws were already sufficient to prevent clandestine marriages, if only carried into execution and stated, by what means, all the precautions provided in these laws had been evaded by the avarice of chancellors, comnjissaries, and registrars. He added that, as the bill stood, it could have no other effect than to subject the clergy to be tried for their lives every marriage they solemnized. Kidder, who had made vise of this paper in the debate which ended in withdrawing the bill, immediately. sent it to the press; and the week following, to Dr. Prideaux’s great surprize, he received a printed copy of it from the bishop, who however had not put his name to it.

In 1691, on the death of Dr. Pocock, his professorship (of Hebrew) was offered to Dr. Prideaux but he declined it, says his biographer, “for several reasons, which at that time made it inconvenient to him to accept it, but afterwards it proved much to his detriment that he did not.” As after the act of toleration, many people imagined themselves at liberty either to go to church or stay at home, as they thought proper, by which means the churches were much deserted, Dr. Prideaux drew up a circular letter, directed to the ministers of his archdeaconry, which was afterwards published, in 1701, at the end of his “Directions to Churchwardens.” In 1694, rinding his health impaired by the aguish air of Saham, he determined to return again with his family to Norwich but, instead of putting in a curate at Saham, he thought it his duty to give up both benefice and office, which he accordingly did, into the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and informed the warden and fellows of New college, Oxford, the patrons of the living, of his resignation. On his return to Norwich, the care of the cathedral affairs again devolved upon him, in the absence of the dean (Dr. Fairfax), who resided mostly in London. In 1696, the dean and chapter presented him to the vicarage of Trowse, worth about 40l. and situated a mile from Norwich. Here he officiated with the same assiduity and regularity as at Saham, and that purely for the love of duty for, in addition to his other preferments, he had a private fortune, which rendered this last vicarage of no consequence in a pecuniary view.

On the translation of the bishop of Norwich to Ely, Dr. Prideaux was advised to make interest for the bishopric but being now sixty years of age, too late to enter on a course of public life and parliamentary attendance, and for other reasons, he declined interfering, and Dr. Trimnell became bishop, whom he thought every way deserving of the preferment. In the mean time Dr. Prideaux continued his labours for the general interests of the church, and in 1709, published his tract on “The original right of Tythes.” In this, his first intention was to give the History of Appropriations and this was to have been only an introduction but it enlarging under his hand, he resolved to publish it by itself as the first part of the work. He had for many years made collections of the common law and ecclesiastical history; but wanted much information which he could not have without going to London, and consulting the public records there and he was about this time seized with the calamitous distemper of the stone; so that he was forced to lay aside that design. Upon this last account also he resigned the vicarage of Trowse, when no longer able to go up into the pulpit. The seventy of his disorder now suggested the operation of lithotomy, which was successfully performed by Mr. Salter, an enii* nent surgeon of London, who went to Norwich for the purpose but the subsequent cure, having been entrusted to a young man at Norwich, was so badlyareated, that the patient had almost lost his life, and was indeed ever after a great sufferer by this misconduct.

In the interval between the publication of the first and second parts of his “Connection,” lord Townsend, secretary of state to George I. having meditated a design to introduce a reformation in the two universities, consulted our author upon it, who drew up a plan for the purpose, and sent it to his lordship, under the title of “Articles for the Reformation of the- two Universities.” These amounted to fifty-six in number. No proceeding was held in consequence of this but some of his articles have bee.n silently adopted, and others are perhaps irreconcileable with the true interests of those seminaries. His proposition to erect a sort of college for those who had neglected their studies, by the name of Drone-Hall, has more the air of a piece of humour, than a serious proposition. The whole are printed in the volume which contains his life.

In the seventy-fourth year of his age, finding himself so much weakened by age and infirmity that he could no longer use his books as formerly, and being desirous that his collection of Oriental books should not be dispersed, he permitted his son, who had been educated at that college, to make a present of them to the society of Clare-hall, Cambridge; and they were accordingly deposited in Clare-hall-library, to the number of three hundred volumes and upwards. It were to be wished, that such an example was more frequently followed, for there are few ways that tend more to render such a valuable collection useless, than by dispersing it among private hands.

Dr. Prideaux was naturally of a very strong, robust constitution; which enabled him to pursue his studies with great assiduity; and notwithstanding his close application, and sedentary manner of life, enjoyed great vigour both of body and mind for many years together, till afflicted by the stone. Although we have few particulars of his course of study at Oxford, it is evident that he must have been an early and hard student, and had accumulated a great fund of Oriental learning, and an intimate acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. His parts were very good, rather solid than lively: his judgment excellent: as a writer he is clear, strong, intelligent, and learned, without any pomp of language, or ostentation of eloquence. His conversation resembled his style, being learned and instructive, but with a conciseness of expression on many occasions, which, to those who were not well acquainted with him, had sometimes the appearance of rusticity. In his manner of life, he was regular and temperate, being seldom out of his bed after ten at night, and he generally rose to his studies before five in the morning. His disposition was sincere and candid. He generally spoke his mind with freedom and boldness, and was not easily diverted from pursuing what he thought right. To those who differed from him in opinion, he always behaved with great candour. In party principles he was rather inclined to what was called Low-church; but in his adherence to the establishment, in performing all the duties annexed to liis preferments, in enjoining a like attention upon all vvith whom he had influence, and in his dislike of schism and schismatics, no man was more inflexible. He had at one time flattered himself that a few alterations in the liturgy might tend to bring back the dissenters to the church; but he lived to see, what we have lived to see more clearly, that a few alterations would not answer the purpose. For most of these particulars we are indebted to an excellent Life of Dr. Prideaux, which appeared in October 1748, “with several tracts and letters of his upon various subjects, never before published.”

, a learned English bishop, was born at Stowford, in the parish of Harford, near Ivy-bridge in Devonshire, Sept. 17, 1578, and was the fourth of seven sons of his father, who being in mean circumstances, with so large a family, our author, after he had learned to write and read, having a good voice, stood candidate for the place of parish-clerk of the church of Ugborow near Harford. Mr. Price informs us, that “he had a competitor for the office, who had made great interest in the parish for him* self, and was likely to carry the place from him. The parishioners being divided in thematter, did at length agree in this, being unwilling to disoblige either party, that the Lord’s-day following should be the day of trial; the one should tune the Psalm in the forenoon, the other in the afternoon; and he that did best please the people, should have the place. Which accordingly was done, and Prideaux lost it, to his very great grief and trouble. Upon, which, after he became advanced to one of the first dignities of the church, he would frequently make this reflection, saying,” If I could but have been clerk of Ugborow, I had never been bishop of Worcester.“Disappointed in this office, a lady of the parish, mother of sir Edmund Towel, maintained him at school till he had gained some knowledge of the Latin tongue, when he travelled to Oxford, and at first lived in a very mean station in Exetercollege, doing servile offices in the kitchen, and prosecuting his studies at his leisure hours, till at last he was taken notice of in the college, and admitted a member of it in act-term 1596, under the tuition of Mr. William Helme, B. D. On January the 31st, 1599, he took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in 1602 was chosen probationer fellow of his college. On May the 11th, 1603, he proceeded Master of Arts, and soon after entered into holy orders. On May the 6th, 1611, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity; and the year following was elected rector of his college in the room of Dr. Holland; and June the 10th, the same year, proceeded Doctor of Divinity. In 1615, upon the advancement of Dr. Robert Abbot to the bishopric of Sarum, he was made regius professor of divinity, and consequently became canon of Christ-church, and rector of Ewelme in Oxfordshire; and afterwards discharged the office of vice-chancellor of the university for several years. In the rectorship of his college he behaved himself in such a manner, that it flourished more than any other in the university; more foreigners coming thither for the benefit of his instruction than ever was known; and in his professorship, says Wood,” he behaved himself very plausible to the generality, especially for this reason, that in his lectures, disputes, and moderatings (which were always frequented by many auditors), he shewed himself a stout champion against Socinus and Arminius. Which being disrelished by some who were then rising, and in authority at court, a faction thereupon grew up in the university between those called Puritans, or Calvinists, on the one side, and the Remonstrants, commonly called Arminians, on the other: which, with other matters of the like nature, being not only fomented in the university, but throughout the nation, all things thereupon were brought into confusion.“In 1641, after he had been twenty- six years professor, he was one of those persons of unblemished reputation, whom his majesty made bishops, on the application of the marquis of Hamilton, who had been one of his pupils. Accordingly, in November of that year, he was elected to the bishopric of Worcester, to which he was consecrated December the 19th following; but the rebellion was at that time so far advanced, that he received little or no profit from it, to his great impoverishment. For adhering stedfastly to his majesty’s cause, and pronouncing all those of his diocese, who took up arms against him, excommunicate, he was plundered, and reduced to such straits, that he was obliged to sell his excellent library. Dr. Gauden said of him, that he now became literally a helluo librorum, being obliged to turn his books >nto bread for his children. He seems to have borne this barbarous usage with patience, and even good humour. On -one occasion, when a friend came to see bim, and asked him how he did? he answered,” Never better in my life, only I have too great a stomach, for 1 have eaten the little plate which the sequestrators left me; I have eaten a great library of excellent books; I have eaten a great deal of linen, much of my brass, some of my pewter, and now am come to eat my iron, and what will come next I know not." So great was his poverty about this time that he would have attended the conferences with the king at the Isle of Wight, but could not afford the means of travelling. Such was the treatment of this great and good man, one of the best scholars and ablest promoters of learning in the kingdom, at the hands of men who professed to contend for liberty and toleration.

Re died of a fever at Bredon in Worcestershire, at the house of his son-in-law, Dr. Henry Sutton, July the 20th, 1650, leaving to his children no legacy but “pious poverty, God’s blessing, and a father’s prayers,” as appears from his last will and testament. His body was attended to the grave by persons of all ranks and degrees, and was interred in the chancel of the church of Bredon. He was a man of very extensive learning; and Nath. Carpenter, in his “Geography delineated,” tells us, that “in him the heroical wits of Jewel, Rainolds, and Hooker, as united into one, seemed to triumph anew, and to have threatened a fatal blow to the Babylonish hierarchy.” He was extremely humble, and kept part of the ragged clothes in which he came to Oxford, in the same wardrobe where he lodged his rochet, in which he left that university. He was exemplary in his charity, and very agreeable in conversation. By his first wife, Mary, daughter of Dr. Taylor, burnt for the Protestant religion in the reign of queen Mary, he had several children; viz. William, a colonel in the service of king Charles I. and slain at the battle of Marston-moor in 1644; Matthias, a captain in the army of that king, who died at London 1646; and three other sons, who died in their infancy, and were buried in Exeteivcollege; and two daughters, viz. Sarah, married to William Hodges, archdeacon of Worcester, and rector of Ripple in Worcestershire; and Elizabeth, married to Dr. Henry Sutton, rector of Bredon in Worcestershire. Our author had for his second wife, Mary, daughter of sir Thomas Reynel of West Ogwell in Devonshire, knt. Cleveland the poet wrote an elegy upon his death.

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

After a residence at Leeds for six years, Dr. Priestley accepted the offer of the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, to reside with his lordship in the nominal capacity of librarian, but really as his literary companion. The terms were 2501. per annum, with a house for his family to live in, and an annuity for life of 150l. in the event of their being separated by his lordship’s dying, or changing his mind. He accordingly fixed his family in a house at Calne, in Wiltshire, near his lordship’s seat; and during seven years attended upon the noble earl in his winter’s residences at London, and occasionally in his excursions, one of which, in 1774, was a tour to the continent. This situation was useful, as affording Dr. Priestley advantages in improving his knowledge of the world, and in pursuing his scientific researches; and as he was perfectly free from restraint, this was the period of some of those exertions which increased his reputation as a philosopher, and some of those which brought the greatest obloquy upon him as a divine. In 1775, he published his “Examination of the doctrine of Common Sense, as held by Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald,” in which he treated those gentlemen with a contemptuous arrogance, of which, we are told, he was afterwards ashamed. In his manner of treating his opponents, he always exhibited a striking contrast to the mild and placid temper of his friend Dr. Price. After this he became the illustrator of the Hartleian theory of the human mind. He had, previously to this, declared himself a believer in the doctrine of philosophical necessity and in a dissertation prefixed to his edition of Hartley, he expressed some doubts of the immateriality of the soul. The charge which these induced against him of infidelity and atheism, seems only to have provoked him to a more open avowal of the same obnoxious sentiments; and in 1777 he published “Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit,” in which he gave a history of the doctrines concerning the soul, and openly supported the system which, upon due investigation, he had adopted. It was followed by “A Defence of Unitarianism, or the simple Humanity of Christ, in opposition to his Pre-existence and of the Doctrine of Necessity.” It seems not improbable that these works produced a coolness in the behaviour of his noble patron, which about this time he began to remark, and which terminated in a separation, after a connection of seven years, without any alledged complaint. That the marquis of Lansdowne had changed his sentiments of Dr. Priestley appears from the evidence of the latter, who informs us, that when he came to London, he proposed to call on the noble lord; but the latter declined receiving his visits. Dr. Priestley adds, that during his connection with his lordship, he never once aided him in his political views, nor ever wrote a single political paragraph. The friends of both parties seem to think that there was no bond of union between them, and his lordship’s attention became gradually so much engaged by politics, that every other object of study lost its hold. According, however, to the articles of agreement, Dr. Priestley retained his annuity for life of 150l. which was honourably paid to the last; and it has been said, that when the bond securing to him this annuity was burnt at the riots of Birmingham, his lordship in the handsomest manner presented him with another.

