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

, usually called the Abbe Paris, would not have deserved notice here unless for certain impostures connected with his name, in which, however, he had no hand. He was born at Paris, and was the eldest son of a counsellor to the parliament, whom he was to have succeeded in that office; but he preferred the ecclesiastical profession; and, when his parents were dead, resigned the whole inheritance to his brother, only reserving to himself the right of applying for necessaries. He was a man, says the abb UAvocat, of the most devout temper, and who to great candour of mind joined great gentleness of manners. He catechized, during some time, in the parish of St. Come; undertook the direction of the clergy, and held conferences with them. Cardinal de Noailles, to whose cause he was attached, wanted to make him curate of that parish, but found many obstacles to his plan; and M. Paris, after different asylums, where he had lived extremely retired, confined himself in a house in the fauxbourg St. Marcoul, where, sequestered from the world, he devoted himself wholly to prayer, to the practice of the most rigorous penitence, and to labouring with his hands, having for that purpose learnt to weave stockings. He was one of those who opposed the bull Unigenitus, and was desirous also to be an author, and wrote “Explications of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” to the “Galatians,” and “An Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews;” but acquired no reputation by these. He died May I, 1727, at Paris, aged thirty-seven, and was interred in the little church-yard belonging to St. Medard’s parish. Though M. Paris had been useless to the Jansenists while alive, they thought proper to employ him in working miracles after his death; and stories were invented of miraculous cures performed at his tomb, which induced thousands to flock thither, where they practised grimaces and convulsions in so ridiculous and disorderly a manner, that the court was at last forced to put a stop to this delusion, by ordering the church-yard to be walled up, January 27, 1732. Some time before, several curates solicited M. de Vintimille, archbishop of Paris, by two requests, to make judicial inquiry into the principal miracles attributed to M. Paris; and that prelate appointed commissioners who easily detected the impostnre, which would not deserve a place here had it not served Hume and some other deists with an argument against the real miracles of the gospel, the fallacy of which argument has been demonstrated with great acuteness by the late bishop Douglas, in his “Criterion.”

In April 1527 he was ordained deacon, in June priest, and in September created master of arts, and chosen fellow of the college, having approved himself to the society by his regular and studious behaviour. He now studied the Scriptures, fathers, and ecclesiastical writers, with such diligence and attention, that in a few years he made great progress in every branch of knowledge necessary for a divine; and began to be so much noticed on that account, that when cardinal Wolsey was looking out for men of the greatest learning and character, to fill his new college at Oxford, Mr. Parker was one of those whom he selected for this mark of distinction; but, through the persuasion of his friends, he declined the cardinal’s offer, as did, at the same time, his celebrated predecessor Cranmer, then on the eve of being made archbishop of Canterbury.

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

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

But this check did not hinder him from exercising his jurisdiction over the Romanists in England, as prefect of the English mission and, after his return to Rome, we find him removing the arch- presbyter of England, Blakwell, for taking the oath of supremacy to James I. He likewise obtained a brief from Paul V. to deprive all such priests as should take that oath; and thus continued zealous an the discharge of this office to the last. Father More lias given copies of three letters, one to the mission in England, another to the rector of St. Omer’s, and the third to the arch-presbyter Berkit, successor to Blakwell; all dictated by him, while he lay past recovery in the opinion of his physicians. The last was finished the 13th of April; and the fever, which had seized him on the I Oth, put a period to his life on the 18th, 1610. Pope Paul, as soon as he heard of his illness, indulged him in all the ceremonies usually granted to cardinals at the point of death. His body was afterwards embalmed and interred, pursuant to his own request, in the chapel of his college at Rome, close to that of cardinal Allen. A monument was soon after erected to his memory, with an inscription; a copy of which may be seen in Ribadineira’s Bibl. Soc. Jes. under the letter P.

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

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

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

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

His nephew, Benedict Passionei, rendered an important service to the learned world by publishing at Lucca, in 1763, “Inscrizioni antiche, con annotaz.” a folio volume, containing all the Greek and Latin inscriptions collected by the cardinal. His valuable collection of antique urns, bas-reliefs, and other works of art, was dispersed after his death.

Patru was in his personal character honest, generous, sincere; and preserved a gaiety of temper which no adversity could affect: for this famous advocate, in spite of all his talents, lived almost in a state of indigence. The love of the belles lettres made him neglect the law; and the barren glory of being an oracle to the best French writers had more charms for him, than all the profits of the bar. Hence he became so poor, as to be reduced to the necessity of selling his books, which seemed dearer to him than his life; and would actually have sold them for an underprice, if Bqileau had not generously advanced him a larger sum, with this further privilege, that he should have the use of them as long as he lived. His death was preceded by a tedious illness, during which he received a present of five hundred crowns from the statesman Colbert, as a mark of the esteem which the king had for him. He died Jan. 16, 1681. He had been elected a member of the French academy in 1640, by the interest of cardinal Richelieu, and made a speech of thanks on his reception, with which the academicians were so much pleased, as to order that every new member should in future make one of a similar kind on being admitted; and this rule has been observed ever since. When M. Conrart, a member of the French academy died, one of the first noblemen at court, but whose mind was very moderately cultivated, having offered for the vacant place, Patru opened the meeting with the following apologue: “Gentlemen, a.:mcien Grecian had an admirable Lyre; a string broke, but instead of replacing it with one of catgut, he would have a silver one, and the Lyre with its silver string was no longer harmonious.” The fastidious care with which he retouched and finished every thing he wrote, did not permit him to publish much. His miscellaneous works were printed at Paris in 1670, 4to; the third edition of which, in 1714, was augmented with several pieces. They consist of <f Pleadings,“” Orations,“” Letters,“” Lives of some of his Friends,“” Remarks upon the French Language,“&c. A very ingenious tract by him was published at Paris in 1651, 4to, with this title,” Reponse du Cure a la Lettre du Mar^uillier sur la conduite de M. le Coadjuteur."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a cardinal more eminent for great talents and learning than for principle, was descended from ancient and noble families on both sides. His parents, having been educated in the protestiint religion, found it necessary to remove from Lower Normandy to Geneva; and settled afterwards in the canton of Berne, where he was born, Nov. 25, 1556. His father, Julian Davy, an able physician, and a man of learning, instructed him till he was ten years of age, and taught him mathematics and the Latin tongue. Young Perron seems afterwards to have built upon this foundation, for, while his parents were obliged to remove from place to place by civil wars and persecution, he taught himself the Greek tongue and philosophy, beginning that study with the logic of Aristotle: thence he passed to the orators and poets; and afterwards applied to the Hebrew language with such success, that he could read it without points, and lectured on it to the protestant clergy.

He recovered, however, from any loss of character which this affair might occasion, by abjuring the religion in which he had been educated. It is rather singular that he is said to have acquired a distaste of the prorestant religion by studying the “Suinma” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the writings of St. Austin; but having by this or by some other means, reconciled his mind to the change of his religion, he displayed all the zeal of a new convert by labouring earnestly in the conversion of others, even before he had embraced the ecclesiastical function. By these arts, and his uncommon abilities, he acquired great influ*­ence, and was appointed to pronounce the funeral oration of Mary queen of Scots, in 1587; as he had done also that of the poet Ronsard, in 1586. He wrote, some time after, by order of the king, “A comparison of moral and theological virtues;” and two “Discourses,” one upon the soul, the other upon self-knowledge, which he pronounced before that prince. After the murder of Henry III. he retired to the house of cardinal de Bourbon, aud laboured more vigorously than ever in the conversion of the reformed. Among his converts was Henry Spondanus, afterwards bishop of Pamiez; as this prelate acknowledges, in his dedication to cardinal du Perron of his “Abridgment of Baronius’s Annals.” But his success with Henry IV. is supposed to redound most to the credit of his powers of persuasion. He went to wait on that prince with cardinal de Bourbon, at the siege of Rouen; and followed him at Nantes, where -he held a famous dispute with four protestant ministers. The king, afterwards resolving to have a conference about religion with the principal prelates of the kingdom, sent for Du Perron to assist in it; but, as he was yet only a layman, he nominated him to the bishopric of Evreux, that he might be capable of sitting in it. He came with the other prelates to St. Denis, and is said to have contributed more than any ether person to the change in Henry’s sentiments.

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

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

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

Notwithstanding these employments, and the production of some occasional pieces in prose and verse, which they required, he was enabled to publish his edition of Synesius in 1612; but, as he was absent from the press, it suffered much by the carelessness and ignorance of the printers; and even the second edition, of 1631, retains a great many of the errors of the first. It gave the learned, however, an opportunity of knowing what was to be expected from the talents, diligence, and learning, of father Petau; and they entertained hopes which were not disappointed. During the years 1613, 1614, and 1615, he taught rhetoric in the college of La Fleche, in Anjou; and, in the first of these years, he published some works of the emperor Julian, which had hitherto remained in ms. and announced his intention of publishing an edition of Themistius, the Greek orator and sophist. In 1614, when the college of La Flche was visited by Louis XIII. with the queen mother and the whole court, he contributed many of the complimentary verses on the occasion; which, as we shall notice, were afterwards published. In the mean time, he undertook an edition of Nicephorus’s historical abridgment, which had never been printed either in Greek or Latin. In this he was assisted with the copy of a valuable manuscript, which father Sjrmond sent to him from Rome. In 1617, the Biblical professor of La Flche being removed to another charge, Petau supplied his place, until called to Paris by order of his superiors, to be professor of rhetoric. It was about this time that he was attacked by that violent fever, which he has so well described in his poem entitled “Soteria;” a circumstance scarcely worth mentioning, if it had not been connected with an instance uf superstition, which shews that his father’s prejudices had acquired possession of his mind. During this fever, and when in apparent danger, his biographer tells us, he made a vow to St. Genevieve, and the fever left him. The object of his vow was a tribute of poetical thanks to his patroness and deliverer. In order to perform this as it ought to be performed, he waited until his mind had recovered its tone but he waited too long, and the fever seized him again, as a re- 1 membrance of his neglect. Again, however, St. Genevieve restored him; and, that he might not hazard her displeasure any more, he published his “Soteria,” in 1619, which the connoisseurs of that time thought his chef (Taeuvre in poetry; and his biographer adds, that “it is in Virgil only we can find lines so completely Virgilian.” The remainder of his life was spent in performing the several offices of his order, or in those publications, a list of which will prove the magnitude of his labours. He died at Paris, December 11, 1652, in the sixtyninth year of his age. He seems, by the general consent, not only of the learned men of his communion, but of many Protestants, to have been one of the greatest scholars the Jesuits can boast: and would have appeared in the eyes of posterity as deserving of the highest character, had not his turn for angry controversy disgraced his style, and shown, that with all his learning and acuteness, he did not rise superior to the bigotry of his time. We have a striking instance of this, in his connection with Grotius. He had, at first, such a good opinion of that illustrious writer, as to think him a Roman Catholic in heart; and on his death, said a mass for his soul; but some time after, writing to cardinal Barberini, he uses these remarkable words: “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is nmc happy /”

, or the Eater, a celebrated writer in the twelfth century, was born at Troyes, of which city he was canon and dean, afterwards chancellor of the church of Paris. These benefices he resigned to enter as a regular canon of St. Victor at Paris, where he died in October 1198, leaving a work entitled “Scholastica historia super Nov. Test.” which contains an abridgment of the sacred history, from Genesis to the Acts, first printed at Utrecht in 1473, small folio, and reprinted at Vienna in the same year, and several times since. He dedicated this work to cardinal William de Champagne, archbishop of Sens. He is the author likewise of “Sermons,” published by Buse'e, under the name of Peter de Blois, 1600, 4to; and a “Catena temporum,” or universal history, is attributed to him, which was printed at Lubec, 1475, 2 vols, folio, and translated in French under the title of “Mer des Histoires,” Paris, 1488, 2 vols. folio.