Dr. Priestley now removed to Birmingham, a situation which he probably preferred to almost any other, on account of the advantage it afforded of able workmen in every branch requisite in his experimental inquiries, and of some men distinguished for their chemical and mechanical knowledge, particularly Watt, Withering, Bolton, and Kier. Several friends to science, aware that the defalcation of his income would render the expences of his pursuits too burthensome for him to support, joined in raising an annual subscription for defraying them. This assistance he without hesitation accepted, considering it as more truly honourable to himself than a pension from the crown, which might have been obtained for him, if he had wished it, during the short administration of the marquis of Rockingham, and the early part of that of Mr. Pitt. Some of these subscriptions were made with a view to defray the expences of his philosophical experiments only, but the greater part of the subscribers were equally friends to his theological studies. He had not been long settled at Birmingham, before a vacancy happened in the principal dissenting congregation, and he was unanimously chosen to supply it. Theology now again occupied a principal share of his attention, and he published his “History of the Corruptions of Christians,” and “History of early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ.” These proved to be, what might be expected, a fertile source of controversy, into which he entered with his usual keenness, and he had for his antagonists two men not easily repelled, the rev. Mr. Badcock, and Dr. Horsley, in whose articles we have already noticed their controversies with this polemic. The renewed applications of the dissenters, for relief from the penalties and disabilities of the corporation and test acts, afforded another topic of discussion, in which Dr. Priestley took an active part; and he did not now scruple to assert that all ecclesiastical establishments were hostile to the rights of private judgment, and the propagation of truth, and therefore represented them as anti-christian, and predicted their downfall, in a style of inveteracy which made him be considered as the most dangerous enemy of the established religion, in its connection vvith the state. Some of the clergy of Birmingham having warmly opposed the dissenters’ claims, Dr. Priestley published a series of “Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham,” which, on account of their ironical manner, as well as the matter, gave great offence. In this state of irritation, another cause of animosity was added by the different feelings concerning the French revolution. The anniversary of the capture of the Bastille, July 14th, had been kept as a festival by the friends of the cause and its celebration was prepared at Birmingham in 1791. Dr. Priestley declined joining the party but a popular tumult ensued, in which he was particularly the object of fury. His house, with his fine library, manuscripts, and apparatus, were made a prey to the flames, and this at a time when it was generally asserted that the mobs in other great cities were rather favourable to the republican cause. After a legal investigation, he received a compensation for his losses, which compensation he stated himself, at 2,000l. short of the actual, loss he sustained. In this he reckoned many manuscripts, the value of which no jury could estimate, and which indeed could have been calculated only in his own imagination. He was not, however, without friends, who purchased for him a library and apparatus equal, according to his own account, to what he had lost. He now came to London, and took up his residence at Hackney, where in a very short time he was chosen to succeed his deceased friend, Dr. Price, as minister to a congregation there; and he had at the same time some connection with the new college lately established in that village. Resuming his usual occupations of every kind, he passed some time in comfort and tranquillity; “but,” say his apologists, “he soon found public prejudice following him in every path, and himself and his family molested by the rude assaults of malignity, which induced him finally to quit a country so hostile to his person and principles.” On the other hand, we are told, that, “had Dr. Priestley conducted himself at Hackney like a peaceable member of society, and in his appeals to the public on the subject of the riots at Birmingham, expressed himself with less acrimony of the government of the country, the prejudices of the people would very quickly have given way to compassion. But when he persisted in accusing the magistrates and clergy, and even the supreme government of his country, of what had been perpetrated by a lawless mob, and appealed from the people, and even the laws of England, to the societies of the * Friends of the Constitution' at Paris, Lyons, Nantz, &c. to the academy of sciences at Paris, when Condorcet was secretary, and to the united Irishmen of Dublin, how was it possible that the prejudices of loyal Englishmen could subside?”

“In the last fortnight of January, his fits of indigestion became more alarming, his legs swelled, and his weakness increased. Within two days of his death, he became so weak, that he could walk but a little way, and that with great difficulty. For some time he found himself unable to speak; but, on recovering a little, he told his friends, that he had never felt more pleasantly during his whole lifetime, than during the time he was unable to speak. He was fully sensible that he had not long to live, yet talked with cheerfulness to all who called on him. In the course of the day he expressed his thankfulness at being permitted to die quietly in his family, without pain, and with every convenience and comfort that he could wish for. He dwelt upon the peculiarly happy situation in which it had pleased the Divine Being to place him in life, and the great advantage he had enjoyed in the acquaintance and friendship of some of the best and wisest men of the age in which he lived, and the satisfaction he derived from having led an useful as well as happy life. He this day gave directions about printing the remainder of his Notes on Scripture (a work, in the completion of which he was much interested), and looked over the first sheet of the third volume, after it was corrected by those who were to attend to its completion, and expressed his satisfaction at the manner of its being executed.

“On Monday morning, the 9th of February, on being asked how he did, he answered in a faint voice, that he had no pain, but appeared fainting away gradually. About eight o'clock, he desired to have three pamphlets which had been looked out by his directions the evening before. He then dictated as clearly and distinctly as he had ever done in his life, the additions and alterations which he wished to have made in each. M——— took down the substance of what he said, which was read to him. He observed, `Sir, you have put in your own language, I wishj it to be mine.‘ He then repeated over again, nearly word for word, what he had before said, and when it was transcribed, and read over to him, he said, That is right, I have now done.’ “About half an hour after, he desired that he might be removed to a cot. About ten minutes after he was removed to it, he died (Feb. 6, 1804) but breathed his last so easily, that those who were sitting close to him did not immediately perceive it. He had put his hand to his face, which prevented them from observing it.”

There are many circumstances in this account which the reader will consider with profound attention. It is unnecessary to point them out, or to attempt a lengthened character of Dr. Priestley. It has been said with truth that of his abilities, none can hesitate to pronounce that they are of first-rate excellence. His philosophical inquiries and publications claim the greatest distinction, and have materially contributed to the advancement of science. As an experimental philosopher, he was among the first of his age. As a divine, had he proved as diligent in propagating truth as in disseminating error, in establishing the gospel in the minds of men, instead of shaking their belief in the doctrines of revelation, perhaps few characters of the last century would have ranked higher as learned men, or have been held in greater estimation. Such, however, was not the character of his theological writings, which, as Dr. Johnson said, were calculated to unsettle every thing, but to settle nothing. All this accords with the sentiments of the great majority of the nation, with respect to Dr. Priestley as a divine, although we are aware that the epithet of bigot will be applied to him who records the fact. On the other hand, in dwelling on Dr. Priestley’s character as a philosopher, his friends may take the most effectual method of reconciling all parties, and handing down his fame undiminished to the latest posterity. We have enumerated his principal works in the preceding sketch, but the whole amount to about 70 volumes, or tracts, in 8vo. An analysis of them is given in the “Life,” to which we are principally indebted for the above particulars.

, an eminent Italian painter, was descended from a noble family in Bologna, where he was born in 1490. His friends, perceiving that he had a strong inclination for design, permitted him to go to Mantua, where he was six years a disciple of Julio Romano, who was then ornamenting the apartments of the palace del Te. In this time he became so skilful, that he represented battles in stucco and basso relievo, better than any of the young painters at Mantua, who were Julio’s pupils. He assisted Julio in executing his designs and Francis I. of France sending to Rome for a man that understood working in stucco, Primaticcio was the person chosen for this service, and he adorned Fontainbleau, and most of the palaces in France, with his compositions. The king put such confidence in him, that he sent him to Rome to buy antiques, in 1540; on which occasion he brought back one hundred and fourscore statues, with a great number of busts. He had moulds made by Giacomo Baroccio di Vignola, of the statues of Venus, Laocoon, Commodus, the Tiber, the Nile, the Cleopatra at Belvidere, and Trajan’s Pillar, in order to have them cast in brass. After the death of Rosso-, who was his rival, he succeeded him in the place of superintendant of the buildings; and in a little time finished the gallery which his predecessor had begun. He brought so many statues of marble and brass to Fontainbleau, that it seemed another Rome, as well for the number of the antiques as for his own works in painting and in stucco. He was so much esteemed in France, that nothing of any consequence was done without him, which had relation to painting or building; and he even directed the preparations for all festivals, tournaments, and masquerades. He was made abbot of St. Martin at Troyes, and lived with such splendour, that he was respected as a courtier as well as a painter. He and Rosso taught the French a good style for, before their time, what they had done in the arts was very inconsiderable, and had something of the Gothic in it. He died in 1570, at the age of eighty, after having been favoured and caressed in four reigns.

, baronet, president of the Royal Society, was born at Stichel-house, in the county of Roxburgh, North Britain, April 10, 1707. His father was sir John Pringle, of Stichel, bart. and his mother, whose name was Magdalen Eliott, was sister to sir Gilbert Eliott of Stobs, bart. Both the families from which he descended were very ancient and honourable in the south of Scotland, and were in great esteem for their attachment to the religion, and liberties of their country, and for their piety and virtue in private life. He was the youngest of several sons, three of whom, besides himself, arrived to years of maturity. His grammatical education be received at home, under a private tutor and after having made such a progress as qualified him for academical studies, he was removed to the university of St. Andrew’s, where he was put under the immediate care of Mr. Francis Pringle, professor of Greek in the college, and a near relation of his father. Having continued there some years, he went to Edinburgh in Oct. 1727, for the purpose of studying physic, that being the profession which he now determined to follow. At Edinburgh, however, he stayed only one year, the reason, of which was, that he was desirous of going to Leyden, at that time the most celebrated school of medicine in Europe. Boerhaave, who had brought that university into reputation, was considerably advanced in years, and Mr. Pringle was unwilling, by delay, to expose himself to the danger of losing the benefit of that great man’s lectures. For Boerhaave he had a high and just respect but it was not his disposition and character to become the implicit and systematic follower of any man, however able aod distinguished. While he studied at Leyden, be contracted an intimate friendship with Van Swieten, who afterwards became so famous at Vienna, both by his practice and writings. Van Swieten was not only Pringle’s acquaintance and fellow-student at the university, but also his physician when he happened to be seized there with a fit of sickness; yet on this occasion he did not owe his recovery to his friend’s advice; for Van Swieten having refused to give him the bark, another person prescribed it, and he was cured. When he had gone through his proper course of studies at Leyden, he was admitted, July 20, 1730, to his doctor of physic’s degree. His inaugural dissertation, “De marcore senili,” was printed. Upon quitting LeyIen, Dr. Pringle settled as a physician at Edinburgh, where he gained the esteem of the magistrates of the city, and of the professors of the college, by his abilities and good conduct and, such was his known acquaintance with ethical subjects, that, March 28, 1734, he was appointed, by the magistrates and council of the city of Edinburgh, to be joint professor of pneumatics and moral philosophy with Mr. Scott, during that gentleman’s life, and sole professor after his decease and, in consequence of this appointment, Dr. Pringle was admitted, on the same day, a member of the university. In discharging the duties of this new employment, his text-book was “Puffendorff de Officio Hominis et Civis,” agreeably to the method he pursued through life, of making fact and experiment the basis of science. Dr. Pringle continued in the practice of physic at Edinburgh, and in performing the obligations of his professorship, till 1742, when he was appointed physician to the earl of Stair, who then commanded the British army. For this appointment he was chiefly indebted to his friend Dr. Stevenson, an eminent physician at Edinburgh, who had an intimate acquaintance with lord Stair. By the interest of this nobleman, Dr. Pringle was constituted, Aug. 24, 1742, physician to the military hospital in Flanders; and it was provided in the commission, that he should receive a salary of twenty shillings a-day, and be entitled to half-pay for life. He did not, on this occasion, resign his professorship of moral philosophy; the university permitted him to retain it, and Messrs. Muirhead and Cleghorn were allowed to teach in his absence, us long as he continued to request it. The exemplary attention which Dr. Pringle paid to his duty as an army physician is apparent from every page of his “Treatise on the Diseases of the Army.” One thing, however, deserves particularly to be mentioned, as it is highly probable that it was owing to his suggestion. It had hitherto been usual, for the security of the sick, when the enemy was near, to remove them a great way from the camp the consequence of which was, that many were lost before they came under the care of the physicians. The earl of Stair, being sensible of this evil, proposed to the duke de Noailles, when the army was encamped at Aschaffenburg, in 1743, that the hospitals on both sides should be considered as sanctuaries for the sick, and mutually protected. The French general, who was distinguished for his humanity, readily agreed to the pro posal, and took the first opportunity of shewing a proper regard to his engagement. At the hattle of Dettingen, Dr. Pringle was in a coach with lord Carteret during the whole time of the engagement, and the situation they were placed in was dangerous. They had been taken unawares, and were kept betwixt the fire of the line in front, a French battery on the left, and a wood full of hussars on the right. The coach was occasionally shifted, to avoid being in the eye of the battery. Soon after this event, Dr. Pringle met with no small affliction in the retirement of his great friend, the earl of Stair, from the army. He offered to resign with his noble patron, but was not permitted. He, therefore, contented himself with testifying his respect and gratitude to his lordship, by accompanying him forty miles on his return to England; after which he took leave of him with the utmost regret.