, a considerable mathematician and philosopher of France, was born at Montlugon, in the diocese of Bourges, in 1598, according to some, but in 1600 according to others. He first cultivated the mathematics and philosophy in the place of his nativity; but in 1633 he repaired to Paris, to which place his reputation had procured him an invitation. Here he became highly celebrated for his ingenious writings, and for his connections with Pascal, Des Cartes, Mersenne, and the other great men of that time. He was employed on several occasions by cardinal Richelieu; particularly to visit the sea-ports, with the title of the king’s engineer; and was also sent into Italy upon the king’s business. He was at Tours in 1640, where he married; and was afterwards made intendant of the fortifications. Baillet, in his Life of Des Cartes, says, that Petit had a great genius for mathematics; that he excelled particularly in astronomy; and had a singular passion for experimental philosophy. About 1637 he returned to Paris from Italy, when the dioptrics of Des Cartes were much spoken of. He read them, and communicated his objections to Mersenne, with whom he was intimately acquainted, and yet soon after embraced the principles of Des Cartes, becoming not only his friend, but his partisan and defender. He was intimately connected with Pascal, with whom he made at Rouen the same experiments concerning the vacuum, which Torricelli had before made in Italy; and was assured of their truth by frequent repetitions. This was in 1646 and 1647; and though there appears to be a long interval from this date to the time of his death, we meet with no other memoirs of his life. He died August 20, 1667, at Lagny, near Paris, whither he had retired for some time before his decease. Petit was the author of several works upon physical and astronomical subjects; the principal of which are, 1. “Chronological Discourse,” &c. 1636, 4to, in defence of Scaliger. 2. “Treatise on the Proportional Compasses.” 3. “On the Weight and Magnitude of Metals.” 4. “Construction and Use of the Artillery Calibers.” 5. “On a Vacuum.” 6. “On Eclipses.” 7. “On Remedies against the Inundations of the Seine at Paris.” 8. “On the Junction of the Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea, by means of the rivers Aude and Garonne.” 9. “On Comets.” 10. “On the proper Day for celebrating Easter.” 11. “On the nature of Heat and Cold,” &c.

, a celebrated Benedictine, of the congregation of St. Vannes, was born December 18, 1659, at St. Nicholas in Lorrain. He taught philosophy and theology in the abbey de St. Michael; was made abbot of Senones 1715, and bishop of Macra 1726. He died June 14, 1728, aged 69. The principal among his numerous works are, 3 vols. 8vo, of “Remarks on M. Dupin’s Ecclesiastical Library;” and “An Apology for M. Pascal’s Provincial Letters,” in seventeen letters. This work he afterwards disavowed in a letter to cardinal Corradini, dated September 30, 1726, where he declares that these seventeen letters have been rashly and falsely attributed to him; but l'Avocat says, that it is nevertheless certain that he wrote them. He wrote also a treatise “On the Pope’s Infallibility,” in favour of the Holy See, and against the liberties of the Gallican church, Luxemburg, 1724, 12mo; and a “Dissertation on the Council of Constance,” 1725, 12mo. He not only accepted the constitution “Unigenitus,” but wrote in its defence, and by that means gained the abbey of Senones, which the person to whom it bad lapsed disputed with him.

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

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

Mary had, in fact, such confidence in sir William Petre, that she employed him in negotiating her marriage with Philip; and applied to him for relief when her mind was perplexed on the subject of the church -lands, the alienation of which could not easily be reconciled to her principles. He was her private adviser also in other matters; and when pope Paul III. was about to send another legate instead of cardinal Pole, whom she had desired, he advised her to forbid his setting foot in England, which she very resolutely did. In all this there must have appeared nothing very obnoxious in the eyes of queen Elizabeth: for she continued him in the office of secretary of state until 1560, if not longer; and he was of her privy-council till his death, and was at various times employed by her in public affairs. He died Jan. 13, 1572, and was buried in a new aile in* the church at Ingatestone, where he had built almshouses for 20 poor people. He also left various considerable legacies to the poor in the several parishes where he had estates, as well as to the poor of the metropolis. To Exeter college he procured a new body of statutes and a regular deed of incorporation, and founded at the same time eight fellowships. To All Souls he gave a piece of ground adjoining to the college, and the rectories of Barking and StantonHarcourt, and founded exhibitions for three scholars. He was married twice. One of his daughters, by his first wife, became afterwards the wife of Nicholas Wadham, and with him joint founder of Wadham college. His son John, by his second lady, was the first lord Petre,

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

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

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

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

, another learned Italian, was born at Padua Oct. 12, 1571, and after being educated among the Jesuits, became confessor to a nunnery, and parish priest of St. Lawrence, to which a canonry of Treviso was added by cardinal Barberini. He was in habits of intimacy with many of the most illustrious men of his time, and collected a valuable library and cabinet of antiquities. He died of the plague in 1631. He distinguished himself by deep researches into antiquity, and published the “Mensa Isiaca,” and some other pieces, which illustrate the antiquities and hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and gained him the reputation of a man accurately as well as profoundly learned. He was also skilled in writing verses, consisting of panegyrics, epitaphs, and a long poem inscribed to pope Urbao VIII. It must be remembered to the honour of Pignorius, that the great Galileo procured an offer to be made to him, of the professorship of polite literature and eloquence in the university of Pisa; which his love of studious retirement and his country made him decline. He wrote much, in Italian, as well as in Latin. G. Vossius has left a short but honourable testimony of him and says, that he was “ob eximiam eruditionem atque humanitatem mini charissimus vir.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In November of the same year, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, and soon after that of Cambridge, and in 1557 he visited both by his commissaries. It was on these occasions that the shameful ceremony was ordered, of disturbing the ashes of Peter Martyr’s wife, at Oxford, and of Bucer and Fagius, at Cambridge. Other severities were exercised; all English Bibles, comments on them, &c. were ordered to be burnt, and such strict search made for heretics, that many fled, and, according to Wood, the university lost some good scholars. The only instance of the cardinal’s liberality to Oxford, was his giving to All-Souls’ college, the living of Stanton Harcourt.

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

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

He left his friend Priuli, a Venetian man of quality, his executor and heir; but the latter, whose attachment to the cardinal was as disinterested as it was constant, after discharging the specific legacies, divided the whole of the property in the way that he thought would have been most agreeable to the cardinal, and reserved to himself only his friend’s Breviary and Diary.

Pole published some other small pieces, besides those we have mentioned in the preceding account, and some translations from the fathers. He was several years employed in collecting various readings, emendations, &c. of Cicero’s works, with a view to a new edition, but these are supposed to be lost. Dodd also mentions a collection of dispatches, letters, and dispensations, &c. during the time of his reforming the Church of England in queen Mary’s reign, 4 vols. fol. which are preserved among the Mss. in the college of Doway and Tanner notices a few other Mss. in our public libraries. In 1744 1752 a very valuable collection of letters which passed between Pole and his learned friends, with preliminary discourses to each volume, was published by cardinal Quirini, in 4 vols. 4to, This was followed, after Quirini’s death, by a fifth volume, from his collections. The title, “Cardinalis Poll et aiiorum ad ipsum Epistolae.” Of the life of Cardinal Pole much was discovered, and many mistakes rectified, in consequence of the controversy excited by Mr. Phillips’s life (See Phillips, Thomas) and which was carried on with great spirit

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

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.

The site chosen for his new foundation was at this time occupied by Durham college, which Edward VI. granted to George Owen, of Godstowe, the king’s physician, a man of great learning and eminence, and William Martyn, gentleman, in 1552; and sir Thomas purchased the premises of these gentlemen by indenture dated Feb. 20, 1554. On March 8, and March 28, he obtained from Philip and Mary a royal licence and charter to create and erect a college within the university of Oxford, under the title of Collegium Sanctæ Et Individuæ Trinitatis In Universitate Oxon. Ex Fundatione Thomæ Pope Militis. The society was to consist of a president, a priest, twelve fellows, four of whom should be priests, and eight scholars (afterwards increased to twelve) and the whole to be liberally and amply endowed with certain manors, lands, and revenues. They were to be elected out of the diocese and places where the college has benefices, manors, or revenues, more particularly in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Kent. The same charter empowered him to found and endow a school at Hokenorton, in Oxfordshire, to be called Jesus Scholehouse; and to give statutes both to the college and to the first and second masters of the said school. And by deed, dated March 28, 1555, he declared his actual erection and establishment df the said college, and the same day delivered possession, before a large concourse of witnesses, to the president, fellows, and scholars. In May following he supplied his college with necessaries and implements of every kind, books, furniture for the chapel, of the most costly kind; and next year he transmitted a body of statutes to the society, dated May 1, 1556. These statutes he had submitted to the revision of cardinal Pole, from whom he received some valuable hints. On the 8th of the same month, May, he gave them one hundred pounds as a stock for immediate purposes; and the endowment, by thirty-five manors, thirteen advowsons, besides impropriations and pensions, was completed before, or upon the feast of Annunciation, in the same year; and the first president, fellows and scholars, nominated by himself, were formally admitted within the chapel, May 30, on the eve of Trinity Sunday. During his life-time, the founder nominated the fellows and scholars, and afterwards delegated the power to his widow, dame Elizabeth, of nominating the scholars, and presenting to the advowsons, and this she continued to exercise during her long life, but with some interruptions, and some opposition. On one occasion the college rejected her nomination to a scholarship, and chose another candidate; but on an appeal to the visitor, he decided in her favour. She sometimes also nominated the fellows, and once a president. But both she and her husband, sir Hugh Powlett, were so liberal and punctual in fulfilling the founder’s intentions, and in contributing to the prosperity of the college, that she was in general obeyed with respect and gratitude.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Mantua in 1534, of a good but decayed family. He was educated principally at Rome, and made such progress in learning, that the cardinal Hercules de Gonzaga made him his secretary, and intrusted him with the education of Francis and Scipio de Gonzaga, his nephews. After studying divinity at Padua, he was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1559. As a preacher, he had distinguished success, both in Italy and France; and having a very uncommon talent both for languages and for negociation, he was employed by pope Gregory XIII. in important embassies to Poland, Sweden, Germany, and other parts of Europe. When he returned to Rome, he laboured to effect a reconciliation between Henry IV“. of France and the court of Rome. This, however, displeased the Spanish court, by whom he was compelled to leave that city. He died at Ferrara, Feb. 26, 1611, being then seventy-eight years old. Possevin, though so deeply skilled in politics and knowledge of mankind, was a man of profound erudition and exemplary piety. The most important of his works are, 1.” Bibliotheca selecta, de ratione studiorum,“published at Rome in 1593, folio, and reprinted at Venice in 1607, in 2 vols. folio, with many augmentations. This work was intended as a general introduction to knowledge; at once to facilitate the approach to it, and to serve as a substitute for many books, the perusal of which the author considered as dangerous for young minds. Tt treats distinctly of every science, with great extent of learning, but not always with sufficient correctness. 2.” Apparatus sacer,“Cologne, 1607, 2 vols. folio. The intention of this book was to give a general knowledge of the commentators on the Scriptures, and other theological writers. Though the catalogues it contains were from the first imperfect and ill-digested, it was much circulated, as the best book of the time, and it contains notices of above six thousand authors. It is now become almost entirely useless. 3.” Moscovia," 1587, folio; a description of Russia, the fruit of some of his travels. 4. Some controversial and other theological books. 5. Some smaller works, written and published in Italian. Possevin’s Life was published by father Dorigny at Paris, 1712, 12mo.

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.

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.”

, in Latin Possinus, a learned Jesuit, of Narbonne, in the 17th century, resided a considerable time at Rome, where he was much esteemed by Christina, queen of Sweden, cardinal Barberini, and several other illustrious persons. He understood Greek well, had very carefully studied the fathers, and has left translations of a great number of Greek authors, with notes a “Catena of the Greek Fathers on St. Mark,” Rome, 1673, fol. and other works. He died 1686, aged 77.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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 very eminent mathematician and astronomer, was born at Purbach, a town upon the confines of Bavaria and Austria, in 1423, and educated at Vienna. He afterwards visited the most celebrated universities in Germany, France, and Italy; and found a particular friend and patron in cardinal Cusa, at Rome. Returning to Vienna, he was appointed mathematical professor, in which office he continued till his death, which happened in 1461, in the 39th year of his age only, to the great loss of the learned world.

Still he was allowed to have accumulated a great fund of learning. Bullart says, “It was the great learning of Puteanus, which, having won the heart of Urban VIII. deter* mined that great pope to send him his portrait in a gold medal, very heavy, with some copies of his works. It was that same learning, which engaged cardinal Frederic Borromeo to receive him into his palace, when he returned to Milan. It was also his learning, which made him tenderly beloved by the count de Fuentes, governor of Milan and afterwards by the archduke Albert, who, having promoted him to Justus Lipsius’s chair, admitted him also most honourably into the number of his counsellors. Lastly, it was his learning; which made him so much esteemed in the chief courts of Europe, and occasioned almost all the princes, the learned men, the ambassadors of kings, and the generals of armies, to give him proofs of their regard in the letters they wrote to him; of which above sixteen thousand were found in his library, all placed in a regular order. He had the glory to save the king of Poland’s life, by explaining an enigmatical writing drawn up in unknown characters, which no man could read or understand, and which contained the scheme of a conspiracy against that prince.” He was also, in his private character, a man of piety, of an obliging disposition, andremarkable not only for his kindness to his scholars, but for many good offices to his countrymen in every case of need. The archduke Albert, as Bullart notices, nominated him one of his counsellors, and entrusted him with the government of the castle of Louvain. He died at Louvain Sept. 17, 1646, in the seventy-second year of his age. Nicolas Vernulaeus pronounced his funeral oration, and his life was published by Milser with an engraved portrait.

, a celebrated French ecclesiastic, was born July 14, 1634, at Paris. He entered the congregation of the Oratory, Nov. 17, 1657, and devoted himself wholly to the study of Scripture, and the Fathers, and the composition of works of piety. When scarcely twenty-eight, he was appointed first director of the Institution of his order, at Paris, under father Jourdain; and began, in that house, his famous book of “Moral Reflections” on each verse of the New Testament, for the use of young pupils of the Oratory. This work originallyconsisted only of some devout meditations on our Saviour’s words; but M. de Lomenie, who, from being minister and secretary of state, had entered the Oratory, the marquis de Laigue, and other pious persons, being pleased with this beginning, requested father Quesnel to make similar reflections on every part of the four Gospels. Having complied, M. de Laigue mentioned the book to Felix de Vialart, bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne and that prelate, who was. much celebrated for his piety, adopted the work in his diocese, and recommended the reading- of it by a mandate of November 9, 1671, after having had it printed at Paris by Pralard the same year, with consent of the archbishop Harlai, the royal privilege, and the approbation of the doctors. Father Quesnel afterwards assisted in a new edition of St. Leo’s works. When De Harlai banished father De Sainte Marthe, general of the Oratory, he obliged father Quesnel, who was much attached to him, to retire to Orleans 1681. The general assembly of the Oratory having ordered, in 1684, the signature of a form of doctrine, drawn up in 1678, respecting various points of philosophy and theology, father Quesnel refused to sign it, and withdrew into the Spanish Netherlands, in February 1685. He took advantage of the absurd mixture of philosophy and theology introduced into this form. After this he went to M. Arnauld at Brussels, residing with him till his death, and there finished the “Moral Reflections” on the whole New Testament; which, thus completed, was first published in 1693 and 1694, and approved in 1695, by cardinal de Noailles, then bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne, who recommended it by a mandate to his clergy and people. When the same prelate became archbishop of Paris, he employed some divines to examine these “Reflections” carefully and it was after this revisal that they were published at Paris, 1699. This edition is more ample than any other. The celebrated archbishop of Meaux was also engaged on the subject; and “The Justification of the Moral Reflections, against the Problem,” appeared under his name 1710. The famous Case of Conscience gave occasion for renewing the disputes about the signature of the Formulary, and the subject of Grace. Father Quesnel was arrested at Brussels, May 30, 1703, by order of the archbishop of Malines, and committed to prison but Don Livio, a young Spaniard, employed by the marquis d'Aremberg, released him September 13th following, and he remained concealed at Brussels till October 2; then quitted that place for Holland, where, arriving in April 1704, he published several pieces against the archbishop of Malines, who condemned him by a sentence dated November 10, 1704. This sentence father Quesnel attacked, and wrote in 1705 two tracts to prove it null one entitled, “Idee generale du Libelle, public en Latin,” &c. the other, “Anatomic de la Sentence de M. l'Archeveque de Malines.” Several pieces appeared, soon after, against the book of “Moral Reflections” two had been published before one entitled, “Le Pere Quesnel heretique” the other, “Le Pere Quesnel Seditieux.” These publications induced pope Clement XI. to condemn it altogether, by a decree of July 15, 1708; but this decree did not appease the contest, and father Quesnel refuted it with great warmth, 1709, in a work entitled “Entretiens sur le Décret de Rome, contre le Nouveau Testament de Chalons, accompagne de reflexions morales.” In the mean time, the bishops of Lucon, la Rochelle, and Gap, condemned his book by mandates, which were to be followed and supported by a letter addressed to the king, and signed by the greatest part of the French bishops. This was sent to them, ready drawn p but the plan was partly defeated for a packet intended by the abbe Bochart de Saron for the bishop of Clement, his uncle, and which contained a copy of the letter to the king, fell into the hands of cardinal de Noailles, and much contusion ensued. At length, the disputes on this subject still continuing, pope Clement XL at the solicitation of Louis XIV. published, September 8, 1713, the celebrated bull beginning with the words, “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” by which he condemned father Quesnel’s book, with 101 propositions extracted from it, and every thing that had been written, or that should be written, in its defence. This bull was received by the assembly of the French clergy, and registered in parliament, in 17 14, with modifications. Cardinal de Noailles, however, and seven other prelates refused, and lettres de cachet were issued by Louis XIV. against them but after his decease, the cardinal and several other bishops appealed from the bull to a general council, all which proceedings produced disputes in the French church that lasted nearly to the time of the revolution.

, an ingenious French writer, whose talent was Latin poetry, was born at Chinon, in Touraine, about 1602. Early in life he studied physic, and practised it for some years. When Mr. De Laubardemont, counsellor of state, and a creature of cardinal Richelieu, was sent to take cognisance of the famous pretended possession of the nuns of Loudun, with secret instructions doubtless to find them real, Quillet was in that town and so everted himself in detecting the imposture, that Laubardemont issued out a warrant against him. On this, as he saw that the whole was a trick carried on by cardinal Richelieu, in order to destroy the unhappy Grandier, and at the same time, as some suppose, to frighten Louis XIII. he thought it not safe to continue at Loudun, or even in France, and therefore immediately retired into Italy. This must have happened about 1634, when Grandier was executed.

Arriving at Rome, he paid his respects frequently to the marshal D'Etre*es, the French ambassador and was soon after received into his service, as secretary of the embassy. He seems to have returned with the marshal to France, after the death of cardinal Richelieu. While he was at Rome, he began his poem called “Callipsedia” the first edition of which was printed at Leyden, 1655, with this title, “Calvidii Leti Callipsedia, seu de pulchrae prolis habendae ratione.” Calvidius Letus is almost an anagram of his name. It is not known, what cause of offence he had with cardinal Mazarine; but it is certain, that he reflected very severely upon his eminence in this poem. The cardinal, however, sent for him and, after some kind expostulations, assured him of his esteem, and dismissed him with a promise of the next good abbey that should fall; which he accordingly conferred upon him a few months after this effectually removed all Quillet’s dislike, and he dedicated the second edition of his book to the cardinal, after having expunged the passages which had given him offence. The second edition of “Callipoedia” was printed at Paris, 1656, with many additions, and Quillet’s proper name to it: and the author subjoined two other pieces of Latin poetry, one “Ad Eudoxum,” which is n. fictitious name for some courtier; another, “In obitum Petri Gassendi, insignis Philosophi & Astronomi.” These are all the productions of Quillet which ever came from the press; although he wrote a long Latin poem in twelve books, entitled “Henriados,” in honour of Henry IV. of France, and translated all the satires of Juvenal into French.

, or rather Quintus Smyrneus, was a Greek poet, who wrote a supplement to Homer’s Iliad, in 14 books, in which a relation is given of the Trojan war from the death of Hector to the destruction of Troy. He is supposed, from the style of his work, to have lived in the fifth century, but nothing certain can be collected concerning his person and country; but some say he was a native of Smyrna, and hence the name of Smyrneus. His poem was first made known by cardinal Bessarion, who discovered it in St. Nicholas’ church, near Otranto in Calabria, from which circumstance the author was named Quintus Calaber. It was published at Venice, by Aldus, but there is no date attached to the title-page; it is supposed to be 1521. The other editions are those of Freigius, Basil, 1569; of Rhodomannus, Hanover, 1604; of De Pauw, Leyden, 1734; and of Bandinius, Gr. Lat. et Ital. Florence, 1765.

, a Venetian cardinal, celebrated as an historian, a philologer, and an antiquary, was born in 1684, or, according to some authors, in 1680. He entered very early into an abbey of Benedictines at Florence, and there studied with so much ardour as to lay in a vast store of literature of every kind, under Salvini, Bellini, and other eminent instructors. The famous Magliabecchi introduced to him all foreigners illustrious for their talents, and it was thus that he became acquainted with sir Isaac Newton and Montfaucon. Not contented with this confined intercourse with the learned, he began to travel in 1710, and went through Germany to Holland, where he conversed with Basnage, Le Clerc, Kuster, Gronovius, and Perizonius. He then crossed into England, where he was honourably received by Bentley, Newton, the two Burnets, Cave, Potter, and others. Passing afterwards into France, he formed an intimate friendship with the amiable and illustrious Fenelon and became known to all the principal literati of that country. - The exact account of the travels of Quirini would contain, in fact, the literary history of Europe at that period. Being raised to the, dignity of cardinal, he waited on Benedict XIII. to thank him for that distinction. “It is not for you,” said that pope, “to thank me for raising you to this elevation, it is rather my part to thank you, for having by your merit reduced me to the necessity of making you a cardinal.” Quirini spread in every part the fame of his learning, and of his liberality. He was admitted into almost all the learned societies of Europe, and in various parts built churches, and contributed largely to other public works. To the library of the Vatican he presented his own collection of. books, which was so extensive as to require the addition of a large room to contain it. What is most extraordinary is, that though a Dominican and a cardinal, he was of a most tolerant disposition, and was every where beloved by the Protestants. He died in the 'beginning of January 1755.

His works are numerous among them we may notice, 1. “Primordia Corcyrae, ex antiquissimis monumentis illustrata” a book full of erudition and discernment. The best edition is that of Bresse, 1738, 4to. 2. A work on the Lives of certain Bishops of Bresse, eminent for sanctity. 3. “Specimen varia3 Literature, quae in urbe Brixia, ejusque ditione, paulo post incunabula Typographic florebat,” &c. 1739, 4to. 4. An Account of his Travels, full of curious and interesting anecdotes. 5. A collection of his Letters. 6. A sketch of his own life, to the year 1740, Bresse, 1749, 8vo. 7. Cardinal Pole’s Letters, mentioned in our account of that celebrated ecclesiastic. -8. An edition of the works of St. Ephrem, 1742, 6 vols. fol. in Greek, Syriac, and Latin. With many smaller productions,

In 1532, he published at Lyons some pieces of Hippocrates and Galen, with a dedication to the bishop of Mailezais in which he tells him, that he had read lectures upon the aphorisms of Hippocrates, and the “ars medica” of Galen, before numerous audiences in the university of Montpellier. This was the last year of his cootinuance in that place for the year after he went to Lyons, where he became physician to the hospital, and joined lectures with practice for some years following. John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, and afterwards cardinal, with whom he had been acquainted in his early years, going to Rome in? 1534, upon the business of Henry VIITs divorce from Catherine of Spain, and passing through Lyons, carried Rabelais with him, in quality of his physician who returned home, however, in about six months. He had sometime before quitted his religious connections for the sake of leading a life more suitable to his taste and humour; but now renewed them, and in a second journey to Rome, obtained in 1536, by his interest with some cardinals, a brief from pope Paul III. to qualify him for holding ecclesiastical benefices. John du Bellay, had procured the abbey of St. Maur near Paris to be secularized; and into this was Rabelais, now a Benedictine monk, received as a secular canon. Here he is supposed to have begun his famous romance, entitled “The lives, heroic deeds, and sayings of Gargantua and Pantagruel.” He continued ifi this retreat till 1545, when Du Bellay, his friend and patron, and now a cardinal, nominated him to the cure of Meudon, which he is said to have filled with great zeal and application to the end of his life. His profound knowledge and skill in physic made him doubly useful to the people under his care and he was ready upon all occasions to relieve them under indispositions of body as well as mind. He died in 1553. As he was a great wit, many witticisms and facetious sayings are laid to his charge, of which he knew nothing and many ridiculous circumstances are related of him by some of his biographers, to which probably little credit is due.

, a French ecclesiastical historian, was born November 25, 1708, at Chauny. He completed his studies at the Mazarine college at Paris, where he acquired great skill in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and ecclesiastical history, and was sent for by M. de la Croix-Castries, archbishop of Albi, in 1729, to re-establish the college at Rabastens. Here he remained two years, and under his care the college became flourishing but, being afterwards banished by the intrigues of the Jesuits, for his attachment to the anti-constitutionists, retired to M. Colbert at Montpellier, who employed him in superintending the college of Lunel. This situation he privately quitted in a short time, to avoid some rigorous orders and, going to Paris, undertook the education of some young men at the college of Harcourt but this place too he was obliged to quit in 1734, by cardinal Fleury’s order; from which time he lived sequestered from the world, wholly occupied in his retreat in study and devotion. M. de Caylus, bishop of Auxerre, being determined to attach M.Racine to himself, gave him a canonryat Auxerre, and admitted him to sacred orders, all which, however, occasioned no change in. his way of life. He died at Paris, worn out by application, May 15, 1755, aged 47, and was buried at St. Severin. His principal works are, four tracts relative to the dispute which had arisen concerning “Fear and Confidence,” written with so much moderation, that they pleased all parties; and an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” 13 vols. 12mo and 4to. This work has been extremely admired, particularly by the opponents of the bull Unigenitus, and of the Jesuits, who are treated in it with great severity, as they had been the cause of all his troubles. He intended to have continued his Abridgment down to the year 1750 at least, had he lived longer; and a history of the first 33 years of the eighteenth century has been published by one of his friends, 2 vols. 12mo; and some Reflections, by M. Racine, on Ecclesiastical History, have also appeared, 2 vols. 12mo, which are a summary of his Abridgment.