But though Dr. Pringle was thus deprived of the immediate protection of a nobleman who knew and esteemed his worth, his conduct in the duties of his station procured him effectual support. He attended the army in Flanders, through the campaign of 1744, and so powerfully recommended himself to the duke of Cumberland, that, in the spring following, March 11, he had a commission from his royal highness, appointing him physician general to his majesty’s forces in the Low Countries, and parts beyond the seas; and on the next day he received a second commission from the duke, by which he was constituted physician to the royal hospitals in the same countries. On March 5, he resigned his professorship in consequence of these promotions. In 1745 he was with the army in Flanders, but was recalled from that country in the latter end of the year, to attend the forces which were to be sent against the rebels in Scotland. At this time he had the honour of being chosen F. R. S. Dr. Pringle, at the beginning of 1746, in his official capacity, accompanied the duke of Cumberland in his expedition against the rebels, and remained with the forces, after the battle of Culloden, till their return to England, in the middle of August. We do not find that he was in Flanders during any part of that year. In 1747 and 1748, he again attended the army abroad and in the autumn of 1748 he embarked with the forces for England, upon the conclusion of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. From that time he principally resided in London, where, from his known skill and experience, and the reputation he had acquired, he might reasonably expect to succeed as a physician. In April 1749, Drt Pringle was appointed physician in ordinary to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. In 1750 he published, in a letter to Dr. Mead, “Observations on the Gaol or Hospital Fever.” This work, which passed through two editions, and was occasioned by the gaol-distemper that broke out at that time in the city of London, was well received by the medical world, though he himself afterwards considered it as having been hastily written. After supplying some things that were omitted, and rectifying a few mistakes that were made in it, he included it in his grand work on the “Diseases of the Army,” where it constitutes the seventh chapter of the third part of that treatise. It was in the same year that Dr. Pringle began to communicate to the Royal Society his famous “Experiments upon Septic and Antiseptic substances, with remarks relating to their use in the theory of Medicine” These experiments, which comprehended several papers, were read at different meetings of the society the first in June, and the two next in the November following three more in the course of 1751 and the last in Feb. 1752. Only the three first numbers were printed in the “Philosophical Transactions,” as Dr. Pringle had subjoined the whole, by way of appendix, to his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” These experiments upon septic and antiseptic substances, which have accompanied every subsequent edition of the treatise just mentioned, procured for him the honour of sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal. Besides this, they gained him a high and just reputation, as an experimental philosopher. In February 1753, he presented to the Royal Society “An Account of several Persons seized with the Gaol Fever by working in Newgate and of the manner by which the Infection was communicated to one entire family.” This is a very curious paper and was deemed of such importance by the excellent Dr. Stephen Hales, that he requested the author’s permission to have it published, for the common good of the kingdom, in the “Gentleman’s Magazine;” where it was accordingly printed, previous to its appearance in the Transactions. Dr. Pringle’s next communication was, “A remarkable Case of Fragility, Flexibility, and Dissolution of the Bones.” In the 49th volume of the “Transactions,” we meet with accounts which he had given of an earthquake felt at Brussels; of another at Glasgow and Dunbarton and of the agitation of the waters, Nov. 1, 1756, in Scotland and at Hamburgh. The 50th volume contains, Observations by him on the case of lord Walpole, of Woolterton; and a relation of the virtues of Soap in dissolving the Stone, as experienced by the reverend Mr. Matthew Simson. The next volume is enriched with two of the doctor’s articles, of considerable length, as well as value. In the first, he has collected, digested, and related the different accounts that had been given of a very extraordinary fiery meteor, which appeared on Sunday the 26th of November, 1758, between eight and nine at night; and, in the second, he has made a variety of remarks upon the whole, in which no small degree of philosophical sagacity is displayed. It would be tedious to mention the various papers, which, both before and after he became president of the Royal Society, were transmitted through his hands. Besides his communications in the Philosophical Transactions, he wrote, in the Edinburgh Medical Essays, volume the fifth, an “Account of the success of the Vitrum ceratum Antimonii.”

April 14, 1752, Dr. Pringle married Charlotte, the second daughter of Dr. Oliver, an eminent physician at Bath, and who had long been at the head of his profession in that city. This connection did not last long, the lady dying in the space of a few years. Nearly about the time of his marriage, Dr. Pringle gave to the public the first edition of his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army.” It was reprinted in the year following, with some additions. To the third edition, which was greatly improved from the further experience the author had gained by attending the camps, for three seasons, in England, an Appendix was annexed, in answer to some remarks that professor De Haen, of Vienna, and M. Gaber, of Turin, had made on the work. A similar attention was paid to the improvement of the treatise, in every subsequent edition. The work is divided into three parts; the first of which, being principally historical, may be read with pleasure by every gentleman. The latter parts lie more within the province of physicians, who are the best judges of the merit of the performance and to its merit the most decisive and ample testimonies have been given. It hath gone through seven editions at home and abroad it has been translated into the Fretich, German, and Italian languages. Scarcely any medical writer hath mentioned it without some tribute of applause. Ludwig, in the second volume of his “Commentarii de Rebus in Scientia Naturali et Medicina gestis,” speaks of it highly; and gives an account of it, which comprehends sixteen pages. The celebrated and eminent baron Haller, in his “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” with a particular reference to the treatise we are speaking of, styles the author “Vir illustris de omnibus bonis artibus bene meritus.” It is allowed to be a classical book in the physical line; and has placed the writer of it in a rank with the famous Sydenham. Like Sydenham, too, he has become eminent, not by the quantity, but the value of his productions and has afforded a happy instance of the great and deserved fame which may sometimes arise from a single performance. The reputation that Dr. Pringle gained by his “Observations on the Diseases of the Army,” was not of a kind which is ever likely to diminish. The utility of it, however, was of still greater importance than its reputation. From the time that he was appointed a physician to the army, it seems to have been his grand object to lessen, as far as lay in his power, the calamities of war; nor was he without considerable success in his noble and benevolent design. By the instructions received from this book, the late general Melville, who united with his military abilities the spirit of philosophy, and the spirit of humanity, was enabled, when governor of the Neutral Islands, to be singularly useful. By taking care to have his men always lodged in large, open, and airy apartments, and by never letting his forces remain long enough in swampy places, to be injured by the noxious air of such places, the general was the happy instrument of saving the lives of seven hundred soldiers. In 1753, Dr. Pringle was chosen one of the council of the Royal Society. Though he had not for some years been called abroad, he still held his place of physician to the army and, in the war that began in 1755, attended the camps in England during three seasons. This enabled him, from further experience, to correct some of his former observations, and to give adc,Htional perfection to the third edition of his great work. In 1758, he entirely quitted the service of the army; and being now determined to fix wholly in London, he was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians, July 5, in the same year. The reason why this matter was so long delayed might probably be, his not having hrtherto come to a final resolution with regard to his settlement in the metropolis. After the accession of king George III. to the throne of Great Britain, Dr. Pringle was appointed, in 1761, physician to the queen’s household and this honour was succeeded, by his being constituted, in 1763, physician extraordinary to her majesty. In April in the same year, he had been chosen a member of the Academy of Sciences at Haarlem and, June following, he was elected a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London. In the succeeding November, he was returned on the ballot, a second time, one of the council of the Royal Society; and, in 1764, on the decease of Dr. Wollaston, he was made physician in ordinary to the queen. In Feb. 1766, he was elected a foreign member, in the physical line, of the Royal Society of Sciences at Gottingen; and, on the 5th of June in that year, his majesty was graciously pleased to testify his sense of Dr. Pringle' s abilities and merit, by raising him to the dignity of a baronet of Great Britain. In July 1768, sir John Pringie was appointed physician in ordinary to her late royal highness the princess dowager of Wales to which office a salary was annexed of lOOl. a-year. In 1770, he was chosen, a third time, into the council of the Royal Society as he was, likewise, a fourth time, for 1772.

On Nov. 30, in that year, in consequence of the death of James West, esq. he was elected president of that illustrious and learned body. His election to this high station, though he had so respectable an opponent as the late sir James Porter, was carried by a very considerable majority. This was undoubtedly the highest honour that sir John Pringle ever received; an honour with which his other literary distinctions could not be compared. It was at a very auspicious time that sir John Pringle was called upon to preside over the Royal Society. A wonderful ardour for philosophical science, and for the advancement of natural knowledge, had of late years displayed itself through Europe, and had appeared with particular advantage in our own country. He endeavoured to cherish it by all the methods that were in his power; and he happily struck upon a new way to distinction and usefulness, by the discourses which were delivered by him on the annual assignment of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal. This gentleman had originally bequeathed five guineas, to be given at each anniversary meeting of the Royal Society, by the determination of the president and council, to the person who had been the author of the best paper of experimental observations for the year past. In process of time, this pecuniary reward, which could never be an important consideration to a man of an enlarged and philosophical mind, however narrow his circumstances might be, was changed into the more liberal form of a gold medal; in which form it is become a truly honourable mark of distinction, and a just and laudable object of ambition. It was, no doubt, always usual with the president, on the delivery of the medal to pay some compliment to the gentleman on whom it was bestowed but the custom of making a set speech on the occasion, and of entering into the history of that part of philosophy to which the experiments related, was first introduced by Mr. Martin B'olkes. The discourses, however, which he and his successors delivered were very >hort, and were only inserted in the minute-books of the society. None of them had ever been printed before sir John Pringle was raised to the chair. The first speech that was made by him being much more elaborate and extended than usual, the publication of it was desired and with this request, it is said, he was the more ready to comply, as an absurd account of what he had delivered had appeared in a newspaper. Sir John Pringle was very happy in the subject of his primary discourse. The discoveries in magnetism and electricity had been succeeded by the inquiries into the various species of air. In these enquiries Dr. Priestley, who had already greatly distinguished himself by his electrical experiments, and his other philosophical pursuits and labours, took the principal lead. A paper of his, entitled “Observations on different kinds of Air,” having been read before the society in March 1772, was adjudged to be deserving of the gold medal; and sir John Pringle embraced with pleasure the occasion of celebrating the important communications of his friend, and of relating with accuracy and fidelity what had previously been discovered upon the subject. At the close of the speech, he earnestly requested Dr. Priestley to continue his liberal and valuable inquiries; and we have recently said how well he fulfilled this request. It was not, we believe, intended, when sir John Pringle’s first speech was printed, that the example should be followed but the second discourse was so well received by the Royal Society, that the publication of it was unanimously requested. Both the discourse itself, and the subject on which it was delivered, merited such a distinction. The composition of the second speech is evidently superior to that of the former; sir John having probably being animated by the favourable reception of his first effort. His account of the torpedo, and of Mr. Walsh’s ingenious and admirable experiments relative to the electrical properties of that extraordinary fish, is singularly curious. The whole discourse abounds with ancient and modern learning, and exhibits sir John Pringle’s knowledge in natural history, as well as in medicine, to great advantage. The third time that he was called upon to display his abilities at the delivery of sir Godfrey’s medal, was on an eminently important occasion. This was no less than Mr. (the late Dr.) Maskelyne’s successful attempt completely to establish sir Isaac Newton’s system of the universe, by his “Observations made on the mountain Schehallien, for finding its at-; traction.” Sir John Pringle took advantage of this opportunity, to give a perspicuous and accurate relation of the several hypotheses of the ancients, with regard to the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and of the noble discoveries with which Copernicus enriched the astronomical worldHe then traced the progress of the grand principle of gravitation down to sir Isaac’s illustrious confirmation of it to which he added a concise narrative of Messrs. Bouguer’s and Condamine’s experiment at Chimboraco, and of Mr. Maskelyne’s at Schehallien. If any doubts yet remained with respect to the truth of the Newtonian system, they were now totally removed. Sir John Pringle had reason to be peculiarly satisfied with the subject of his fourth discourse; that subject being perfectly congenial to his disposition and studies. His own life had been much employed in pointing out the means which tended not only to cure, but to prevent, the diseases of mankind and it is probable, from his intimate friendship with capt. Cook, that he might suggest to that sagacious commander some of the rules which he followed, in order to preserve the health of the crew of his majesty’s ship the Resolution, during her voyage round the world. Whether this was the case, or whether the method pursued by the captain to attain so salutary an end, was the result alone of his own. reflections, the success of it was astonishing and this famous voyager seemed well entitled to every honour which could be bestowed. To him the society assigned their gold medal, but he was not present to receive the honour. He was gone out upon that voyage from which he never returned. In this last voyage he continued equally successful in maintaining the health of his men.

Sir John Pringle, in his next annual dissertation, had an opportunity of displaying his knowledge in a way in which it had not hitherto appeared. The discourse took its rise from, the prize medaPs being adjudged to Mr. Mudge an eminent surgeon at Plymouth, upon account of his valu* able paper, containing “Directions for making the best composition for the metals of Reflecting Telescopes, together with a description of the process for grinding, polishing, and giving the great speculum the true parabolic form.” Sir John has accurately related a variety of parti* culars, concerning the invention of reflecting telescopes, the subsequent improvements of these instruments, and the state in which Mr. Mudge found them, when he first set about working them to a greater perfection, till he had truly realized the expectation of sir Isaac Newton, who, above an hundred years ago, presaged that the public would one day possess a parabolic speculum, not accomplished by mathematical rules, but by mechanical devices. Sir John Pnngle’s sixth discourse, to which he was led by the assignment of the gold medal to Mr. (now Dr.) Hutton, on account of his curious paper, entitled “The Force of fired Gunpowder, and the initial Velocity of Cannon-balls, determined by experiments,” was the theory of gunnery. Though sir John had so long attended the army, this was probably a subject to which he had heretofore paid very little attention. We cannot, however, help admiring with what perspicuity and judgment he has stated the progress that was made, from time to time, in the knowledge of projectiles, and the scientific perfection to which his friend Mr. Hutton had carried this knowledge. Sir John Pringle was not one of those who delighted in war, and in the shedding of human blood; he was happy in being able to shew that even the study of artillery might be useful to mankind; and, therefore, this is a topic which he has not forgotten to mention. Here ended his discourses upon the delivery of sir Godfrey Copley’s medal. If he had continued to preside in the chair of the Royal Society, he would, no doubt, have found other occasions of displaying his acquaintance with the history of philosophy. But the opportunities which he had of signalizing himself in this respect were important in themselves, happily varied, and sufficient to gain him a solid and lasting reputation. Several marks of literary distinction, as we have already seen, had been conferred upon sir John Pringle, before he was raised to the president’s chair; but after that event, they were bestowed upon him with great abundance and, not again to resume the subject, we shall here collect them together. Previously, however, to these honours (excepting his having been chosen a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London), he received the last promotion that was given him in his medical capacity, which was, his being appointed, Nov. 4, 1774, physician extraordinary to his majesty. In the year 1776 he was enrolled in the list of the members of no less than four learned bodies. These were, the Royal Academy of Sciences at Madrid the Society of Amsterdam, for the promotion of Agriculture the Royal Academy of Medical Correspondence at Paris and the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg. In July 1777, sir John Pringle was nominated, by his serene highness the landgrave of Hesse, an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries at Cassel. In 1778 he succeeded the celebrated Linnæus, as one of the foreign members of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris. This honour was then extended, by that illustrious body, only to eight persons, on which account it was justly esteemed a most eminent mark of distinction; and we believe there have been few or no instances wherein it has been conferred on any other than men of gceat and acknowledge/1 abilities and reputation. In October in the same year, our author was chosen a member of the Medical Society at Hanau. In the succeeding year, March 29, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Belles Lettres at Naples. The last testimony of respect which was, in this way, bestowed upon sir John Pringle, was his being admitted, in 1781, into the number of the fellows of the newly-erected Society of Antiquaries at Edinburgh, the particular design of which is to investigate the history and antiquities of Scotland.