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1692. He was also a distinguished poet, but adopted the ecclesiastical habit, and in 1720 published his poem “On Grace.” From his retirement, D'Aguesseau brought him again into the world, and cardinal Fleury afterwards gave him a place in the finances; on which he married, and lived happily, till the loss of an only son threw him into a deep melancholy. He died in 1763, at the age of 71. His poetical writings are, “Poems on Religion and Grace;” “Odes,” of which the diction is splendid, and the sentiments elevated; “Epistles,” and a “Translation of Milton’s Paradise Lost.” In prose he wrote “Reflexions sur la Poesie” “Memoires sur la Vie de Jean Racine” “Remarques sur les Tragedies de J. Racine.” Besides these, he contributed several dissertations to the Memoires of the Academy of Inscriptions, of which he was a member. His works were collected and published in 6 vols. 12mo.

After the death of Raphael, Marc Antonio was employed by Julio Romano. This connection was unfortunate, for he disgraced himself and his profession by engraving that painter’s abominable designs to accompany Aretine’s infamous verses. For this pope Clement VII. sent him to prison, from which he was released with great difficulty by the interest of the cardinal Julius de Medici and Baccio Bandinelli, the sculptor. The exquisite merit of his “martyrdom of St. Laurence,” at length reconciled the pope to him, who pardoned his offence entirely, and took him under his protection. He had now attained his highest reputation, and had accumulated wealth, but lost the latter entirely in 1527, when Rome was taken by the Spanish army. After this misfortune he retired to Bologna, where perhaps he died, but when is not known. The last print we have of his is dated 1539, after which he cannot be traced with certainty. Strutt considers him as one of the most extraordinary engravers that ever lived. The purity of his outlines, the correctness with which the extremities of his figures are marked, and the beauty and character which appear in the heads, prove him to have been a man of great taste and solid judgment, as well as a perfect master of drawing. These beauties, without doubt, appear most striking in his works from Raphael, a circumstance which seemsr greatly to confirm the report of his being much assisted by that great master. Strutt has given a list of the best of Marc Antonio’s prints, which however are rarely to be met with in their original state.

, or La Ramme'E, a celebrated French mathematician and philosopher, was born in 1515, in a village of Vermandois, in Picardy, of a family so greatly reduced by the ravages of war, that his grandfather, having lost all his possessions, was obliged to turn collier for a livelihood. His father followed husbandry, but appears to have been unable to give any education to this son, whose 4 arly years were spent in mean occupations. At length he obtained the place of servant in the college of Navarre, at Paris, where he picked up the rudiments of learning, and became acquainted with the logic of Aristotle. All his leisure time he devoted to study, so that what is related in the first Scaligerana of his living to nineteen without learning to read, and of his being very dull and stupid, is totally inconsistent with the truth. On the contrary, his talents and perseverance at last procured him to be regularly educated in the college, and having finished classical learning and rhetoric, he went through a course of philosophy, which took him up three years and a half. The thesis which he made for his master’s degree denied the authority of Aristotle, and this he maintained with great ability, and very ingeniously replied to the objections of the professors. This success inclined him to examine the doctrine of Aristotle more closely, and to combat it vigorously: but he confined himself principally to his logic. All this, however, was little less than heresy; and the two first books he published, the one entitled “Institutiones Dialecticae,” the other “Aristotelicse Animadversiones,” so irritated the professors of the university of Paris, that, besides many effusions of spleen and calumny, they prosecuted this anti- peripatetic before the civil magistrate, as a man who was at war with religion and learning. The cause was then carried before the parliament of Paris, but his enemies dreading either the delay or the fairness of a trial there, brought it before the king, Francis I. who ordered that Ramus, and Antony Govea, who was his principal adversary, should chuse two judges each, to pronounce on the controversy after they should have ended their disputation; while he himself appointed an umpire. Ramus, in obedience to the king’s orders, appeared before the five judges, though three of them were his declared enemies. The dispute lasted two days; and Govea had all the advantage he could desire, Ramus’s books being prohibited in all parts of the kingdom, and their author sentenced not to write or teach philosophy any longer. This sentence, which elated his enemies beyond all bounds of moderation, was published in Latin and French in all the streets of Paris, and in all parts of Europe, whither it could be sent. Plays were acted with great pomp, in which Ramus was ridiculed in various ways amidst the applauses and acclamations of the Aristotelians. This happened in 1543. The year after, the plague made great havoc in Paris, and forced most of the students to quit the university, and cut off several of the professors. On their return, Ramus, being prevailed upon to teach in it, soon drew together a great number of auditors, and through the patronage and protection of the cardinal of Lorrain he obtained in 1547 from Henry II. the liberty of speaking and writing, and the royal professorship of philosophy aad eloquence in 1551. The parliament of Paris had, before this, maintained him in the liberty of joining philosophical lectures to those of eloquence; and this arret or decree had put an end to several prosecutions, which Ramus and his pupils had suffered. As soon as he was made regius professor, he was fired with new zeal for improving the sciences; and was extremely laborious and active on this occasion, notwithstanding the machinations of his enemies. He bore at that time a part in a very singular aflair, which deserves to be mentioned. About 1550 the royal professors corrected, among other abuses, that which had crept into the pronunciation of the Latin tongue. Some of the clergy followed this regulation; but the Sorbonnists were much offended at it as an innovation, and defended the old pronunciation with great zeal. Things at length were carried so far, that a clergyman who had a good living was ejected from his benefice for having pronounced qm’squis, quanquaw, according to the new way, instead of kiskis, kankam, according to the old. The clergyman applied to the parliament; and the royal professors, with Ramus among them, fearing he would fall a victim to the credit and authority of the faculty of divines, for presuming to pronounce the Latin tongue according to their regulations, thought it incumbent on them to assist him. Accordingly they went to the court of justice, and represented in such strong terms the indignity of the prosecution, that the person accused was acquitted, and the pronunciation of Latin recovered its liberty.

, the celebrated abbe and reformer of the monastery of La Trappe, was born January 9, 1626, at Paris. He was nephew of Claudius le Bouthillier de Chavigny, secretary of state, and superintendant of the finances. In classical learning he made so rapid a progress that, with some direction from his tutor, he published, at the age of twelve or thirteen years, a new edition of “Anacreon,” in Greek, with notes, 1639, 8vo. This curious volume, which was dedicated to his godfather Cardinal Richelieu, was reprinted in 1647, and both editions are now scarce. At ten years old, according to the absurd custom then prevalent, he was appointed canon of Notre Dame in Paris, and became possessed of several benefices in a short time. He afterwards took a doctor of divinity’s degree in the Sorbonne, February 10, 1654, and appearing then in a public character, soon became distinguished not only for taste and politeness, but for those amiable qualifications which are of use in society. He was not however without his frailties, and it is said that he refused the bishopric of Leon from a motive of vanity. He was then appointed almoner to the duke of Orleans, and made a shining figure in the assembly of the clergy in 1655, as deputy from the second order. At length becoming conscious how little splendour and preeminence avail to happiness, he bad adieu to all, and devoted his days to religious exercises. It has been said, that this resolution was the consequence of a visit he paid to a favourite lady, from whom he had been absent for some time, and whom on entering her apartment he found dead in her coffin, and frightfully disfigured with the smallpox. This anecdote is taken from “Les veritables Motifs de la Conversion de l'abbé de la Trappe,” published by Daniel de la Roque, Cologn, 1685, 12mo; but some of his biographers treat it as fabulous. One of them, Marsollier, with greater appearance of probability, attributes his conversion to his having narrowly escaped being killed by the ball of a firelock, which struck his gibeciere, or pouch, on which he immediately exclaimed, “Alas! where should I have been, had not my God had compassion on me.” Whichever of these incidents was the cause, it is certain that he retired from the world, and refused even to be assistant to his uncle, who was archbishop of Tours. He then founded a monastery, the fraternity belonging to which practise the utmost self-denial. Their diet is merely vegetable. They allow not themselves wine, flesh, fish, nor eggs; they enter into no conversation with strangers, and for some days are wholly silent. They have each a separate cell, and used to pass some part of every day in digging their own graves in the garden of the convent. De Ranee placed this new establishment of the monks of La Trappe in the hands of the fathers of the strict Cistertian observance. He also sold his estate at Veret for 100,000 crowns, which sum he gave to the H6tel Dieu at Paris, and took the monastic habit in the abbey of Notre Dame de Perseigne, where he made profession, June 6,1664. He afterwards took possession of the abbey de la Trappe, and introduced those regulations above mentioned, which long made it the admiration of all travellers. In this retreat he lived devoted to his austere observances, until 1695, when he died on his straw pallet, in presence of the bishop of Seez, and the whole community, October 26, 1700, aged 74, leaving many pious works; among which the principal are, a book “de la Saintété des Devoirs de l'Etat monastique,” 1683, 2 vols. 4to “Eclaircissemens sur ce Livre,” 1685, 4to; “Explication sur la Regie de S. BenoSt,” 12mo; “lieflexions morales sur les quatre Evangiies,” 4 vols. 12mo; “Conferences sur les Evangiies,” 4 vols. 12mo “Instructions et Maximes,” 12mo; “Concluite Chretienue,” written for Mad. de Guise, 12mo; a greafnumber of “Spiritual Letters,” 2 vols. 12 mo; “Accounts of the Lives and Deaths of some Monks of la Trappe,” 4 vols. 12tno, continued to 6 vols.; lastly, “The Constitutions and Rules of the Abbe of la Trappe,” 1701, 2 vols. 12mo. His life has been written by several Romish authors, particularly by M. de Maupeou, M, Marsollier, and Le Nain, brother of M. de Tillemont, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a native of Perigueux, or, according to Menage, of Bourdeaux, was the son of an advocate in the last mentioned city. He was well skilled in the Roman law, philosophy, mathematics, and antiquities; and was appointed president of the parliament of Paris, after having been counsellor to that of Bourdeaux. His mode of life was singular. He seldom read in the daytime; but used to take a light supper, go to rest early, and rise, after his first sleep, about the time that the monks say matins; then, covering his head like a capuchin, he spent four hours in study, and, going to bed again, finished, after a quiet sleep, what he had meditated upon during the night. By this plan, he used to say that the most rapid progress might be made in learning. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar; and, if we may believe M. Pithou, it was be who composed the Dictionary which goes under the name of Charles Stephens. Pithou adds, that, when cardinal de Lorraine assembled the parliament of Paris to take their advice as to the punishment of heretics, Ranconet was so imprudent as to read that passage in which Sulpitius Severus touches upon the execution of Priscillian; and the cardinal being displeased, sent him to the Bastille, where he died of grief, 1558, aged above 60. Others say that Ranconet’s confinement proceeded from his having been falsely accused of a capital crime. He left in ms. “Le Tresor de la Langue Franchise, taut ancienne que nioderne;” which was the foundation of the Dictionaries of Nicot and Monet.

Raphael, though possessing pre-eminent powers as a painter, had not suffered that profession alone to absorb his mind; he had studied architecture under Bramante, and in chastity of design was not inferior to that distinguished artist, who in full confidence of his abilities, recommended him as his successor, to conduct the great work of St. Peter’s, to which recommendation his holiness paid due attention. According to the pope’s brief on this occasion, dated August 1515, his salary was fixed at three hundred golden crowns, or 150l. per annum. For so important an undertaking this sum would seem to be a very inadequate remuneration but, as his biographer observes, in our own country, one hundred and sixty years subsequent to this period, sir Christopher Wren did not receive more than 200l. per annum, for the building of St. Paul’s, which included draughts, models, making estimates and contracts, examining and adjusting all bills and accounts, with constant personal superintendance, and giving instructions to the artificers in every department. St. Peter’s, which cost more than a century to complete, underwent so many changes by the various architects employed, that it would be now extremely difficult to particularize with any degree of certainty the different parts of it which were executed by Raphael. It appears, however, that it is to him we are indebted for the general plan of the church as it now exists. In 1515, Raphael went with the pope to Florence, and made a design for the facade of the church of St. Lorenzo: and, according to Vasari, he was also the architect of a magnificent house for the bishop of Troja, which still exists in the street of St. Gallo in that city; but of the different buildings designed or executed by Raphael, that on which his reputation as an artist is thought principally to rest, is the Caffarelli palace at Rome. The other buildings of Raphael still existing are, a palace for M. Giovanni Baptista dell' Aquila, opposite to the church of S. Maria della Vallicella, in Rome; a villa for cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII.; and for the prince Ghigi he built a set of stables in the Longara, and a chapel in the church of S. Maria del Popolo. This prince was a distinguished patron of Raphael, and much employed him. For him he painted in fresco, in one of the rooms of his Casino in the Longara, now called the Farnesina, a picture of Galatea drawn by dolphins, and surrounded with tritons, &c. which would appear to have been much admired and praised by his friend count Castiglione, from a letter still existing by Raphael to that nobleman, which the reader may see in our principal authority. For prince Ghigi he painted in fresco, on the spandrels of an arch in front of the Ghigi chapel in the church of S. Maria della Pace, a large allegorical subject of Sibyls delivering their prophecies for the confirmation of the revealed religion. This work was highly esteemed when finished; but is now unfortunately much injured, and parts are entirely effaced. For his Casino in the Longara, Raphael made a series of designs from Apuleius’s history of Cupid and Psyche, which were painted by himself and his scholars on a ceiling of a spacious hall. What part was painted by himself it would not be easy at this time to ascertain, as the work has suffered much by being originally exposed to the open air, as the loggia of the Vatican is at present, and by being repainted and repaired.

In the church of St. Auguslin, Raphael painted in fresco, on one of its piers, the prophet Isaiah, intended as the commencement of a series of pictures to ornament that church, but some dispute arising concerning the expence, the fathers relinquished their design; a loss much to be regretted, as the style of this picture is equal to his best works. This dispute concerning the price is said to have been referred to Michael Angeio to adjust, who settled it in one word, by telling the fathers that the knee alone was worth more money. Raphael also decorated his own villa in Rome, which now belongs to the cardinal Doria, with arabesque ornaments, a group of figures shooting at a target, and a small historic;*! subject, called the Marriage of Roxana.

In the midst of his professional reputation, Raphael was equally caressed by the learned and the great, many instances of which are given by his late biographer, Mr. Duppa, whose elaborate narrative we principally follow. LeoX. regarded Raphael with the highest esteem; he was much about his person, was made groom of the chamber, and is even said to have had reason to expect the honours of the purple, which is the alleged cause for his not marrying the niece of cardinal di Bibbiena, who was desirous of the alliance.

In his will, after leaving to his mistress a sufficiency to live independent, he bequeathed the rest of his property to a relation at Urbino, and to two of his scholars, Julio Romano, and Francesco Penni; appointing an intimate friend Turini da Pescia his executor. His body lay in state in the tall of his own house, and the celebrated picture of the Transfiguration, which he had just finished, was placed at the head of the room. His remains were afterwards removed with great funeral pomp to the Pantheon, where the last ceremonies were performed, and at the request of Leo X. cardinal Bembo wrote an inscription, to honour his memory, and mark the place of his interment. These particulars we have selected from the best life of this great artist that has appeared in this country, written by R. Duppa, esq. and prefixed to his splendid publication of “Heads from the Fresco pictures of Raffaello in the Vatican,” 1802, as a companion to his “Heads of Michael Angela*” Mr. Duppa concludes with a critical essay on the merits of Raphael, too long for our limits, and too valuable to be injured by abridgment. In Sir Joshua Reynolds’ lectures are many interesting and important observations on the same subject, which in truth must enter deeply into every discussion on the art. We might refer likewise to Opie’s lectures, Barry’s works, and other authors who have professedly or incidentally treated of Raphael. The present professor of painting has a note on the subject which may not form an improper conclusion to our article, as he appears to have on this occasion exerted his highest powers of discriminative criticism.

While the earl of Portland was ambassador in France, Rapin was obliged to be sometimes in that kingdom, sometimes in England, and often in Holland: but at length he settled at the Hague, were the young lord Portland was learning his exercises. While he resided here, in 1699, he married; but this marriage neither abated his care of his pupil, nor hindered him from accompanying him in his travels. They began with a tour through Germany, where they made some stay at Vienna: hence went into Italy by the way of Tirol, where the marshal de Villeroy, at that time prisoner, gave Rapin a letter for the cardinal d'Etrees, when at Venice. Their travels being finished, which put an end to his employment, he returned to his family at the Hague, where he continued some years; but, as he found it increase, he resolved to remove to some cheap country; and accordingly retired, in 1707, to Wesel, in the duchy of Cleves in Germany, where he employed the remaining years of his life in writing fche “History of England.” Though his constitution was strong, yet seventeen years application (for so long he was in composing this history) entirely ruined it. About three years before his death, he found himself exhausted, and often felt great pains in the stomach: and at length a fever, with an oppression in his breast, carried him off, after a week’s illness, May 16, 1725. He left one son and six daughters. He was naturally of a serious temper, although no enemy to mirth: he loved music, and was skilled, as we have said, in mathematics, especially in the art of fortification. He was master of the Italian, Spanish, and English languages; and had also a very competent knowledge of the Greek and Latin. He spent all his leisure hours in reading and conversing with men of learning and information.

John Rastail died at London in 1536, leaving two sons, William and John. William was born in London in 1508, and about 1525 was sent to Oxford, which he left without taking a degree, and entered of Lincoln’s Inn for the study of law. In the first of Edward VI. he became autumn or summer reader of that house; but on the change of religion he retired with his wife to Louvain, whence he returned on the accession of queen Mary. In 1554 he was made a serjeant at law, one of the commissioners for the prosecution of heretics, and a little before Mary’s death, one of the justices of the common pleas. Queen Elizabeth renewed his patent as justice, but he preferred retiring to Louvain, where he died Aug. 27, 1565, and was buried in the church of St. Peter, on the north side of the altar of the Virgin Mary. His wife, who died in 1553, on their first going to Louvain, at the age of twenty-six, was the daughter of Dr. John Clement, one of the physicians sent by Henry VIII. to Cardinal Wolsey during his last illness. She was a lady of considerable learning, and well acquainted with Greek and Latin.

, a French divine, was born at Toul in 1443, of a good family. He studied at Paris, and rereived the degree of doctor of divinity in 1479, having before given proof of his learning and talents, by a commentary on the logic of Aristotle; and his pulpit oratory. In 1481 he vvas chosen grand master of the college of Navarre, and performed the duties of that office in a manner which procured him universal esteem. In 1497 he fancied he had a special call to leave the world, and therefore relired to the abbey of Cluny, the order of which he vvas commissioned to reform by cardinal D'Amboise; and here too he was a very frequent preacher. He died Feb. 6, 1514, in his seventy-first year. Major mentions an anecdote much to the credit of Raulin. When he was only a licentiate, some ecclesiastics who were filling their pockets by the stile of indulgences, offered to pay all the expences of taking his doctor’s degree, if he would join them and preach up their trade, which he rejected with indignation. Many iarge volumes ofRaulin’s sermons were printed after his death, composed in a miserably bad taste, which, however, was the taste of his age. It is perhaps a sufficient character of them, that Rabelais took some of his ludicrous stories from them. The only useful publication of RauSin is his volume of correspondence, “Epistolse,” Paris, 1529, 4to, which, like most collections of the kind, throws some light on the literature of the age.

, a learned orientalist, was born at Berlin, in 1613, and alter studying for eight years at Rostock and other foreign schools, he came to Oxford in 1638, about which time he addressed a letter to archbishop Usher, who, conceiving a high opinion of him, gave him an invitation to Dublin, with offers of preferment. In the mean time becoming likewise known to Grotius, the latter, unknown to archbishop Usher, introduced him to cardinal Richelieu, who offered to employ him as his agent in the east. Ravins, however, pleaded his pre-engagement to the English nation, and especially to Usher; and the cardinal, with great liberality, admitted his motive, and dismissed him with a handsome present. He then, under the patronage of Usher, began his travels in the East, but fortunately for himself, arrived at Constantinople with a strong recommendation from archbishop Laud; for, according to Dr. Pocock’s account, who was then in that city, Ravius “came thither, without either cloaths befitting him (of which he said he had been robbed in France) or money, or letters of credit to any merchant. He had letters of recommendation from some of the states to the Dutch ambassador, who was departed before his arrival. Sir Sackville Crow, the English ambassador, finding that he brought the archbishop’s recommendation, generously took him into his house and protection, and gave him all due furtherance; requiring of him that, if occasion so present itself, England may enjoy the benefit of what time he shall here employ in the study of the eastern tongues. His desire,” Dr. Pocock adds, “seems to be, to be employed in setting forth books in the Arabic language, and to be overseer of the press in that kind, for which he would be very fitting.”

, a satirical French poet, was the son of a citizen of Chartres, by a sister of the abbe Desportes, a famous poet also, and was born there in 1573. He was brought up to the church, and no man more unfit or unworthy, for such were his debaucheries, that as we learn from himself, he had at thirty all the infirmities of old age. Yet this did not prevent his obtaining the patronage of cardinal Joyeuse, and the ambassador Philip de Bethune, with whom he was twice at Rome, in 1593 and 1601. In 1604, by their influence, he obtained a canonry in the church of Chartres; and had other benefices, and also a pension of 2000 livres, which Henry IV. settled on him in 1606, all which he spent on his licentious pleasures. He died at Rouen in 1613, at the age of forty, completely debilitated and worn out.

His commerce with the learned was most extensive. Among his correspondents he enumerates Abresch, Alberti* Albinus, Askew, Bandini, Bartholomei, Bernard, Bianconi, Bilder, Bondam, Findley, Gesner, Gronovius, Havercamp, Hemsterhuys, Michaelis, Osel, cardinal Quirini, Reimarus, Sebusch, Wolfe, and Wittembach. Of some of these, however, he speaks with little respect. Of his works, twenty-seven of which are enumerated by Harles, we have noticed the principal. He wrote his own life as far as 1771, which was continued by Mrs. Reiske, and published in 1783.

, a French writer, very learned in Oriental history and languages, was born at Paris in 1646; and, being taught classical literature by the Jesuits, and philosophy in the college of Harcourt, afterwards entered into the congregation of the oratory, where he did not continue long. His father being first physician to the dauphin, he was early introdued to scenes, where his parts, his learning, and his politeness, made him admired. His reputation was afterwards advanced and established by several learned works, which he published. In 1700, heattended cardinal de Noailles to Rome; and received great honours, together with the priory of Frossey in Bretagne, from pope Clement V. Returning by Florence he was honoured in the same manner by the great duke; and was also made a member of the academy de la Crusca. On his return to France he devoted himself entirely to letters, and composed a great number of learned dissertations, which are printed in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” of which he was a member, as well as of the French academy. He died in 1720. Voltaire blames him for having prevented Bayle’s dictionary from being printed in France. This is very natural in Voltaire and Voltaire’s followers; but it is a more serious objection to Renaudot, that, while his love of learning made him glad to correspond with learned Protestants, his cowardly bigotry prevented him from avowing the connection. Not long before Dr. Pocock’s death that eminent orientalist received a letter from Renaudot, in which he professes a very high esteem for the doctor, desires the liberty of consulting him in all the doubts that should occur in preparing his “Collection of Liturgies,” &c. and promises, in return for this favour, to make a public acknowledgment of it, and preserve a perpetual memory of the obligation; yet, when the above work appeared, he travelled out of his way to reproach Dr. Pocock with a mistake, which was perhaps the only one that could be discovered in his writings.

, a physician, and a man learned in many respects, is said to have been the first author of Gazettes in France in 1631. He was born at Loudun in 1583, and died at Paris, where he had spent the greatest part of his life, in 1653. He left besides his Gazettes, a continuation of the “Mercure Frai^oise” from 1635 to 1643, in 25 vols. 8vo, the last six of which are the worst; but the most scarce were published by Renaudot. He wrote also “Abre*ge de la Vie et de la mort de Henri de Bourbon, prince de Conde,” 1646, 4to; “La vie et la mort du Marechal de Gassion,” 1647, 4to, and “The Life of Cardinal Michael de Mazarin,” brother of the prime minister of that name, 1648, 4to.

, ar celebrated cardinal, was born in 1613. He was a doctor of the Sorbonne, and afterwards coadjutor to his uncle the archbishop of Paris; and at length, after many intrigues, in which his restless and unbounded ambition engaged him, became a cardinal. This extraordinary man has drawn his own character in his Memoirs,- which are written in a very unequal manner, but are generally bold, free, animating, and pleasing, and give us a very lively representation of his conduct. He was a man who, from the greatest degree of debauchery, and still languishing under its consequences, preached to the people, and made himself adored by them. He breathed nothing but the spirit of faction and sedition. At the age of twenty-three, he had been at the head of a conspiracy against the life of cardinal Richelieu, It has been said that he was the first bishop who carried on a war without the mask of religion; but his schemes were so unsuccessful, that he was obliged to quit France. He then went into Spain and Italy, and assisted at the conclave at Rome, which raised Alexander VII. to the pontificate; but this pontiff not making good his promises to the cardinal, he left Italy, and went into Germany, Holland, and England. After having spent the life of an exile for five or six years, he obtained leave upon certain terms to return to his own country; which was the more safe, as his friend cardinal Mazarine died in 1661. He was afterwards at Rome, and assisted in the conclave which chose Clement IX.; but, upon his return to France, gave up all thoughts of public affairs, and died at Paris, Aug. 24, 1679. The latter part of his life is said to have been tranquil and exemplary. At this period he wrote his Memoirs, in which there is a considerable air of impartiality. In order to judge of this, however, the reader is advised to compare them with those of Claude Joli, his private secretary. Both works have been published in English, the former in 1774, 4 vols. the latter in 1775, 3 vols., 12fno. Some friends, nith whom the cardinal entrusted the original ms. fixed a mark on those passages, where they thought he had dishonoured himself, in order to have them omitted, as they were in the first edition; but they have since been restored. The best French editions of these Memoirs are those of Amsterdam, 1719, 7 vols. 12mo, and 1731, 4 vols. small 8vo. This cardinal was the author of other pieces; but these, being of a temporary kind, written as party pamphlets to serve particular purposes, are forgotten.