Sir John Pringle had not much fondness for poetry. He had not even any distinguished relish for the immortal Shakspeare at least, he seemed too- highly sensible of the defects of that illustrious bard, to give him the proper degree of estimation. Sir John Pringle had not, in his youth, been neglectful of philological inquiries; and, after having omitted them for a time, he returned to them again; so far, at least, as to endeavour to obtain a more exact knowledge of the Greek language, probably with a view to a better understanding of the New Testament. He paid a great attention to the French language and it is said that he was fond of Voltaire’s critical writings. Among all his other pursuits, sir John Pringle never forgot the study of the English language. This he regarded as a matter of so much consequence, that he took uncommon pains with respect to the style of his compositions and it cannot be denied that he excels in perspicuity, correctness, and propriety of expression. Though he slighted poetry, he was very fond of music. He was even a performer on the violoncello, at a weekly concert given by a society of gentlemen at Edinburgh. Besides a close application to medical and philosophical science, sir John Pringle, during the latter part of his life, devoted much time to the study of divinity this was, with him, a very favourite and interesting object. He corresponded frequently with Mishaelis on theological subjects and that celebrated professor addressed to him some letters on “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks,” which sir John thought worthy of being published in this country. He was accordingly at considerable pains, and some expence, in the publication, which appeared in 1773,under the following title “Joannis Davidis Michaelis, Prof. Ordin. Philos. et oc. Reg. Scient. Goettingensis Collegae, Epistolae, de LXX flebdomadibus Danielis, ad D. Joannem Pringle, baronetturn: primo privatim miss, nunc vero utriusque consensus publice editae,” 8vo. Sir John Pringle was likewise a diligent and frequent reader of sermons, which form so valuable a part of English literature. If, from the intellectual, we pass on to the moral character of sir John Pringle, we shall find that the ruling feature of it was integrity. 3y this principle he was uniformly actuated in the whole of his behaviour. All his acquaintance with one voice agreed that there never was a man of greater integrity. He was equally distinguished for his sobriety. He told Mr. Boswell, that he had never in his life been intoxicated with liquor. In his friendships, sir John Pringle was ardent and steady. The intimacies which were formed by him, in the early part of his life, at Edinburgh, continued unbroken to the decease of the gentlemen with whom they were made; and were sustained by a regular correspondence, and by all the good offices that lay in his power. With relation to sir John Pringle' s external manner of deportment, he paid a very respectful attention to those whom he esteemed; but he had a kind of reserve in his behaviour, when he was not perfectly pleased with the persons who were introduced to him, or who happened to be in his company. His sense of integrity and dignity would not permit him to adopt that false and superficial politeness, which treats all men alike, however different in point of real estimation and merit. He was above assuming the professions, without the reality of respect. On the religious character of sir John Pringle it is more particularly important to enlarge. The principles of piety ajid virtue, which were early instilled into him by a strict education, do not appear ever to have lost their influence uppn the general conduct, of his life. Nevertheless, when he travelled abroad in the world, his belief of the Christian revelation was so far unsettled, that he became at least a sceptic on that subject. But it was not the disposition of sir John Priugle to rest satisfied in his doubts and difficulties, with respect to a matter of such high importance. He was too great, a lover of truth, not to make religion the object of his serious inquiry. As he scorned to be an implicit believer, he was equally averse to the being an implicit unbeliever; which is the case of large numbers who reject Christianity with as little knowledge, and as little examination, as the most determined bigots embrace their systems. The result of this investigation was, a full conviction of the divine original and authority of the Gospel. The evidence of revelation appeared to him to be solid and invincible, and the nature of it to be siich as must demand the most grateful acceptance. Such having been the character and eminence of sirJohn Pringle, it was highly proper that a tribute to his merit should be placed in Westminster abbey. Accordingly, under the direction and at the expence of his nephew and heir, a monument with an English inscription was erected, of which Mr. Nollekens was the sculptor.

, in Latin Priolus, author of an History of France from the death of Louis XIII. in 1643 to 1664, was born in 1602. He was descended from the Prioli, an illustrious family, some of whom had been doges of Venice. He underwent some difficulties from losing his father and mother, when young; but these did not abate his passion for learning, which he indulged day and night. He studied first at Orthez, next at Montauban, and afterwards at Leyden in which last city he profited by the lectures of Heinsius and Vossius. He went to Paris, for the sake of seeing and consulting Grotius and afterwards to Padua, where he learned the opinions of Aristotle and other ancient philosophers, under Cremoninus and Licetus. After returning to France, he went again into Italy, in order to be recognized by the house of Prioli, as one of their relations. He devoted himself to the duke of Rohan, then in the Venetian service, and became one of his most intimate confidents; but, uncertain what his fate would be after this duke’s death, he retired to Geneva, having married, three months before, a lady of a very noble family. The duke de Longueville drew him from this retirement, upon his being appointed plenipotentiary from the court of France for the treaty of Munster, as a person whose talents might be of service to him and Priolo resided with him a year at Munster, where he contracted a very intimate friendship with Chigi the nuncio, % who was afterwards pope Alexander VII. From Munster he returned to Geneva; whence he went to France, in order to settle at Paris. He stayed six months in Lyons, and there had frequent conferences with cardinal Francis Barberini the effect of which was, that himself and his whole family abjured the Protestant religion, and immediately received the communion from the hands of the cardinal. He was not, however, long easy at Paris for, the civil war breaking out soon after, he joined with the malecontents, which proved the ruin of his fortune. He was obliged to retire to Flanders, his estate was confiscated, and his family banished. Being afterwards restored to the favour of his sovereign, he resolved to lead a private life, and to devote himself to study. It was at this time, and to divert his melancholy, that he wrote, without the least flattery or partiality, his “History of France,” in Latin. It has gone through several impressions but the best edition is that of Leipsic, 1686, 8vo. He was again employed in negociations; and set out, in 1667, upon a secret affair to Venice; but did not arrive at the end of his journey, being seized with an apoplectic fit, of which he died in the archbishop’s palace at Lyons. He left seven children; who, by virtue of his name, and their own accomplishments and merit, rose to very flourishing circumstances.

By the death of his father, the care of him devolved upon an uncle, Samuel Prior, who kept the Rummer tavern, near Charing-cross, and who discharged the trust Imposed in him with a tenderness truly paternal, and at a proper a<re sent him to Westminster school, where he was admitted a scholar in 1681, and distinguished himself to great advantage. After remaining here for a short time, he was taken home by his uncle, in order to be bred to his trade. At leisure hours, however, he pursued the study of the classics, on which account he was soon noticed by the polite company who resorted to his uncle’s house. It happened, one day, that the earl of Dorset and other gentlemen being at this tavern, the discourse turned upon a passage in an ode of Horace, who was Prior’s favourite author: and the company being divided in their sentiments, one of the gentlemen said, “I find we are not like to agree in our criticisms; but, if I am not mistaken, there is a young fellow in the house who is able to set us all right.” Upon which he named Matt. Prior, who being called in, gave the company the satisfaction they wanted.

He was in the following year at Loo with the king; from whom, after a long audience, he carried orders to England, and upon his arrival became under-seeretary of state in the earl of Jersey’s office; a post which he did not retain long, because Jersey was removed; but he was soon made commissioner of trade. In 1700, at which time he was created M.A. he produced one of his longest and most splendid compositions, the “Carmen Seculare,” in which he exhausts all his powers in celebrating the glories of king William’s reign, and it is supposed with great sincerity. In the parliament which met in 1701, he was chosen representative for East Grinstead, and now voted for the impeachment of those lords who had persuaded the king to the partition -treaty, a treaty in which he had himself been officially employed, but which it is thought he never approved.

Upon the success of the war with France, after the accession of queen Anne, Prior exerted his poetical talent in honour of his country first, in his “Letter to Boileau, on the victory at Blenheim, in 1704;” and again, in his Ode on the glorious success of her majesty’s arms in 1706, at the battle of Ramilies and Dr. Johnson thinrks this is the only composition produced by that event which is now remembered. About this time Prior published a volume of his poems, with the encomiastic character of his deceased patron, the earl of Dorset. It began with the “College Exercise,” and ended with the “Nut-brown Maid.” Prior now, whatever were his reasons, began to join the party who were for bringing the war to a conclusion, who were to expatiate on past abuses, the waste of, public money, the unreasonable “Conduct of the Allies,” the avarice of generals, and other topics, which might render the war and the conductors of it unpopular. Among other writings, the “Examiner” was published by the wits of this party, particularly Swift. One paper, in ridicule of* Garth’s verses to Godolphin upon the loss of his place, was written by Prior, and answered by Addison, who appears to have known the author either by conjecture or intelligence.

The tories, who were now in power, were in haste to end the war; and Prior, being recalled to his former political employment, was sent, July 1711, privately to Paris, with propositions of peace. He was remembered at the French court; and, returning in about a month, brought with him the abbe Gaultier and Mr. Mesnager, a minister from France, invested with full powers. The negociation was begun at Prior’s house, where the queen’s ministers met Mesnager, Sept. 20, 1711, and entered privately upon the great business. The importance of Prior appears from the mention made of him by St. John, in his letter to the queen. “My lord treasurer moved, and all my lords were of the same opinion, that Mr. Prior should be added to those who are empowered to sign: the reason for which is, because he, having personally treated with Monsieur de Torcy, is the best witness we can produce of the sense in which the general preliminary engagements are entered into: besides which, as he is the best versed in matters of trade of all your majesty’s servants who have been trusted in this secret, if you should think fit to employ him in the future treaty of commerce, it will be of consequence that he has been a party concerned in concluding that convention which must be the rule of this treaty.”

The conferences began at Utrecht Jan. 1, 1711-12, but advanced so slowly, that Bolingbroke was sent to Paris to adjust differences with less formality and Prior, who had accompanied him, had, after his departure, the appointment and authority of an ambassador, though no public character. Soon after, the duke of Shrewsbury went on a formal embassy to Paris, but refused to be associated with a man so meanly born as Prior, who therefore "continued to act without a title till the duke returned next year to England, and then he assumed the style and dignity of ambassador. Yet even while he continued in appearance a private man, he was treated with confidence by Lewis, who sent him with a letter to the queen, written in favour of the elector of Bavaria, and by M. de Torcy. His public dignity and splendour commenced in August 1713, and continued till the August following; but it was attended with some perplexities and mortifications. He had not all that is customarily given to ambassadors he hints to the queen, in an imperfect poem, that he had no service of plate; and it appeared, bv the debts which he contracted, that his remittances were not punctually made.

He had now his liberty, but had nothing else. Whatever the profit of his employments might have been, he had always spent it; and at the age of fifty-three was, with all his abilities, in danger of penury, having yet no solid revenue but from the fellowship of his college, which, when in his exaltation he was censured for retaining it, he said “he could live upon it at last.” Being, however, generally known and esteemed, he was encouraged to add other poems to those which he had printed, and to publish them by subscription. The expedient succeeded by the industry of many friends, who circulated the proposals, and the care of some, who, it is said, withheld the money from him lest he should squander it. The price of the volume was two guineas the whole collection was four thousand to which lord Harley, the son of the earl of Oxford, to whom he had invariably adhered, added an equal sum, for the purchase of Down-hall, which Prior was to enjoy during life, and Harley after his decease. He had now, what wits and philosophers have often wished, the power of passing the day in contemplative tranquillity. But it seems, says Johnson, that busy men seldom live long in a state of quiet. It is not unlikely that his health declined. He complains of deafness “for,” says he, “I took little care of my ears while I was not sure if my head was my own.” He had formed a design of writing an “History of his own Time;” but had made very little progress in it, when a lingering fever carried him off, Sept. 18, 1721, in his fifty-eighth year. He died at Wimple, a seat of the earl of Oxford, not far from Cambridge and his corpse was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected at his own charge, 500l. having been set apart by him for that purpose, and an inscription for it was written by Robert Freind, master of Westminster-school. After his death, more of his poems were published; and there appeared, in 1740, “The History of his own Time, compiled from his original manuscripts;” a composition little worthy of him, and undoubtedly, for the most part, if not entirely, spurious. To make his college some amends for retaining his fellowship, he left them books to the value of 2001. to be chosen by them out of his library and also his picture painted by La Belle, in France, which had been a present to him from Lewis XIV.