, a learned Italian ecclesiastic, was born at Rome in 1619. He was created a cardinal in 1681, but did not long enjoy that dignity, as he died in 1633, at the age of sixty-four. He was well skilled in the pure mathematical sciences, and published at Rome, in 4to, “Exercitatio Geometrica,” a small tract, which was reprinted at London, and annexed to Mercator’s “Logarithmotechnia,” chiefly on account of the excellency of the argument “de maximis et minimis,” or the doctrine of limits; where the author shows a deep judgment in exhibiting the means of reducing that lately discovered doctrine to pure geometry.

He died Nov. 16, 1360, at Avignon, not without suspicion of poison. Fox says that a certain cardinal, hearing of his death, declared openly, that a mighty pillar of Christ’s church was fallen. He was unquestionably a man. of great talents and sound judgment. Perhaps his best panegyric is his being ranked, by some catholic writers, among heretics. Archbishop Bramhall had so great an opinion of him, that in returning from a visitation by Dundalk, he made inquiry where he was buried, and determined to erect a monument to his memory, which it is supposed his death, which happened soon after, prevented. Richard’s body was brought over by Stephen de Valle, bishop of Meath, about 1370, and interred at Dundalk, where sir Thomas Ryves says there was a monument visible, although much defaced, in 1624.

, a celebrated cardinal and minister of France, was the third son of Francis du Plessis, seigneur de Richelieu, knight of the king’s orders, and grand provost of France, and was born Sept. 5, 1585, at Paris. He was admitted into the Sorbonne at the age of twenty-two, obtained a dispensation from pope Paul V. for the bishopric of Lucon, and was consecrated at Rome in 1607. On his return, he acquired considerable interest at court, and was appointed by Mary de Medicis, then regent, her grand almoner; and in 1616 was raised to the post of secretary of state. After the death of one of his friends, the marshal D'Ancre, in 1617, when Mary was banished to Blois, he followed her thither; but, the duke de Luynes becoming jealous of him, he was ordered to retire to Avignon, and there he wrote his “Method of Controversy,” on the principal points of faith.

In 1619 the king recalled Richelieu, and sent him into Angouleme, where he persuaded the queen to a reconciliation, which was concluded in 1620; and in consequence of this treaty, the duke de Luynes obtained a cardinal’s hat for him from pope Gregory XV. Richelieu, continuing his services after the duke’s decease, was admitted, in 1624, into the council, through the interest of the queen, and almost against the will of the king, who, devout and scrupulous, considered him as a knave, because he had been informed of his gallantries. It is even said that he was insolent enough to aspire to queen Anne of Austria, and that the railleries to which this subjected him were the cause of his subsequent aversion to her. Cardinal Richelieu was afterwards appointed prime minister, head of the councils, high steward, chief, and superintendant-generai of the French trade and navigation. He preserved the Isle of Rhe in 1627, and undertook the siege of Rochelle against the protestants the same year. He completed the conquest of Rochelle in October 1628, in spite of the king of Spain, who had withdrawn his forces, of the king of England, who could not relieve it, and of the French king, who grew daily more weary of the undertaking, by means of that famous mole, executed by his orders, but planned by Lewis Metezeau and John Tiriot. The capture of Rochelle proved a mortal blow to the protestants, but in France was reckoned the most glorious and beneficial circumstance of cardinal Richelieu’s administration. He also attended his majesty to the relief of the duke of Mantua in 1629, raised the siege of Casal, and, at his return, compelled the protestants to accept the treaty of peace which had been concluded at Alais, and completed the ruin of their party. Six months after this, cardinal Richelieu, having procured himself to be appointed lieutenant-general of the army beyond the mountains, took Pignerol, relieved Casal a second time, which was besieged by the marquis Spinola, defeated general Doria, by means of the duke de Monttnorenci at Vegliana, July 10, 1630, and made himself master of all Savoy. Louis XIII. having returned to Lyons, in consequence of sickness, the queenmother, and most of the nobility, took advantage of this circumstance to form plots against Richelieu, and speak ill of his conduct to the king, which they did with so much success, that Louis promised the queen to discard him. The cardinal’s ruin now seemed inevitable, and he was actually preparing to set out for Havre-de Grace, which he had chosen for his retreat, when cardinal de la Valette, knowing that the queen had not followed her son to Versailles, advised him first to see his majesty. In this interview, he immediately cleared himself from all the accusations of his enemies, justified his conduct, displayed the advantages and necessity of his administration, and wrought so forcibly upon the king’s mind by his reasoning, that, instead of being discarded, he became from that moment more powerful than ever. He inflicted the same punishments upon his enemies which they had advised for him; and this day, so fortunate for Richelieu, was called “The Day of Dupes.” Those who had the misfortune to incur his displeasure, certainly did not all deserve the penalties to which he doomed them; but he knew how to make himself master of their fate, by appointing such judges to try them as were at his disposal. That abominable method of taking the accused from their lawful judges, had, in the preceding century, served as a means for the families of condemned persons to get their characters restored; after which the French had no reason to fear its revival; but Richelieu hesitated not to adopt it, though at the risque of general odium, as being favourable to his designs. By thus making himself master of the lives and fortunes of the mal-contents, he imposed silence even on their murmurs. This artful minister, being now secure of his lasting ascendancy over the king, and having already accomplished one of the two great objects which he had proposed to himself from the beginning of his administration, which were, the destruction of the protestants, and the humbling the too great power of the house of Austria, began now to contrive means for executing this second undertaking. The principal and most efficacious method employed by the cardinal with that view, was a treaty he concluded, January 23, 1631, with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, for currying the war into the heart of Germany. He also formed a league with the duke of Bavaria, secured to himself Lorrain, raised part of the German princes against the emperor, treated with Holland to continue the war wirh Spain, favoured the Catalonians and Portuguese when they shook off the Spanish yoke, and, in short, made use of so many measures and stratagems, that he completely accomplished his design. Cardinal Richelieu was carrying on the war with success, and meditating on that glorious peace, which was not concluded till 1648, when h died in his palace at Paris, worn out by his long toils, December 4,“1642, aged fifty-eight. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where his mausoleum (the celebrated Girardon’s master-piece) may be seen. He is considered as one of the most complete statesmen, and ablest politicians, that France ever had. Amidst all the anxieties which the fear of his enemies must necessarily occasion, he formed the most extensive and complicated plans, and executed them with great superiority of genius. It was cardinal Richelieu who established the throne, while yet shaken by the protestant factions, and the power of the House of Austria, and made the royal authority completely absolute, and independent, by the extinction of the petty tyrants who wasted the kingdom. In the mean time he omitted nothing which could contribute to the glory of France. He promoted arts and sciences; founded the botanical garden at Paris called the king’s garden; also the French academy, and the royal printing-office; built the palace since called the Palais Royal, and gave it to his majesty; rebuilt the Sorbonne (of which he was provisor) in a style of kingly magnificence; and prepared for all the splendour of Louis the Fourteenth’s reign. His enemies, says the abbe L'Atocat, unable to deny his great talents, have reproached him with great faults; irregularity of conduct, unbounded ambition, universal despotism, from which even the king, his master, did not escape; for he left him, as they express it, only the power of curing the evil; a vanity and ostentation which exceeded the dignity of the throne itself, where all was simplicity and negligence, while the cardinal’s court exhibited nothing but pomp and splendour; unexampled ingratitude to his benefactress, queen Mary de Medicis, whom he inhumanly compelled to end her da*ys in Germany, in obscurity and indigence; and, finally, his revengeful temper, which occasioned so many cruel executions; as those of Chalais, Grandier, the marechal de Marillac, M. de Montmorenci, Cinqmars, M. de Thou, &c. Even the queen, for having written to the duchess de Chevreuse, Richelieu’s enemy, and a fugitive, saw all her papers seized, and was examined before the chancellor Sequier. Mad. de la Fayette, mad. de Hautefort, and father Caussin, the king’s confessors, were all disgraced in consequence of having offended this despotic minister. But, says his apologist, there are many points to be considered with respect to these accusations: it appears certain, from a thousand passages in the life of this celebrated cardinal, that he was naturally very grateful, and never proceeded to punishment but when he thought state affairs required it; for which reason, when in his last sickness, his confessor asked” if he forgave his enemies?“he replied,” I never had any but those of the state.“At the head of his” Political Testament“may be seen his justification of himself on the subject of these bloody executions, with which he has been so much reproached. It is equally certain, that he never oppressed the people by taxes or exorbitant subsidies, notwithstanding the long wars he had to carry on; and that, if he was severe in punishing crimes, he knew how to distinguish merit, and reward it generously. He bestowed the highest ecclesiastical dignities on such bishops and doctors as he knew to be men of virtue and learning; placed able and experienced generals at the head of the armies, and entrusted public business with wise, punctual, and intelligent men. It was this minister who established a navy. His vigilance extended through every part of the government; and, notwithstanding the cabals, plots, and factions, which were incessantly forming against him during the whole course of his administration (and which must have employed great part of his time) he left sufficient sums behind him to carry on the war with glory; and France was in a more powerful and flourishing state at the time of his decease than when Louis XIV. died. After stating these facts, Richelieu’s enemies areinvited to determine whether France would have derived more advantage from being governed by Mary de Medicis, Gaston of Orleans, &c. than by this cardinal The estate of Richelieu was made a dukedom in his favour, in 1631, and he received other honours and preferments. Besides the” Method of Controversy“he wrote, 2.” The principal points of the Catholic Faith defended, against the writing addressed to the king by the ministers of Charenton.“3.” The most easy and certain Method of converting those who are separated from the Church.“These pieces are written with force and vivacity. He wrote also,” A Catechism,“in which he lays down the doctrine of the church, in a clear and concise manner and a treatise of piety, called,” The Perfection of a Christian.“These are his theological works; and they have been often printed: but that which is most read, and most worthy of being read, is his” Political Testament," the authenticity of which has been doubted by some French writers, particularly Voltaire. The cardinal also had the ambition to be thought a dramatic poet; and, says lord Chesterfield, while he absolutely governed both his king and country, and was, in a great degree, the arbiter of the fate of all Europe, he was more jealous of the great reputation of Corneille, than of the power of Spain; and more flattered with being thought (what he was not) the best poet, than with being thought (what he certainly was) the greatest statesman in Europe; and affairs stood still, while he was concerting the criticism upon the Cid.

, a learned French divine, was born September 30, 1560, at Chaource, in the diocese of Langres. He had been at first drawn into the party and sentiments of the Leaguers, and even ventured to defend James Clement, but soon hastened to acknowledge his legitimate sovereign, after having taken his doctor’s degree, 1590. Richer became grand master of the college of Le Moine, then syndic of the faculty of divinity at Paris, January 2, 1603, in which office he strenuously defended the ancient maxims of the doctors of this faculty, and opposed the thesis of a Dominican in 1611, who maintained the pope’s infallibility, and his superiority over the council. He published a small tract the same year, “On the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power,” 8vo, to establish the principles on which he asserted that the doctrine of the French church, and the Sorhonne, respecting papal authority, and the authority of the general council, were founded. This little book made much noise, and raised its author enemies in the Nuncio, and some doctors undertook to have him deposed from the syndicate, and his work condemned by the faculty of theology; but the parliament prohibited the faculty from interfering in that affair. In the mean time cardinal du Perron, archbishop of Sens, assembled eight bishops of his province at Paris, and made them censure Richer’s book, March 9, 1612. Richer entered an appeal (Comme tfabus) from this censure, to the parliament, and was admitted as an appellant; but the matter rested there. His book was also censured by the archbishop of Aix, and three bishops of his province, May 24, the same year, and he was proscribed and condemned at Rome. A profusion or pamphlets now appeared to refute him, and he received an express order from court, not to write in his defence. The animosity against Richer rose at length to such a height that his enemies obtained from the king and the queen regent letters, ordering the faculty to elect another syndic. Richer made his protestations, read a paper in his defence, and retired. A new syndic was chosen in 1612, and they have ever since been elected once in two years, although before that time their office was perpetual. Richer afterwards ceased to attend the meetings of the faculty, and confined himself to solitude, being wholly employed in study; but his enemies having involved him in several fresh troubles, he was seized, sent to the prisons of St. Victor, and would even have been delivered up to the pope, had no,t the parliament and chancellor of France prevented it, on complaints made by the university. He refused to attend the censure passed on the books of Anthony de Dominis in 1617, and published a declaration in 1620, at the solicitation of the court of Rome, protesting that he was ready to give an account of the propositions in his book “on the Ecclesiatical and Civil Power,” and explain them in an orthodox sense; and farther, that he submitted his work to the judgment of the Holy See, and of the Catholic church. He even published a second declaration; but all being insufficient to satisfy his adversaries, he was obliged to reprint his book in 1629, with the proofs of the propositions advanced in it, and the two declarations, to which cardinal Richelieu is said to have forced him to add a third. He died Nov. 28, 1631, in his seventy-second year. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where a mass used to be said annually for the repose of his soul. Besides his treatise on “Ecclesiastical Power,” reprinted with additions at Cologii in 1701, 2 vols. 4to, he was the author of a “History of general Councils,” 4 vols. 4to a “History of his Syndicate,” 8vo, and some other works, in which learning and great powers of reasoning are obvious. Baillet published a life of him in 12mo.

, a learned divine, descended collaterally from the preceding bishop Ridley, was born at sea, in 1702, on-board the Gloucester East Indiaman, to which circumstance he was indebted for his Christian name. He received his education at Winchester-school, and thence was elected to a fellowship at New college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. C. L. April 29, 1729. In those two seminaries he cultivated an early acquaintance with the Muses, and laid the foundation of those elegant and solid acquirements for which he was afterwards so eminently distinguished as a poet, an historian, and a divine. During a vacancy in 1728, he joined with four friends, viz. Mr. Thomas Fletcher (afterwards bishop of Kildare), Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Eyre, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Jennens, in writing a tragedy, called “The Fruitless Redress,” each Undertaking an act, on a plan previously concerted. When they delivered in their several proportions, at their meeting in the winter, few readers, it is said, would have known that the whole was not the production of a single hand. This tragedy, which was offered to Mr. Wilks, but never acted, is still in ms. with another called “Jugurtha.” - Dr. Ridley in his youth was much addicted to theatrical performances. Midhurst, in Sussex, was the place where they were exhibited; and the company of gentlemen actors to which he belonged, consisted chiefly of his coadjutors in the tragedy already mentioned. He is said to have performed the characters of Marc Antony, Jaffier, Horatio, and Moneses, with distinguished applause. Young Gibber, being likewise a Wykehamist, called on Dr. Ridley soon after he had been appointed chaplain to the East India Company at Poplar, and would have persuaded him to quit the church for the stage, observing that “it usually paid the larger salaries of the two,” an advice which he had too much sense to follow. For great part of his life, he had no other preferment than the small college living of Weston, in Norfolk, and the donative of Poplar, in Middlesex, where he resided. To these his college added, some years after, the donative of Romfbrd, in Essex. “Between these two places the curricle of his life had,” as he expressed it, “rolled for some time almost perpetually upon post-chaise wheels, and left him not time for even the proper studies of ceconomy, or the necessary ones of his profession.” Yet in this obscure situation he remained in possession of, and content with, domestic happiness; and was honoured with the intimate friendship of some who were not less distinguished for learning than for worth: among these, it maybe sufficient to mention Dr. Lowth, Mr. Christopher Pitt, Mr. Spence, and Dr. Berriman. To the last of these he was curate and executor, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1740 and 1741, he preached “Eight Sermons at Lady Moyer’s lecture,” which were published in 1742, 8vo, and at different times, several occasional sermons. In 1756, he declined an offer of going to Ireland as first chaplain to the duke of Bedford; in return for which he was to have had the choice of promotion, either at Christ-church, Canterbury, Westminster, or Windsor. His modesty inducing him to leave the choice of these to hispatron, the consequence was, that he obtained none of them. In 1761 he published, in 4to, “De Syriacarum novi fcederis versionum indole atque usu, dissertatio,” occasioned by a Syriac version, which, with two others, were sent to him nearly thirty years before, by one Mr. Samuel Palmer from Amida, in Mesopotamia. His age and growing infirmities, the great expence of printing, and the want of a patron, prevented him from availing himself of these Mss.; yet at intervals he employed himself on a transcript, which being put into the hands of professor White, was published a few years ago, with a literal Latin translation, in 2 vols. 4to, at the expence of the delegates of the Clarendon press. In 1763 he published the “Life of bishop Ridley,” in quarto, by subscription, and cleared by it as much as brought him 800l. in the public funds. In this, which is the most useful of all his works, he proved himself worthy of the name he bore, a thorough master of the popish controversy, and an able advocate for the reformation. In 1765 he published his “Review of Philips’ s Life of Cardinal Pole” (see Philips); and in 17 6S, in reward for his labours in this controversy, and in another which “The Confessional” produced, he was presented by archbishop Seeker to a golden prebend in the cathedral church of Salisbury (an option), but it is probably a mistake that Seeker honoured him with the degree of D. D. that honour having been conferred upon him by the university of Oxford in 1767, by diploma, the highest mark of distinction they can confer. At length, worn out with infirmities, he departed this life in Nov. 1774, leaving a widow and four daughters. An elegant epitaph, written by Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, is inscribed upon his monument. Two poems by Dr. Ridley, one styled “Jovi Eleutherio, or an Offering to Liberty,” the other called “Psyche,” are in the third volume of Dodsley’s Collection. The sequel of the latter poem, entitled, “Melampus,” with “Psyche,” its natural introduction, was printed in 1782, by subscription, for the benefit of his widow. Many others are in the 8th volume of Nichols’s “Collection.” The Mss. Codex Heraclensis, Codex Barsalibaei, &c. (of which a particular account may be seen in his Dissertation “De Syriacarum Novi Fcederis versionum indole atque usu, 1761,”) were bequeathed by Dr. Ridley to the library of New college, Oxford. Of these ancient Mss. a fac-simile specimen was published in his Dissertation above mentioned. A copy of “The Confessional,” with ms notes by Dr. Ridley," was in the library of the- late Dr. Winchester.

, who, from a low and despicable situation, raised himself to sovereign authority in Rome, in the 14th century, assuming the title of tribune, and proposing to restore the ancient free republic, was born at Rome, and was the son of no greater a personage than a mean vintner, or, as others say, a miller, named Lawrence Gabrini, and Magdalen, a laundress. However, Nicolas Rienzi, by which appellation he was commonly distinguished, did not form his sentiments from the meanness of his birth. To a good natural understanding he joined an uncommon assiduity, and made a great proficiency in ancient literature. Every thing he read he compared with similar passages that occurred within his own observation; whence he made reflections, by which he regulated his conduct. To this he added a great knowledge in the laws and customs of nations. He had a vast memory: he retained much of Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Livy, the two Senecas, and Cassar’s Commentaries especially, which he read continually, and often quoted and applied to the events of his own times. This fund of learning proved the foundation of his rise: the desire he had to distinguish himself in the knowledge of monumental history, drew him to another sort of science, then little understood. He passed whole days among the inscriptions which are to be found at Rome, and acquired soon the reputation of a great antiquary. Having hence formed within himself the most exalted notions of the justice, liberty, and ancient grandeur of the old Romans, words he was perpetually repeating to the people, he at length persuaded not only himself, but the giddy mob his followers, that he should one day become the restorer of the Roman republic. His advantageous stature, his countenance, and that air of importance which he well knew how to assume, deeply imprinted all he said in the minds of his audience: nor was it only by the populace that he was admired; he also found means to insinuate himself into the favour of those who partook of the administration. Rienzi’s talents procured him to be nominated one of the deputies, sent by the Romans to pope Clement VI. who resided at Avignon. The intention of this deputation was to make his holiness sensible, how prejudicial his absence was, as well to himself as to the interest of Rome. At his first audience, our hero charmed the court of Avignon by his eloquence, and the sprightliness of his conversation. Encouraged by success, he one day took the liberty to tell the pope, that the grandees of Rome were avowed robbers, public thieves, infamous adulterers, and illustrious profligates; who by their example authorized the most horrid crimes. To them he attributed the desolation of Rome, of which he drew so lively a picture, that the holy father was moved, and exceedingly incensed against the Roman nobility. Cardinal Colonna, in other respects a lover of real merit, could not help considering these reproaches as reflecting upon some of his family; and therefore found means of disgracing Rienzi, so that he fell into extreme misery, vexation, and sickness, which, joined, with indigence, brought him to an hospital. Nevertheless, the same hand that threw him down, raised him up again. The cardinal, who was all compassion, caused him to appear before the pope, in assurance of his being a good man, and a great partizan for justice and equity. The pope approved of him more than ever and, as proofs of his esteem and confidence, made him apostolicnotary, and sent him back loaded with favours. Yet his subsequent behaviour shewed, that resentment had a greater ascendancy over him than gratitude. Being returned to Rome, he began ta execute the functions of his office, and by affability, candour, assiduity, and impartiality, in the administration of justice, he arrived at a superior degree of popularity; which he still improved by continued invectives against the vices of the great, whom he strove to render as odious as possible; till at last, for some ill-timed freedoms of speech, he was not only severely reprimanded, but displaced. His dismission did not make him desist from inveighing against the debauched, though he conducted himself with more prudence. From this time it was his constant endeavour to inspire the people with a fondness for their ancient liberties; to which purpose, he caused to be hung up in the most public places emblematic pictures, expressive of the former splendour and present decline of Rome. To these he added frequent harangues and predictions upon the same subject, in this manner he proceeded till one party looked on him only as a madman, while others caressed him as their protector. Thus he infatuated the minds of the people, and many of the nobility began to come into his views, while the senate in no wise mistrusted a man, whom they judged to have neither interest nor ability. At length he ventured to disclose his designs to such as he believed mal-contents, first separately, but afterwards, when he thought he had firmly attached a sufficient number to his interest, he assembled them together, and represented to them the deplorable state of the city, over-run with debaucheries, and the incapacities of their governors to correct or amend them. As a necessary foundation for the enterprize, he gave them a statement of the immense revenues of the apostolic chamber; demonstrating that the pope could, only at the rate of four-pence, raise a hundred thousand florins by firing, as much by salt, and as much more by the customs and other duties. “As for the rest,” said he, “I would not have you imagine, that it is without the pope’s consent I lay hands on the revenues. Alas! how many others in this city plunder the effects of the church contrary to his will 1”

, an eminent grammarian, was born at Sawl, in Norfolk, and educated at Eton, and was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, in 1508. He was first usher to the celebrated William Lilly, master of St. Paul’s school, and afterwards second master, but succeeded Lilly, as head master, in 1522, which situation he retained until his death, in 1532. He composed a tragedy of “Dido” out of Virgil, which was performed at St. Paul’s school by him and his pupils, before cardinal Wolsey, but deserves more notice for the improvements he introduced in Lilly’s Latin grammar, in the edition published at Antwerp in 1533. He had married Dionysia, the daughter of Lilly; and after his death she was again married to James Jacob, one of the masters of St. Paul’s, by whom she had a son, Polydore Jacob, who was probably the god-son of Polydore Virgil, who speaks of Rightwise with great respect.

, a learned Italian ecclesiastical historian of the seventeenth century, was a native of Treviso, and was brought up in the congregation of the oratory at Rome, of which Baronius had been a member. After the death of that cardinal, Rinaldi wrote a continuation of his 46 Ecclesiastical Annals," from 1198, where Baronius left off, to 1564, and with no inferiority to the preceding volumes. It consists often large volumes in folio, published at Rome at different periods, from 1646 to 1677. Rinaldi also was the author of a sufficiently copious abridgment, in Italian, of the whole annals, compiled both by Baronius and himself.