“Of Prior,” says Johnson, " eminent as he was, both by his abilities and station, very few memorials have been left by his contemporaries; the account therefore must now be destitute of his private character and familiar practices. He lived at a time when the rage of party detected all which it was any man’s interest to hide; and, as little ill is heard of Prior, it is certain that not much was known. He was not afraid of provoking censure; for, when he forsook the whigs, under whose patronage he first entered the world, he became a tory so ardent and determinate, that he did not willingly consort with m'en of different opinions. He was one of the sixteen tories who met weekly, and agreed to address each other by the title of brother; and seems to have adhered, not only by concurrence of political designs, but by peculiar affection, to the earl of Oxford and his family. With how much confidence he was trusted has been already told.

"He was, however, in Pope’s opinion, fit only to make verses, and less qualified for business than Addison himselfThis was surely said without consideration. Addison, exalted to a high place, was forced into degradation by a sense of his own incapacity; Prior, who was employed by men very capable of estimating his value, having been secretary to one embassy, had, when great abilities were again wanted, the same office another time; and was, after so much experience of his knowledge and dexterity, at last sent to transact a negociation in the highest degree arduous and important, for which he was qualified, among other requisites, in the opinion of Bolingbroke, by his influence upon the French minister, and by skill in questions of commerce above other men.

“Of his behaviour in the lighter parts of life, it is too late to get much intelligence., One of his answers to a boastful Frenchman has been related and to an impertinent one he made another equally proper. During his embassy he sat at the opera by a man, who, in his rapture, accompanied with his own voice the principal singer. Prior fell to railing at the performer with all the terms of reproach that he could collect, till the Frenchman, ceasing from his song, began to expostulate with him for his harsh censure of a man who was confessedly the ornament of the stage.” I know all that,“says the ambassador,” mais il chante si haut, que je ne sgaurois vous entendre."

In his private character Prior was licentious, and descended to keep low company. In his “Tales” we find much indecency, and his works, collectively, are not a suitable present from a decent giver. Whatever his opinions, there seems no evidence to contradict the charge brought against him, that his life was irregular, negligent, and sensual. For the merit of his poems we may refer to Dr. Johnson’s criticism, which some have thought rather severe. As it becomes more attentively considered, however, it seems to harmonize with more recent opinions. Ease and humour are the principal characteristics of Prior’s poetry. Invention he had very little; but, although his stories, and even his points may be traced, he certainly had the happy art of telling an old story so as to convey new delight. He appears to have rested his reputation on his “Solomon,” which he wrote with great labour. Johnson, who objects to it chiefly its tediousness, allows that the reader will be able to mark many passages to which he may recur for instruction and delight, many from which the poet may learn to write, and the philosopher to reason: and Cowper says, that in his opinion, Solomon is the best poem, whether we consider the subject of it, or the execution, that Prior ever wrote.

, an eminent grammarian of antiquity, was born at Caesarea, and afterwards went to Constantinople, where he taught the principles of his art, and was in the highest reputation about the year 525. Donatus, Servius, and Priscian, are called triumviri in “Re Grammatica,” by Laurentius Valla, who thinks them all excellent, and that none oF the ancients, who wrote after them upon the Latin language, are fit to be mentioned with them. Priscian composed a work “De Arte Grammatica,” which was first printed by Aldus, at Venice, in 1476 it is addressed to Julian, not the emperor, as some have erroneously supposed, but the consul. He wrote a book “De NaturalibusQusestionibus,” which he dedicated to Chosroes, king of Persia. He translated “Dionysius’s Description of the World,” into Latin verse: this is printed with the edition of that author, at Oxford, 1697, in 8vo. Some have pretended that this grammarian! was first a Christian, and afterwards a Pagan but there is no foundation for this opinion. Hadrian Valesius relates, that his name, in a very ancient and correct manuscript, is written Pracscianus, A person who writes false Latin is proverbially said to break Priscian’s head."

, a heretic of the fourth century, well known in ecclesiastical history for having revived the errors of the Gnostics and Manicheans, was a Spaniard, of high birth, and great fortune, with considerable talents and eloquence. His opinions first became known in the year 379, and were rapidly diffused in Spain. But in the ensuing year a council was held by the bishops of Aquitaine at Saragossa, in which the Prisciliianists were solemnly condemned. He was then but a layman, but soon after he was ordained bishop of Labina, or Lavila, supposed to be Avila, one of the cities of Galicia, by two bishops of his own party. In the year 384, or, as Baronius in his Annals writes, 387, the ringleaders of this sect were put to death by the emperor Maximus, having been convicted before the magistrates of the grossest immoralities. These were, Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, two ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons Latronianus, or, as Jerome calls him, Matronianus, a layman and Eucrocia, the widow of the orator Delphidius, who had professed eloquence in the city of Bourdeaux a few years before. These were all beheaded at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s followers, whom they could discover or apprehend, were either banished or confined. The bodies of Priscillian, and those who suffered with him, were conveyed by the friends and adherents into Spain, and there interred with great pomp and solemnity; their names were added to those of other saints and martyrs, their firmness extolled, and their doctrine embraced by such numbers of proselytes that it spread in a short time over all the provinces between the Pyrenees and the ocean. The author of the notes upon Sulpitius Severus tells us that he saw the name of Priscillian in some not very ancient martyrologies. In practice they did not much differ from the Manichees the same, or nearly the same, infamous mysteries being ascribed to both: for, in the trial of Priscillian, before the emperor Maximus, it was alledged that he had countenanced all manner of debauchery, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of lewd women, and that he used to pray naked among them. Others, however, are of opinion that these charges had not much foundation, and that the execution of Priscillian and his followers was rather a disgrace than an advantage to the Christian cause.

He is sometimes equally blameable for extravagance of attitude, as in the executioner of St. Nazario a picture else composed of charms and beauties-. But notwithstanding the number and copiousness of his works, his design is correct, his forms and draperies select, his invention varied, and the whole together has a certain grandeur and breadth which he either acquired from the Caracci, or like them derived from Corregio. He died in 1626, at the age of 78. He had two brothers, both painters, but not of equal merit with himself; Camillo, who practised in history painting, and Carlo Antonio, who adopted landscape. The latter left a son Ercole, called the Young, who painted flower-pieces with considerable skill, and died in 1676, aged 80.

, an eminent philosopher among the later Platonists, was born at Constantinople in the year 410, of parents who were both able and willing to provide for his instruction in all the various branches of learning and knowledge. He was first sent to Xanthus, a city of Lycia, to learn grammar; thence to Alexandria, where he was under the best masters in rhetoric, philosophy, and mathematics; and from Alexandria he removed to Athens, where he heard Plutarch, the son of Nestorius, and Syrianus, both of them celebrated philosophers. He succeeded the last in the rectorship of the Platonic school at Athens, where he died in the year 485. Marinus of Naples, who was his successor in the school, wrote his life and the first perfect copy of it was published, with a Latin version and notes, by Fabricius, Hamburgh, 1700, 4to, and afterwards subjoined to his “Bibiiotheca Latina, 1703,” 8vo.

The character of Proclus is that of all the later Platonists, who were in truth much greater enthusiasts than the Christians their contemporaries, whom they represented in this light. Proclus was not reckoned quite orthodox by his order he did not adhere so religiously, as Julian and Porphyry, to the doctrines and principles of his master “he had,” says Cudwortb, “some peculiar fancies and whimsies of his own, and was indeed a confounder of the Platonic theology, and a rningler of much unintelligible stuff with it.”

, an ancient Greek historian of the sixth century, was born at Caesarea in Palestine, and went thence to Constantinople in the time of the emperor Anastasius whose esteem he obtained, as well as that of Justin the first, and Justinian. His profession was that of a rhetorician and pleader of causes. He was advanced to be secretary to Belisarius, and attended that renowned general in the wars of Persia, Africa, and Italy. He afterwards was admitted into the senate, and became prefect or governor of the city gt Constantinople; where he seems to have died, somewhat above sixty, about the year 560. His history contains eight books; two, of the Persian war, which are epitomized by Photius, in the sixty-third chapter of his “Bibliotheca;” two, of the wars of the Vandals; and four, of that of the Goths; of all which there is a kind of abridgment, in the preface of Agathias, who began his history where Procopius left off. Besides these eight books, Suidas mentions a ninth, which comprehends matters not before published, and is therefore called his avExSbra, or indita. Vossius thought that this book was lost but it has since been published, and gone through many editions. Many learned men have been of opinion, that this is a spurious work, and falsely ascribed to Procopius; and cannot be persuaded, that he, who in the eight books represented Justinian, Theodora, and Belisarius, in a very advantageous light, should in this ninth have made such a collection of particulars as amounts to an invective against them and Le Vayer was so sensibly affected with this argument, that he declares all Procopius’ s history to be ridiculous, if ever so little credit be given to the calumnies of this piece. Fabricius, however, sees no reason, why this secret history tnayhot have been written by Procopius; and he produces several examples, and that of Cicero amongst them, to shew that nothing has been more usual, than fur writers to take greater liberties in their private accounts, than they can venture to introduce in what was designed for the public. There is another work of Procopius, still extant, entitled “KTi<7/xaT<z, sive de sedificiisconditis vel restauratis auspicio Justiniani Imperatoris Hbri vi.” which, with his eight books of history, were first renewed in Greek by Hoeschelius in 1607 for the book of anecdotes, though published in 1624, was not added to these, till the edition of Paris, 1662, in folio, when they were all accompanied with Latin versions.

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

Procopius Rasus, or The Shaven, surnamed the Great, from his valour and military exploits, was a Bohemian gentleman, who, after travelling into France, Italy, Spain, and the Holy Land, was shaven, and even ordained priest, as is said, against his will, from whence he had the above epithet added to his name. He afterwards quitted the ecclesiastical habit, and attached himself to Zisca, chief of the Hussites, who esteemed him highly, and placed a particular confidence in him. Procopius succeeding Zisca in 1424, committed great ravages in Moravia, Austria, Brandenburg, Silesia, and Saxony, and made himself master of several towns, and great part of Bohemia. He had an interview with Sigismond, but not obtaining any of his demands from that prince, he continued the war. Upon hearing that the council of Basil was summoned in 1431, he wrote a long circular letter in Latin, to all the states in his own name, and that of the Hussites, in the close of which he declared that he and his party were ready to fight in defence of the four following articles: that the public irregularities of the priests should be prevented secondly, that the clergy should return to the state of poverty, in which our Lord’s disciples lived; thirdly, that all who exercise the ministerial office, should be at liberty to preach in what manner, at what time, and on what subjects they chose; fourthly, that the Eucharist should be administered according to Christ’s institution, i. e. in both kinds. Procopius also wrote a letter to the emperor Sigismond, May 22, 1432, requesting him to be present with the Hussites at the council of Basil. He was there himself with his party in 1433 they defended the above-mentioned articles very warmly, but finding that their demands were not granted, withdrew, and continued their incursions and ravages. Procopius died of the wounds he received in a battle in 1434. The Letters before spoken of, and the proposal which he made in the name of the Taborites, may be found in the last volume of the large collection by Fathers Martenne and Durand. He must be distinguished from Procopius, surnamed the Little, head of part of the Hussite army, who accompanied Procopius the Great, and was killed in the same action in which the latter received his mortal wound.

, an ancient Roman poet, was born at Mevania, a town in Urnbria, as we learn from his own writings, and probably about the year of Rome 700. Some say, his father was a knight, and a man of considerable authority; who, becoming a partizan with Antony, on the capture of Perusia, was made prisoner, and killed by Augustus’s order, at the altar erected to Caesar when his estate was forfeited of course. This which happened when the poet was very young, he alludes to in one of his elegies, and laments the ruin of his family in that early season of his life. His wit and learning soon recommended him to the patronage of Maecenas and Gallus; and among the poets of his time, he was very intimate with Ovid and Tibullus. We have no particular account of his life, or the manner of his death; only he mentions his taking a journey to Athens, probably in company with his patron Maecenas, who attended Augustus in his progress through Greece. Those that make him live the longest carry his age no higher than forty-one. His death is usually placed B. C. 10. The great object of his imitation was Callimachus Mimnermus and Philetas were two others, whom he likewise admired and followed in his elegies. Quintilian tells us, that Propertius disputed the prize with Tibullus, among the critics of his time and the younger Pliny, speaking of Passienus, an eminent and learned elegiac poet of his acquaintance, says, that this talent was hereditary and natural for that he was a descendant and countryman of Propertius. Propertius however was inferior to Tibullus in tenderness, and to Ovid in variety of fancy, and facility of expression still it must be granted that he was equal in harmony of numbers, and certainly gave the first specimen of the poetical epistle, which Ovid afterwards claimed as his invention.

, of Aquitaine, a celebrated, learned and pious writer, in the 5th century, and one of the greatest defenders of the grace of Christ, after St. Augustine, was secretary to St. Leo, and is even supposed by some critics to have been author of the epistle addressed by that pope to Flavian against the Eutychian heresy. Prosper had before zealously defended the books of St. Augustine, to whom he wrote in the year 429, concerning the errors of the SemiPelagians, which had recently appeared in Gaul and after St. Augustine’s death, he continued to support his doctrine, which he did in a candid and argumentative manner. Prosper answered the objections of the priests of Marseilles, refuted the conferences of Cassian, in a book entitled “Contra Collatorem,” and composed several other works, in which he explains the orthodox doctrine, with the skill of an able divine, against the errors of the Pelagians and Semi- Pelagians. Many learned men have asserted, with great appearance of probability, that Prosper was only a layman but others, with very little foundation, suppose him to have been bishop of Reggio in Italy, or rather of Riez in Provence. The time of his death is not ascertained, but he was alive in 463. The best edition of his works is that of Paris, 1711, folio, by M. Mangeant, reprinted at Rome, 1732, 8vo. Prospers poem against the Ungrateful, i. e. against the enemies of the grace of Christ, is particularly admired. M. le Maistre de Sacy has given an elegant translation of it in French verse, 12mo. Our author must be distinguished, however, from another Prosper, who lived about the same time, and went from Africa, his native country, into Italy, to avoid the persecution of the Vandals. This Prosper, called “the African,” was author of a treatise on the Call of the Gentiles, which is esteemed, and of the “Epistle to the Virgin Demetriade,” in the “Appendix Angustiniana,” Antwerp, 1703, fo].

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Abdera, is said by some to have been the son of a rich Thracian, but by others to have been of low birth, and to have followed the trade of a porter. He was instructed in philosophy by Democritns, and, though his genius was rather subtle than solid, taught at Athens with great reputation but was at length driven from thence on account of his impiety, for he questioned the existence of a deity, and had begun one of his books with the following impious expressions “I cannot tell whether there are any Gods, or not many circumstances concur to prevent my knowing it, as the uncertainty of the thing in itself, and the shortness of human life.” This book, which was publicly burnt, having occasioned his banishment from Athens, he then visited the islands of the Mediterranean, and lived many years in Epirus. Protagoras is said to have been the first philosopher who received money for teaching. He flourished about 6 19 B. C. and died at a very advanced age, as he was going into Sicily. His usual method of reasoning was by Dilemmas, leaving the mind in suspense concerning all the questions which he proposed on which subject the following story is told of a rich young man named Evathlus. This youth, having been received as his disciple, for a large sum, half of which he paid at first, and was to pay the remainder when he had gained his first cause, remained a long time in our philosopher’s school, without troubling himself either about pleadiig or paying, which induced Protagoras to commence a law-suit for his money. When they came before the judges, the young man defended himself by saying, that he had not yet gained any cause upon which Protagoras proposed this dilemma: “If I gain my cause, thou wilt be sentenced to pay me, and if thou gainest it, tbou art in my debt, according to our agreement.” But, Evathlus, well instructed by his master, retorted the dilemma upon him thus “If the judges release me I owe thee nothing, and if they order me to pay the money, then I owe thee nothing, according to our agreement, for I shall not have gained my cause.” The judges, it is added, were so embarrassed by these quibbles, that they left the matter undecided. This story has the appearance of a fiction, but Protagoras certainly made it his business to furnish subtle arguments to dazzle and blind the judges, nor was he ashamed to profess himself ready to teach the means of making the worse cause appear the better.

, a famous ancient painter, was a native of Caunus, a city of Caria subject to the Rhodians. Who was his father, or his mother, is not known but it is probable enough that he had no other master than the public pieces that he saw; and perhaps his parents, being poor, could not be at any such expence for his education in the art, as was customary at that time. It is certain that he was obliged at first to paint ships for his livelihood: but his ambition was not be rich; his aim being solely to be master of his profession. He finished his pictures with such anxious care, that Apelles said of him, he never knew when he had done well. The finest of his pieces was the picture of Jalisus, mentioned by several authors without giving any description of it, or telling us who Jalisus was some suppose him to have been a famous hunter, and the founder of Rhodes. It is said that for seven years, while Protogenes worked on this picture, all his food was lupines mixed with a little water, which served him both for meat and drink *. Apelles was so struck with this piece, that he could find no words to express his admiration. It was this same picture that saved the city of Rhodes, when besieged by king Demetrius; for, not being able to attack it but on that side where Protogenes was at work, he chose rather to abandon his hopes of conquest, than to destroy so fine a piece as that of Jalisus.

The story of the contest between Protogenes and Apelles is well known by the tale which Prior has founded on it. Apelles, hearing of the reputation of Protogenes, went to Rhodes on purpose to see his works. On his arrival there, he found in the house only an old woman who asking his name, he answered, “I am going to write it upon the canvas that lies here;” and, taking his pencil with colour On

vexed biui to such a degree ttfat he foam of a horse. it, designed something with extreme delicacy. Protogenes coming home, the old woman told him what had passed, and shewed him the canvas who, then attentively observing the beauty of the lines, said it was certainly Apelles who had been there, and taking another colour, he drew on those lines an outline more correct and more delicate; after which he went out again, bidding the old woman shew that to the person who had been there, if he returned, and, tell him that was the man he inquired for. Apelles returning, and being ashamed to see himself outdone, took a third colour, and, among the lines that had been drawn, laid on some with so much judgment, as to comprise all the subtlety of the art. Protogenes saw these in his turn, confessed his inferiority, and ran in haste to find out Apelles.

Pliny, who tells this story, says that he saw this piece of canvas, before it was consumed in the fire which burnt the emperor’s palace; that there was nothing upon it, but some lines, which could scarcely be distinguished; and yet this fragment was more valued than any of the pictures among which it was placed. The same author informs us that Apelles asking this rival what price he had for his pictures; and Protogenes naming an inconsiderable sum, according to the hard fortune of those who are obliged to work for their bread, Apelles, concerned at the injustice done to the beauty of his productions, gave him fifty talents, equal to 10,000l. for one picture only, declaring publicly, that he would make it pass and sell it for his own. This generosity opened the eyes of the Rhodians as to the merit of Protogenes, and made them purchase this picture at a much greater price than Apelles had given. Pliny also informs us, that Protogenes was a sculptor as well as a painter. He flourished about the 108th olympiad, or 308 B. C. Quintilian, observing the talent of six famous painters, says, Protogenes excelled in exactness, Pamphilius and Melanthus in the disposition, Antiphilus in easiness, Theon the Samian, in fruitfulness of ideas, and Apelles’in grace and ingenious conceptions.

, an English lawyer, who was much distinguished by the number rather than excellence of his publications, during the reign of Charles I. was born in 1600, at Swanswick in Somersetshire, and educated at a grammar-school in the city of Bath. He became a commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1616; and, after taking a bachelor of arts’ degree, in 1620, removed to Lincoln’s-­inn, where he studied the law, and was made successively barrister, bencher, and reader. At his first coming to that inn, he was a great admirer and follower of Dr. Preston, preacher to the inn (see Preston), and published several books against what he thought the enormities of the age, and the doctrine and discipline of the church. His “Histriornastix,” which came out in 1632, giving great offence to the court, he was committed prisoner to the Tower of London and, in 1633, sentenced by the Starchamber, to be fined 5000l. to the king, expelled the university of Oxford and Lincoln’s-inn, degraded and disenabled from his profession of the law, to stand in the pillory and lose his ears, to have his book publicly burnt before his face, and to remain prisoner during lite. Prynne was certainly here treated with very unjust severity; for Whitelocke observes, that the book was licensed by archbishop Abbot’s chaplain, and was merely an invective against plays and players; but there being “a reference in the table of this book to this effect, women-actors notorious whores, relating to some women-actors mentioned in his book, as he affirmeth, it happened, that about six weeks after this the queen acted a part in a pastoral at Somerset-house; and then archbishop Laud and other prelates, whom Prynne had angered by some books of his against Arminianism, and against the jurisdiction of bishops, and by some prohibitions which he had moved, and got to the high commission-court these prelates, and their instruments, the next day after the queen had acted her pastoral, shewed Prynne’s book against plays to the king, and that place in it, women-actors notorious whores; and they informed the king and queen, that Prynne had purposely written this book against the queen and her pastoral whereas it was published six weeks before that pastoral was acted.”

After the sentence upon Prynne was executed, as it was rigorously enough in May 1634, he was remitted to prison. In June following, as soon as he could procure pen, ink, and paper, he wrote a severe letter to archbishop Laud concerning his sentence in the Star-chamber, and what the archbishop in particular had declared against him; who acquainted the king with this letter, on which his majesty commanded the archbishop to refer it to Noy the attorneygeneral. Noy sent for Prynne, and demanded whether the letter was of his hand-writing or not; who desiring to see it, tore it to pieces, and threw the pieces out of the window; which prevented a farther prosecution of him. In 1635, 1636, and 1637, he published several books: particularly one entitled “News from Ipswich,” in which he reflected with great coarseness of language on the archbishop and other prelates. The mildest of his epithets were “Luciferian lord bishops, execrable traitors, devouring wolves,” &c. For this he was sentenced in the Starchamber, in June 1637, to be fined 5000l. to the king, to lose the remainder of his ears in the pillory, to be branded on both cheeks with the letters S. L. for schismatical libeller, and to be perpetually imprisoned in Caernarvoncastle. This sentence was executed in July, in Palaceyard, Westminster; but, in January following, he was removed to Mount Orgueil castle in the isle of Jersey, where he exercised his pen in writing several books. On Nov. 7, 1640, an order was issued by the House of Commons for his releasement from prison and the same month he entered with great triumph into London. In December following, he presented a petition representing what he had suffered from Laud, for which Wood tells us he had a recompense allowed him; but Prynne positively denies that he ever received a farthing. He was soon after elected a member of parliament for Newport in Cornwall, and opposed the bishops, especially the archbishop, with great vigour, both by his speeches and writings; and was the chief manager of that prelate’s trial. In 1647, he was one of the parliamentary visitors of the university of Oxford. During his sitting in the Long Parliament, he was very zealous for the presbyterian cause; but when the independents began to gain the ascendant, shewed himself a warm opposer of them, and promoted the king’s interest. He made a long speech in the House of Commons, concerning the satisfactoriness of the king’s answers to the propositions of peace; and for that cause was, two days after, refused entrance into the House by the army. This remarkable speech he published in a quarto pamphlet, with an appendix, in which he informs us, that “being uttered with much pathetique seriousnesse, and heard with great attention, it gave such generall satisfaction to the House, that many members, formerly of a contrary opinion, professed, they were both convinced and converted; others, who were dubious in the point of satisfaction, that they were now fully confirmed most of different opinion put to a stand; and the majority of the House declared, both by their chearefull countenances and speeches (the Speaker going into the withdrawing-roome to refresh himselfe, so soon as the speech was ended) that they were abundantly satisfied by what had been thus spoken. After which the Speaker resuming the chair, this speech was seconded by many able gentlemen; and the debate continuing Saturday, and all Monday and Monday night, till about nine of the clock on Tuesday morning, and 244 Members staying quite out to the end, though the House doores were not shut up (a thing never scene nor knowne before in parliament) the question was at last put: and notwithstanding the generall’s and whole armie’s march to Westminster, and menaces against the members, in case they voted for the treaty, and did not utterly reject it as unsatisfactory, carried it in the affirmative by 140 voices (with the foure tellers) against 104, that the question should be put; and then, without any division of the House, it was resolved on the question, That the answers of the king to the propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.” In the course of the speech, he alludes to his services and sufferings, adding that “he had never yet received one farthing recompense from the king, or any other, ‘though I have waited,’ says he, ‘above eight years atyour doors for justice and reparations, and neglecting my owne private calling and affaires, imployed most of my time, studyes, and expended many hundred pounds out of my purse, since my inlargement, to maintain your cause against the king, his popish and prelatical party. For all which cost and labour, I never yet demanded, nor received one farthing from the Houses, nor the least office or preferment whatsoever, though they have bestowed divers places of honour upon persons of lesse or no desert. Nor did I ever yet receive so much as your publike thanks for any publike service done you, (which every preacher usually receives for every sermon preached before you, and most others have received for the meanest services) though I have brought you off with honour in the cases of Canterbury and Macguire, when you were at a losse in both; and cleared the justnesse of your cause, when I was at the lowest ebb, to most reformed churches abroad (who received such satisfaction from my books, that they translated them into several languages), and engaged many thousands for you at home by my writings, who were formerly dubious and unsatisfied.’”

, a Polish knight, and Socinian writer, was born about 1592, and studied at Altdorf, until his adherence to the Socinian tenets obliged him to remove to Leyden. On his return to Poland, he was advanced to several posts of honour, and made use of his influence to encourage the Socinians in propagating their opinions, and establishing churches in the Polish territories. He also wrote “A History of their Churches,” but the work was lost, when, in 1658, his disciples were banished from their country. Przipcovius procured an asylum with the elector of Brandenburg, who gave him the appointment of privy-counsellor; and in 1663 a synod of Unitarians, held in Silesia, selected him as their correspondent with their brethren in other nations, with a view of promoting the interests of the community. He died in 1670, at the age of 78. His works were published in 1692, folio, and may be considered as the seventh volume of the collection entitled “Bibliotheca Fratrum Poionorum.”

At Liege he enlisted into the Dutch service, and was earned by his officer to Aix-la-Chapelle. He afterwards entered into the elector of Cologne’s service; but being still as ambitious as ever to pass for a Japanese, he now chose to profess himself an unconverted or heathenish one, rather than, what he had hitherto pretended to be, a convert to Christianity: The last garrison he came to was Sluys, where brigadier Lauder, a Scotch colonel, introduced him to the chaplain, with whom he was permitted to have a conference; and this, at length, ended in the chaplain’s fervent zeal to make a convert of him, by way of recommending himself, as it afterwards turned out, to Compton, bishop of London, whose piety could not fail of rewarding so worthy an action. By this time Psalmanazar, growing tired of the soldier’s life, listened to the chaplain’s proposal of taking him over to England; and he was, accordingly, with great haste, baptized. A letter of invitation from the bishop of London arriving, they set out for Rotterdam. Psalmanazar was, in general, much caressed there; but some there were, who put such shrewd questions to him, as carried the air of not giving all that credit which he could have wished. This threw him upon a whimsical expedient, by way of removing all obstacles, viz. that of living upon raw flesh, roots, and herbs: and he soon habituated himself, he tells us, to this new and strange food, without receiving the least injury to his health; taking care to add a good deal of pepper and spices, by way of concoction.

At his arrival in London he was introduced to the good bishop, was received with great humanity, and soon found a large circle of friends among the well-disposed, both of clergy and laity. “But,” says he, “I had a much greater number of opposers to combat with; who, though they judged rightly of me in the main, were far from being candid in their account of the discovery they pretended to make to my disadvantage: particularly the doctors Halley, Mead, and Woodward. The too visible eagerness of these gentlemen to expose me at any rate for a cheat, served only to make others think the better of me, and even to look upon me as a kind of confessor; especially as those genjtlemen were thought to be no great admirers of Revelation, to which my patrons thought I had given so ample a testimony.” Before he had been three months in London, he was cried up for a prodigy. He was presently sent to translate the church-catechism into the Formosan language; it was received by the bishop of London with candour, the author rewarded with generosity, and his catechism laid up amongst the most curious manuscripts. It was examined by the learned; they found it regular and grammatical; and gave it as their opinion, that it was a real language, and no counterfeit. After such success, he was soon prevailed upon to write the well-known " History of Formosa/' which soon after appeared. The first edition had not been long published, before a second was called for. In the mean time, he was sent by the good bishop to Oxford, topursue such studies as suited his own inclination most; whilst his opposers and advocates in London were disputing about the merits and demerits of his book.

The learned at Oxford were not less divided in their opinions. A convenient apartment was, however, assigned him in one of the colleges; he had all the advantages of learning which the university could afford him, and a learned tutor to assist him. Upon his return to London, he continued, for about ten years, to indulge acourse of idleness and extravagance. Some absurdities, however, observed in his “History of Formosa,” in the end effectually discredited the whole relation, and saved him the trouble, and his friends the mortification, of an open confession of his guilt. He seemed, through a long course of life, to abhor the imposture, and in his latter days exhibited every demonstration of penitence. He was a man. of considerable talents in conversation, and Dr. Johnson, who associated much with him at one time, had even a profound respect for him. His learning and ingenuity, during the remainder of his life, did not fail to procure him a comfortable subsistence from his pen: he was concerned in compiling and writing works of credit, particularly the “Universal History,” and lived exemplarily for many years. His death happened Tuesday, May 3, 1763, at his lodgings in Ironmonger- row, Old-street, in the eightyfourth year of his age.

, the younger, a Greek physician, mathematical writer, critic, and commentator of the writings of the classic ages, flourished about 1105. He is, for his various and extensive learning, ranked among the first scholiasts of his time. He commented and explained no less than twenty-four plays of Menander, which, though now lost, were extant in his time. The emperor Constantine Ducas made him preceptor to his son Michael, who succeeded to the crown in 1071. His principal works are, 1. “De Quatuor Mathematicis Scientiis,” Bas. 1556, 8vo. 2. “De Lapidum Virtutibus,” Tol. 1615, 8vo. 3. “De Victus ratione,” in 2 books, Bale, 1529, 8vo. 4. “Synopsis Legum, versibus Grsecis edita,” Paris, 1632. Leo Allatius has written a treatise de Psellis, Rome, 1634, 8vo, which contains an account of all the authors of the name of Psellus. One of them, “Michael Psellus the Elder, who flourished in the ninth century, was author of” De Operatione Daemonum," Gr. & Lat. Paris, 1623, which has been improperly given to the preceding author.

, a great geographer, mathematician, and astronomer of antiquity, was born at Pelusium, in Egypt, about the year 70, and flourished in the reigns of Adrian and Marcus Antoninus. He tells us himself, in one place, that he made a great number of ob* servations upon the fixed stars at Alexandria, in the second year of Antoninus Pius and in another, that he observed an eclipse of the moon in the ninth year of Adrian, whence it is reasonable to conclude that this astronomer’s observations upon the heavens were made between A. D. 125, and A. D. 140. Hence appears the error of some authors in supposing that this Claudius Ptolemy was the same with the astrologer Ptolemy, who constantly attended Galba, promised Otho that he should survive Nero, and afterwards that he should obtain the empire; which is as improbable as what Isidorus, an ecclesiastical writer of the seventh century, and some modems after him, have asserted; namely, that this astronomer was one of the kings of Egypt. We know no circumstances of the life of Ptolemy but it is noted in his Canon, that Antoninus Pius reigned three-and-twenty years, which shews that himself survived him.

Science is greatly indebted to this astronomer, who has preserved and transmitted to us the observations and principal discoveries of the ancients, and at the same time augmented and enriched them with his own. He corrected Hipparchus’s catalogue of the fixed stars; and formed tables, by which the motions of the sun, moon, and planets, might be calculated and regulated. He was indeed the first who collected the scattered and detached observations of the ancients, and digested them into a system which he set forth in his “Μεγαλη συνταξις, sive Magna Constructio,” divided into thirteen books, and which has been called from him the Ptolemaic system, to distinguish it from those of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. About the year 827, this work was translated by the Arabians into their language, in which it was called “Almagestum,” by the command of one of their kings and from Arabic into Latin, about 1230, under the encouragement of the emperor Frederic II. There were other versions from the Arabic into Latin and a manuscript of one, done by Girardus Cremonensis, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is said by Fabricius to be still extant, and in the library of All Souls college at Oxford. The Greek text began to be read in Europe in the fifteenth century and was first published by Simon Grynaeus, at Basil, 1538, in folio, with the eleven books of commentaries by Theon, who flourished at Alexandria in the reign of the elder Theodosius. In 1454, it was reprinted at Basil, with a Latin version by Georgius Trapezuntius and again at the same place in 1551, with the addition of other works of Ptolemy, to which are Latin versions by Camerarius. We learn from Kepler, that this last edition was used by Tycho.

, of Lucca, an ecclesiastical historian in the fourteenth century, was descended from a noble family, from whom he derived the name of “Bartholomew Fiadoni,” but took that of Ptolemy when he entered into the order of St. Dominic. He became superior of the monastery both at Lucca and Florence. He was afterwards selected by pope John XXII. as his confessor, and in 1318 he was tnade bishop of Torcello, under the patriarchate of Venice. This prelate died in 1327. He was the first of the Italians who studied and wrote on church history. His “Annales” extend from 1060 to 1303, and was published at Lyons in 1619. His largest work was “Historiae Ecclesiastic,” in twenty-four books, commencing with the birth of Jesus Christ, and brought down to 1313. This, after remaining long in ms. was at length published at Milan in 1727, by Muratori, in his grand collection, entitled “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.”

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

, an eminent German civilian and historian, was born in 1631 at Flaeh, a little village near Chemnitz, in Upper Saxony, of which village his father, the descendant of a Lutheran family, Elias Puffendorf, was minister. He discovered an early propensity to letters, when at the provincial school at Grimm, and at a proper age was sent to Leipsic, where he was supported by the generosity of a Saxon nobleman, who was pleased with his promising talents, his father’s circumstances not being equal to the expence. His fajher designed him for the ministry, and directed him to apply himself to divinity; but his inclination led his thoughts to the public law, which, in Germany, consists of the knowledge of the rights of the empire over the states and princes of which it is composed, and of those of the princes and states with respect to each other. He considered this study as a proper method of advancing in some of the courts of Germany, where the. several princes who compose the Germanic body, were accustomed to have no other ministers of state than men of learning, whom they styled counsellors, and whose principal study was the public law of Germany. As these posts were not venal, and no other recommendation necessary to obtain them but real and distinguished merit, Puffendorf resolved to qualify himself for the honours to which he aspired. After he had resided some time at Leipsic, he left that city, and went to Jena, where he joined mathematics and the Cartesian philosophy to the study of the law. He returned to Leipsic in 1658, with a view of seeking an employment fit for him. One of his brothers, named Isaiah, who had been some time in the service of the king of Sweden, and was afterwards his chancellor in the duchies of Bremen and Werden, then wrote to him, and advised him not to fix in his own country, but after his example to seek his fortune elsewhere. In compliance with this advice, he accepted the place of governor to the son of Mr. Coyet, a Swedish nobleman, who was then ambassador from the king of Sweden at the court of Denmark. For this purpose he went to Copenhagen, but the war being renewed some time after between Denmark and Sweden, he was seized with the whole family of the ambassador, who himself escaped in consequence of having a few days before taken a tour into Sweden.

We have already mentioned his first work his second was, 2. “De Statu Germanici Imperii liber unus,” which he published in 1667, under the name' of “Severini di Mozambano,” with a dedication to his brother Isaac Puffendorf, whom he styles “Laelio Signor de Trezolani.” Puffendorf sent it the year before to his brother, then ambassador from the court of Sweden to that of France, in order to have it printed in that kingdom. His brother offered it to a bookseller, who gave it Mezeray to peruse. Mezeray thought it worth printing, yet refused his approbation, on account of some passages opposite to the interests of France, and of others in which the pritfsts and monks were severely treated. Isaac Puffendorf then sent it to Geneva, where it was printed in 12mo. The design of the author was to prove that Germany was a kind of republic, the constituent members of which being ill-proportioned, formed a monstrous whole. The book and its doctrine, therefore, met with great opposition; it was condemned, prohibited, and seized in many parts of Germany; and written against immediately by several learned civilians. It underwent many editions, and was translated into many languages and, among the rest, into English by Mr. Bohun, 1696, in 12mo. 3. “De Jure Naturae & Gentium,” Leyden, 1672, 4to. This is Puffendorf’s greatest work and it has met with an universal approbation. It is indeed a body of the law of nature, well digested; and, as some think, preferable to Grotius’s book “De Jure Belli & Pacis,” since the same subjects are treated in a more extensive manner, und with greater order. It was translated into French by Barbeyrac, who wrote large notes and an introductory discourse, in 1706; and into English, with Barbeyrac’s notes, by Dr. Basil Kennet and others, in 1708. The fourth and fifth edition of the English translation have Mr. Barbeyrac’s introductory discourse, which is not in the three former. In the mean time Puffendorf was obliged to defend this work against several censurers the most enraged of whom was Nicholas Beckman, his colleague in the university of Lunden. This writer, in. order to give the greater weight to his objections, endeavoured to draw the divines into his party, by bringing religion into the dispute, and accusing the author of heterodoxy. His design in this was, to exasperate the clergy of Sweden against Puffendorf; but the senators of that kingdom prevented this, by enjoining his enemies silence, and suppressing Beckman’s book by the king’s authority. It was reprinted at Giessen; and, being brought to Sweden, was burned in 1675 by the hands of the executioner: and Beckman, the author, banished from the king’s dominions for having disobeyed orders in republishing it, Beckman now gave his fury full scope, and not only wrote virulently and maliciously against Puffendorf, but likewise challenged him to fight a duel he wrote to him from Copenhagen in that style, and threatened to pursue him wherever he should go, in case he did not meet him at the place appointed. Puffendorf took no notice of the letter, but sent, it to the consistory of the university yet thought it necessary to reply to the satirical pieces of that writer, which he did in several publications. Niceron gives a good account of this controversy in the 18th vol.- of his “Memoires.”

, one of the most famous Italian poets, was born at Florence, Decembers, 1431. He was of a noble family, and was the most poetical of three brothers who all assiduously courted the Muses. His two elder brothers, Bernardo and Luca, appeared as poets earlier than himself. The first production of the family is probably the Elegy of Bernardo addressed to Lorenzo de' Jiedici, on the death of his grandfather Cosmo. He also wrote an elegy on the untimely death of the beautiful Simonetta, mistress of Giuliano de' Medici, the brother of Lorenzo, which was published at Florence in 1494, though written much earlier. He produced the first Italian translation of the Eclogues of Virgil, which appears to have been finished about 1470 and was published in 1481 and a poem on the Passion of Christ. Luca wrote a celebrated poem on a tournament held at Florence in which Lorenzo was victor, in 1468, entitled “Giostra di Lorenzo de' Medici” as Politian celebrated the success of Giuliano, in his “Giostra di. Giuliano de' Medici.” It is confessed, however, that the poem of Luca Pulci derives its merit rather from the minute information it gives respecting the exhibition, than from its poetical excellence. He produced also “II Ciriffo Calvaneo,” an epic romance, probably the first that appeared in Italy, being certainly prior to the Morgante of his brother, and the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo and the “Driadeo d'Amore,” a pastoral romance in ottava rima. There are also eighteen heroic epistles by him in terza rima, the first from LucretiaDonati to Lorenzo de Medici, the rest on Greek and Roman subjects. These were printed in 1481, and do credit to their author. Luigi appeaps, from many circumstances, to have lived on terms of the utmost friendship with Lorenzo de Medici, who, in his poem entitled “La Caccia col Falcone,” mentions him with great freedom and jocularity. His principal work is the “Morgante maggiore,” an epic romance. Whether this or the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo was first written, has been a subject of doubt. Certain it is that the Morgante had the priority in publication, having been printed at Venice in 1488, after a Florentine edition of uncertain date whereas Bojardo' s poem did not appear till 1496, and, from some of the concluding lines, appears not to have been finished in 1494. The Morgante may therefore be justly, as it is generally, regarded as the prototype of the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto. It has been said without foundation that Ficinus and Politian had a share in this composition. It was first written at the particular request of Lucretia, mother of Lorenzo de Medici, but it was not finished till after her death, which happened in 1482. It is said by Crescimbeni that Pulci was accustomed to recite this poem at the table of Lorenzo, in the manner of the ancient rhapsodists. This singular offspring of the wayward genius of Pulci has been as immoderately commended by its admirers, as it has been unreasonably condemned and degraded by its opponents: and while some have not scrupled to prefer it to the productions of Ariosto and Tasso, others have decried it as vulgar, absurd, and profane. From the solemnity and devotion with which every canto is introduced, some have judged that the author meant to give a serious narrative, but the improbability of the relation, and the burlesque nature of the incidents, destroy all ideas of this kind. M. de la Monnoye says that the author, whom he conceives to have been ignorant of rules, has confounded the comic and serious styles, and made the giant, his hero, die a burlesque death, by the bite of a sea-crab in his heel, in the twentieth book, so that in the eight which remain he is not mentioned. The native simplicity of the narration, he adds, covers all faults: and the lovers of the Florentine dialect still read it with delight, especially when they can procure the edition of Venice, in 1546 or 1550, with the explanations of his nephew John Pulci. These, however, are no more than a glossary of a few words subjoined to each canto. There are also sonnets by Luigi Pulci, published with those of Matteo Franco, in which the two authors satirize each other without mercy or delicacy yet it is supposed that they were very good friends, and only took these liberties with each other for the sake of amusing the public. They were published about the fifteenth century, entitled “Sonetti di Misere Mattheo Franco et di Luigi Pulci jocosi et faceti, cioe da ridere.” No other poem of this author is mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, who has given the best account of him, except “La Beca di Dicomano,” written in imitatation and emulation of “La Nencio da Barberino,” by Lorenzo de Medici, ajid published with it. It is a poem in the rustic style and language, but instead of the more chastised and delicate humour of Lorenzo, the poem of Pulci, says Mr. Roscoe, partakes of the character of his Morgante, and wanders into the burlesque and extravagant. It has been supposed that this poet died about 1-487, but it was probably something later. The exact time id not known.

, an English cardinal who flourished in the twelfth century, was distinguished as a zealous friend to the interests of literature. He is placed by Fuller as a native of Oxfordshire, perhaps from his ciditnectioa with the university. In his youth he studied at 1?aris, and about 1130 returned to England, where he found the university of Oxford ravaged and nearly ruined by the Danes, under the reign of Harold I. and by his indefatigable exertions contributed to itsv restoration. The Chronicle of Osny records him as having begun in the reign of Henry I. to read the Scriptures at Oxford, which were grown obsolete, and it is supposed he commented on Aristotle. Rouse, the Warwick antiquary, mentions his reading the Holy Scriptures, probably about 1134, about which time he had a patron in Henry I. who had built his palace near the university. For some years he taught daily in the schools, and was rewarded with the archdeaconry of Rochester. After this he returned to Paris, where he filled the chair of professor of divinity. He was, however, recalled by his metropolitan, and the revenues of his benefice sequestered till he obeyed the summons. The archdeacon appealed to the see of Rome, and sentence was given in his favour. The fame of his learning induced pope Innocent II. to invite him to Rome, where he was received with great marks of honour; and in 1144 was created cardinal by Celestine II. and afterwards chancellor of the Roman church, by pope Lucius II. He died in 1150. He was author of several works; but the only one of them now extant is his “Sententiarum Liber,” which was published at Paris in 1655. It differs in some measure from the general character of the times as he prefers the simple authority of reason and scripture to the testimony of the fathers, or the subtlety of metaphysics.

, a distinguished botanist and able physician, was born at Loughborough, Feb. 17, 1730. He first settled as a surgeon and apothecary at Leicester but having been educated as a Calvinistic dissenter, the people of that town, who chanced to have different prejudices, of course gave him but little support. He struggled against pecuniary difficulties with economy, and shielded his peace of mind against bigotry, in himself or others, by looking “through nature, up to nature’s God.” His remarks and discoveries were communicated first to the Gentleman’s Magazine, in 1750, as well as several subsequent years and he intermixed antiquarian studies with his other pursuits. His botanical papers printed by the royal society, on the Sleep of Plants, and the Rare Plants of Leicestershire, procured him the honour of election into that learned body in 1762. In 1764 he obtained a diploma of doctor of physic from Edinburgh, even without accomplishing that period of residence, then usually required, and now indispensable and his thesis on the cinchona officinalis amply justified the indulgence of the university.

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

Dr. Pulteney married, in 1779, Miss Elizabeth Galton, of Blandford, a lady who bore him no children, but whose society and attainments contributed very essentially to his happiness, and who has in every respect proved herself worthy of her amiable and distinguished husband. His remains were interred at Langton, near Blandford', a tablet to his memory having been placed, by his widow, in the church of the last-mentioned town. This monument is decorated with a sprig of the Pultenaea stipularis, so called in honour of him by the president of the Linnaean society but in obedience to the strict commands of the deceased, the inscription is of the simplest kind.

As an author, Dr. Pulteney was conspicuously distinguished by his “General view of the Writings of Linnæus,” and his “Sketches of the progress of Botany in England.” The former, published in 1782, in one volume 8vo, has contributed more than any work, except perhaps the Tracts of Stillingfleet, to diffuse a taste for Linnaean knowledge in this country. It proved a very popular book, and a new edition was soon called for. This, however, did not appear during the author’s life but has been published by his learned and much valued friend Dr. Maton, who has prefixed to this handsome quarto, portraits of Linnæus and his biographer, with a life of the latter. A translation of Linnæus’s celebrated manuscript diary of his own life is subjoined.

, Earl Of Bath, an eminent English statesman, was descended from an ancient family, who took their surname from a place of that appellation in Leicestershire. His grandfather, sir William Pulteney, was member of parliament for the city of Westminster, and highly distinguished himself in the House of Commons by his manly and spirited eloquence. Of his father, little is upon record. He was born in 1682, and educated at Westminster school and Christ-church, Oxford, where his talents and industry became so conspicuous, that dean Aldrich appointed him to make the congratulatory speech to queen Anne, on her visit to the college. Having travelled through various parts of Europe, he returned to his riative country with a mind highly improved, and came into parliament for the borough of Heydon in Yorkshire, by the interest of Mr. Guy, his protector and great benefactor, who left him 40,000l. and an estate of 500l. a year.

Being descended from a whig family, and educated in revolution-principles, he warmly espoused that party, and during the whole reign of queen Anne opposed the measures of the tories. His first speech was in support of the place-bill. He had formed a notion, that no young member ought to press into public notice with too much forwardness, and fatigue the House with long orations, until he had acquired the habit of order and precision. He was often heard to declare, that hardly any person ever became a good orator, who began with making a set speech. He conceived that the circumstances of the moment should impel them to the delivery of sentiments, which should derive their tenor and application from the course of the debate, and not be the result of previous study or invariable arrangement. These rules are generally good, but we can recollect at least one splendid exception. On the prosecution of Dr. Sacheverel, Mr. Pulteney distinguished himself in the House of Commons, in defence of the revolution, against the doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance. When the tories came into power, in 1710, he was so obnoxious to them, thathis uncle, John Pulteney, was removed from the board of trade. He not only took a principal share in the debates of the four last years of queen Anne, while the whigs were in opposition, but was also admitted into the most important secrets of his party, at that critical time, when the succession of the Hanover family being supposed to be in danger, its friends engaged in very bold enterprizes to secure it. He was a liberal subscriber to a very unprofitable and hazardous loan, then secretly negociated by the whig party, for the use of the emperor, to encourage him to refuse co-operating with the tory administration in making the peace of Utrecht.

On the prosecution of Walpole for high breach of trust and corruption, Pulteney warmly vindicated his friend, for such he then was; and, on his commitment to the Tower, was amongst those who paid frequent visits to the prisoner, whom he, with the rest of the whigs, considered as a martyr to their cause. He also engaged with Walpole in defending the whig administration, and wrote the ironical dedication to the earl of Oxford, prefixed to Walpole' s account of the parliament. On the accession of George I. Mr. Pulteney was appointed privy-counsellor and secretary at war, in opposition to the inclination of the duke of Marlborough, who, as commander in chief, thought himself entitled to recommend to that post. He was chosen a member of the committee of secrecy, nominated, by the House of Commons, to examine and report the substance of the papers relating to the negociation for peace; and on. the suppression of the rebellion of 1715, he moved for the impeachment of lord Widrington, and opposed the motion to address the king for a proclamation, offering a general pardon to all who were in arms in Scotland, who should lay down their arms within a certain time. He was at this period so much connected with Stanhope and Walpole, that, in allusion to the triple alliance between Great Britain, France, and Holland, which was then negociating by general Stanhope, secretary of state, they were called the three “grand allies;” and a proverbial saying was current, “Are you come into the triple alliance?” But when Stanhope and Walpole took different sides, on the schism between the whigs, when Townsend was dismissed and Walpole resigned, Pulteney followed his friend’s example, and gave up his place of secretary at war. When Walpole made a reconciliation between the king and the prince of Wales, and negociated with Sunderland to form a new administration, in which he and lord Townsend bore the most conspicuous part, then were first sown those seeds of disgust and discontent which afterwards burst forth. The causes of this unfortunate misunderstanding may be traced from the authority of the parties themselves, or their particular friends. Pulteney was offended because Walpole had negociated with the prince of Wales and Sunderland, without communicating the progress to him, although he had told it to Mr. Edgcumbe, who indiscreetly gave a daily account to Pulteney. Another cause of disgust was, that Pulteney, who had hitherto invariably proved his attachment to Townsend and Walpole, expected to receive some important employment, whereas he was only offered a peerage; and, when he declined it, more than two years elapsed before any farther overtures were made; and though Pulteney, at length, solicited and obtained the office of cofferer of the household, he deemed that place far below his just expectations. Although, therefore, he continued to support the measures of administration for some time, the disdainful manner in which he conceived he had been treated by Walpole had made too deep an impression on his mind to be eradicated. Finding that he did not possess the full confidence of administration, or disapproving those measures which tended, in his opinion, to raise the power of France on the ruins of the house of Austria, and which, in his opinion, sacrificed the interests of Great Britain to those of Hanover, topics on which he afterwards expatiated with great energy and unusual eloquence in parliament, he became more and more estranged from his former friends, and expressed his disapprobation of their measures both in public and private. At length his dissontent arrived at so great a height, that he declared his resolution of attacking the minister in parliament.

In this manner he continued inflexibly severe, attacking the measures of the minister with a degree of eloquence and sarcasm that worsted every antagonist; and sir Robert was often heard to say, that he dreaded his tongue more than another man’s sword. In 1738, when opposition ran so high, that several members openly left the House, as finding that party, and not reason, carried it in every motion, Pulteney thought proper to vindicate the extraordinary step which they had taken; and, when a motion was made for removing sir Robert Walpole, he warmly supported it. What a single session could not effect, was at length brought about by time; and, in 1741, when sir Robert found his place of prime minister no longer tenable, he wisely resigned all his employments, and was created earl of Orford. His opposers also were assured of being provided for; and, among other promotions, Pulteney himself was sworn of the privy-council, and soon afterwards created earl of Bath. He had long lived in the very focus of popularity, and was respected as the chief bulwark against the encroachments of the crown; but, from, the moment he accepted a title, all his favour with the people was at an end, and the rest of his life was spent in contemning that applause which he no longer could secure. What can be said in his favour has been candidly stated by the biographer of his great antagonist. Dying without issue, June 8, 1764, his title became extinct; and his only son, having died some time before in Portugal, the paternal estate devolved to his brother, the late lieutenantgeneral Pulteney. Besides the great part he bore in “The Craftsman,” he was the author of many political pamphlets; in the drawing up and composing of which no man of his time was supposed to exceed him. Lord Orford, who has introduced him among his Royal and Noble Authors, says, that his writings will be better known bv his name, than his name will be by his writings, though his prose had much effect, and his verses (for he was a poet) were easy and graceful. " Both were occasional, and not dedicated to the love of fame. Good-humour, and the spirit of society, dictated his poetry ambition and acrimony his political writings. The latter made Pope say,

He not only collected the various tables of the primum mobile, but added new ones. He made very great improvements in trigonometry, and by introducing the table of sines, by a decimal division of the radius, he quite changed the appearance of that science; he supposed the radius to be divided into 600,000 equal parts, and computed the sines of the arcs, for every ten minutes, in such equal parts of the radius, by the decimal notation, instead of the duodecimal one delivered by the Greeks, and preserved even by the Arabians till our author’s time; a project which was completed by his friend Regiomontanus, who computed the sines to every minute of the quadrant, in 1,000,000th parts of the radius.

, an eminent musician, was son of Henry Purcell, and nephew of Thomas Purcell, both gentlemen of the Royal Chapel at the restoration of Charles II. and born in 1658. Who his first instructors were is not clearly ascertained, as he was only six years old when his father died; but the inscription on Blow’s monument, in which Blow is called his master, gives at least room to suppose that Purcell, upon quitting the chapel, might, for the purpose of completing his studies, becojne the pupil of Blow. Dr. Burney is inclined to think that he might have been qualified for a chorister by Capt. Cook. However this be, Purcell shone early in the science of musical composition; and was able to wrfte correct harmony at an age when to perform choral service is all that can be expected. In 1676, he was appointed organist of Westminster, though then but eighteen; and, in 1682, became one of the organists of the chapel royal.

As Purcell had received his education in the school of a choir, the natural bent of his studies was towards church music. Services, however, he seemed to neglect, and to addict himself to the composition of Anthems. An anthem of his, “Blessed are they that fear the Lord,” was composed on a very extraordinary occasion. Upon the pregnancy of James the Second’s queen, supposed or real, in 1687, proclamation was issued for a thanksgiving; and Purcell, being one of the organists of the Chapel Royal, was commanded to compose the anthem. The anthem, “They that go down to the sea in ships,” was likewise owing to a singular accident. It was composed at the request of Mr. Gostling, subdean of St. Paul’s, who, being often in musical parties with the king and the duke of York, was with them at sea when they were in great danger of being cast away, but providentially escaped.

Purcell died Nov. 21, 1695, of a consumption or lingering distemper, as it should seem; for his will, dated the 1st, recites, that he was then “very ill in constitution, but of sound mind” and his premature death, at the early age of thirty-seven, was a severe affliction to the lovers of his art. His friends, in conjunction with his widow, for whom and his children he had not been able to make any great provision, were anxious to raise a monument of his fame for which end they selected, chiefly from his compositions for the theatre, such songs as had been most favourably received, and, by the help of a subscription of twenty shillings each person, published, in 1698, that wellknown work, the “Orpheus Britannicns,” with a dedication to his good friend and patroness lady Howard, who had been his scholar.

who left this life,