, peer of France, prince of Leon, colonel general of the Swiss and Grisons, one of the greatest men France produced in his age, was born August 21, 1572, at the castle of Blein, in Bretany. He distinguishcd himself at the siege of Amiens when but sixteen, in presence of Henry IV. who had a sincere regard for him, and alter the death of that prince he hccame chief of the French protestants, to whom he rendered the most important services, both at the head of their armies, and in negociations. He fought with success in Holland, Germany, Italy, and France, and carried on three wars against Louis XIII. in favour of the protestants; the last, however, ended to the advantage of the catholics, in the capture of llochelle. But notwithstanding the consternation into which this event threw the duke’s party, he supported himself by those copious resources with which his prudence furnished him, refusing to surrender but on advantageous terms, and these were granted by the peace of 1629. The civil wars with the protestants being thus terminated, he regained the favour of Louis XIII. but not choosing to live at court, retired to Venice, and was chosen by that republic for their generalissimo, after the unfortunate battle of Valleggio, against the Imperialists, but the treaty of Querasque, concluded June '2[, 1631, rendered his plans useless. The king of France afterwards employed him as ambassador extraordinary to the Orisons, to assist them in reducing to obedience the Valteline, and counties of Bormio, and Chiavenes, which were supported in rebellion by the Spaniards and Imperialists. The Orisons immediately declared him their general, and their choice was confirmed by Louis XIII. who appointed him in 1632, ambassador extraordinary to the Helvetic body; but early in 1635, he received orders to return to Venice, and having staid there some months, was sent back to the Orisons, and seized the passages of the Valteline, took Bormio, Chiavenes, and Riva, and defeated the Germans and Spaniards. The Grisons having rebelled some time after because France delayed to withdraw its forces, he made a new treaty with them March 26, 1637, which did not please the court, and this circumstance obliged him to retire to Geneva, that he might avoid the resentment of cardinal Richelieu; but he left that city in January 1638, to join his friend the duke of Saxe Weimar, who was going to engage the Imperialists near Rhinfeld. The duke of Jiohan placed himself at the head of the Nassau regiment, broke through the enemies’ ranks, was woundcd, Feb. 28, 1638, and died of his wounds, April 13 following, aged fifty-nine. He was the author of many works, among which are, 1. “Memoirs,” the most complete edition of which is in 2 vols. 12mo, containing the transactions of trance from 16 10 to 1629. 2. “Les intérésts des Princes,” 12mo. 3. “Le parfait Capitaine, ou P Abregé des Guerres des Commentaires de Cesar,” 12mo. 4. “Memoires” and Letters, relative to the war of the Valtelines, 3 vols. 12mo; vol. I. contains the “Memoirs;” the two others, the “Pieces Justificatives,” the greatest part of which had never been printed before. From the preface we learn the following anecdote: This nobleman being at Venice, was informed that the grand signor would sell him this kingdom of Cyprus, and grant him the investureof it, on condition of his giving the Porte two hundred thousand crowns, and agreeing to pay an annual tribute of twenty thousand crowns. The duke being a protestant, intended to purchase this island, and settle the protestant families of France and Germany there. He negociated the affair skilfully with the Porte, by means of the patriarch Cyril, with whom he was much connected; but that patriarch’s death, and other unexpected incidents, prevented the execution of his design. The above anecdote originated in the memoirs of the duchess of Rohan, Margaret de Bethune, daughter of the great Sully, who married at Paris, Henry de Rohan, February 7, 1605. This lady, who was a protestant, rendered herself celebrated by her courage. She defended Castres against the marechal de Thémines, 1625, lived in strict conjugal harmony with the duke her husband, and died at Paris, Oct. 22, 1660. The French biographers tell us that all Henry de Rohan’s works are excellent, and extremely proper to form good soldiers: he writes like a great general and able politician, and his letters on the war of the mountains are very instructive. The duke trod in the steps of Sertorius, which he had learned from Plutarch, and the marechal de Catinat trod in those of the duke. To all these uncommon talents, the duke joined great sweetness of temper, the most affable and pleasing manners, and a degree of generosity seldom seen. He discovered neither pride, ambition, nor selfish views; and frequently said, that glory and zeal for the public welfare, never encamp where private interest is the commander. We have two good lives of this great man, one by Fauvelet du Toe, Paris, 1666, 12mo, the other by the Abbé Perau, Paris, 1767, 2 vols. 12mo. Some notice may be taken of Benjamin de Rohan, brother of the preceding, who supported the duke’s undertakings during the protestant war, after having learned the military art in Holland under prince Maurice of Nassau. He made himself master of Lower Poiton, 1622, and went into England soon after to solicit help for the Roohellers. In 1625, he took the isle of Rhe, and ravaged the whole coast from the mouth of the Garonne to that of the Loire, by the capture of several merchant ships. M. Rohan was driven from the isle of Rhe some time after, then from that of Oleron, and forced to retire into England, where he was active in procuring the succour sent to Rochelle; but that city being taken, notwithstanding these succours, he would not return to France, and died in England 1630, leaving no children.

, a French writer of very great abilities, was the second son of a master-cutler at Paris and born there Jan. 30, 1661. He was intended, as well as his elder brother, for his father’s profession; when a Benedictine, perceiving in him a peculiar turn for letters, communicated this to his mother, and pressed her to give him a liberal education. The proposal was flattering, but as she had been left a widow, and had nothing to depend upon but the continuation of her late husband’s business, and was incapable of providing for his education, she was reluctant to lose the advantages of her son’s skill. The good Benedictine, however, removed part of her fears, by procuring the youth a pension in the college of Du Plessis, and Roliin was now suffered to pursue the natural bent of his inclination. He distinguished himself immediately by parts and application, and easily obtained the first rank among his felloe-students. Many stories are told to his advantage in this respect, and how he became known and esteemed by the minister Pelletier, whose two eldest sons were of Rollin’s class. He studied rhetoric in the college of Du Plessis under Mr. Hersan, whose custom it was to create emulation among his scholars, by bestowing on them epithets, each according to his merit; and is said to have declared in public, that he knew not sufficiently to distinguish the young Roliin otherwise than by giving hirn. the title of “Divine:” and when Hersan was asked for any piece in verse or prose, he used to refer them to Roliin, “who,” he said, “would do it better than he could.” Hersan intended Roliin for his successor, therefore first took him as an assistant in 1683, and afterwards, in. 1687, gave up the chair to him. The year after, Hersan, with the king’s leave and approbation, declined the professorship of eloquence in the royal college in favour of his beloved disciple Roliin, who was admitted into it. No man ever exercised the functions of it with greater eclat: he often made Latin orations, to celebrate the memorable events of the times; and frequently accompanied them with poems, which wer^ generally read and esteemed. In 1694, he was chosen rector of the university, and continued in that office two years, which was then a great mark of distinction. By virtue of his office, he spoke the annual panegyric upon Louis XIV. He made many useful regulations in the university, and particularly revived the study of the Greek language, which was then growing into neglect. He was a man of indefatigable attention, and trained innumerable persons, who did honour to the church, the state, and the army. The first president Portail was pleased one day to reproach Roilin in a jocular strain, as if he exceeded even himself in doing business: to whom Roilin replied, with that plainness and sincerity which was natural to him, “It becomes you well, Sir, to reproach me with this: it is this habit of labour in me, which has distinguished you in the place of advocate general, which has raised you to that of first president: you owe the greatness of your fortune to me,” Upon the expiration of the rectorship, cardinal Noailles engaged him to superintend the studies of his nephews, who were in the college of Laon; and in this office he was agreeably employed, when, in 1699, he was with great reluctance made coadjutor to the principal of the college of Beauvais. This college was then a kind of a desert, inhabited by very few students, and without any manner of discipline: but Rollings great reputation and industry soon made it a most flourishing society. In this situation he remained till 1712; when, the contests between the Jesuits and the Jansenists drawing towards a crisis, he fell a sacrifice to the prevalence of the former. F. Le Tellier, the king’s confessor, and bigoted agent of the Jesuits, infused into his master prejudices against Rollin, whose connections with cardinal de Noailles would alone have sufficed to have made him a Jansenist; and on this account he lost his share in the principality of Beauvais. No man, however, could have lost less in this than Rollin, who had every thing left him that was necessary to make him happy; retirement, books, and a decent competence. He now began to employ himself upon Quintilian; an author he justly valued, and not without uneasiness saw neglected. He retrenched in him whatever he thought rather curious than useful for the instruction of youth: he placed summaries or contents at the head of each chapter; and he accompanied the text with short select notes. His edition appeared in 1715, in 2 vols. 12mo, with an elegant preface, setting forth his method and views.

This excellent person died Sept. 14, 1741. He had been named by the king a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres in 1701: but, as he had not then brought the college of Beauvais into repute, and found he had more business upon his hands than was consistent with a decent attendance upon the functions of an academician, he begged the privileges of a veteran, which were honourably granted him. Yet he maintained his connexions with the academy, attended their assemblies as often as he could, laid the plan of his “Ancient History” before them, and demanded an academician for his censor. He was a man of many excellent qualities, very ingenious, consummate in polite learning, of rigid morals, and great piety; which last has given some of his countrymen, and their imitators here, an opportunity to remark that he wanted nothing but a mixture of the philosophic in his nature to make him a very complete person. When he was discharged from the rectorship in 1720, the words of the lettre de cachet were, as we have seen, that the university should choose a rector of more moderation: but that was hardly possible; for, nothing could be more benign, more pacific, or more moderate, than Rollings temper. He shewed, it must be owned, some zeal for the cause of Jansenism: he had a very great veneration for the memory of abbe Paris, and had been seen with others to visit his tomb in the church-yard of St. Medard, at Paris, and to pay his devotions to him as a saint: he revised and retouched the life of this abbe, which was printed in 1730: he translated into Latin, at the request of father Quesnel, the protestation of this saint, and was assisting in other works designed to support Jansenism; and, oh these accounts, he became obnoxious to the Jesuits and the court. It is related, that, when he was one day introduced to cardinal Fleury, in order to present him with a volume of his “Roman History,” the minister, very uncivilly, said to a head-officer of the guards, “Sir, you should endeavour to convert this man:” to whom Rollin very well, and yet not disrespectfully, replied, “Oh, my lord, the gentleman would lose his time; I am an unconvertible man.” Rollin was, however, a very estimable character. We find in his works generous and exalted sentiments, a zeal for the good of society, a love of virtue, a veneration for Providence, and in short every thing, though on profane subjects, sanctified with a spirit truly religious. So says even Voltaire, and we may add the similar testimony of the poet Rousseau, who conceived such a veneration for Rollin that he came out of banishment incognito to Paris, on purpose to visit and pay his respects to him. He looked upon his histories, not only as the best models of the historic kind, but as a complete system of politics ana 1 morals, and a most instrucfive school for princes as well as subjects to learn all their duties in.

II. Charles IX. and Henry III. had a particular esteem for him, and became his liberal patrons. In 1562 he put himself at the head of some soldiers in Vendomois, and fought against the protestants, which occasioned the publication of some very satirical pieces against him at Orleans, in which he was represented as a priest: but he defended himself in verse, and denied his being an ecclesiastic. He had, however, some benefices in commendam; and, among others, the priory of St. Cosmas near Tours, where he died in 1585. Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, made his funeral oration; and a noble monument was erected there to his memory some years after. He was much afflicted with the gout, which, it is said, was owing to his debauched way of life. His poems consist of odes, hymns, elegies, sonnets, epigrams, and pieces of amatory poetry, not of the most chaste description. He was considered in his day as possessing great talents for poetry; but these are not so visible to the eye of modern criticism. His style is extremely harsh and obscure, which, it is said^ would have been more excusable, had he not been preceded by Marot. What learning he had appears in a pedantic affectation of allusions, examples, and words, drawn from Greek and Latin, which increase the obscurity of his style. Boileau justly says “It is the approbation of posterity alone which must establish the true merit of works. Whatever eclat a writer may make during his life, whatever eloges he may receive, we cannot conclude infallibly from this, that his works are excellent. False beauties, novelty of style, and a particular taste or manner of judging, which happens to prevail at that time, may raise a writer into high credit and esteem; and, in the next age, when the eyes of men are opened, that which was the object of admiration, shall be the object of contempt. We have a fine example of this in Ronsard, and his imitators, Du Bellay, Du Bartas, Desportes, who in the last age were admired by all the world, in this are read by nobody.” The best editions of Ronsard’s works are those by Binet, Paris, 1587, or 1604, 5 vols. 12mo, and by Richelet, 1623, 2 vols. fol.

, an eminent painter, was the son of a land surveyor, and born at Naples in 1615. He was brought up under Francisco Francanzano, a painter of that city, and his relation, but was forced to get his bread by exposing his pictures to sale in stalls in the streets. Lanfranco, the painter, happening to pass by, bought one, and to encourage Salvator bespoke more. Salvator placing himself afterwards under Ribera, with whom he lived till he was twenty, and his father then dying, Ribera took him with him to Rome. After four years’ stay in that city, dur^ ing which Salvator made considerable progress in his art, cardinal Brancacci carried him to his bishopric of Viterbo, where he painted several pieces. He staid some time at Naples, but gave the preference to Rome, and wherever he went he made himself' friends by his picturesque and poetic talents. As he notv began to have a name, prince John Charles of Medici, being at Rome, carried him to Florence, where he staid nine years, dividing his time between painting and poetry: he had a particular turn for satiric poetry; and understood music. The literati at Florence were highly delighted with his conversation; and his house was a kind of academy, where plays written by himself were often represented, and he constantly played some part in them.

, a worthy French priest, a doctor in divinity and member of the academy of Besançon, was born at Quingey, Feb. 7, 1716. Of his early history we find no account, previous to his appearing as an author in 1767, when he published, 1. “Traité elementaire de Morale,” 2 vols. 12mo, which had the year before gained the prize offered by the academy of Dijon, and was thought a performance of very superior merit. 2. “La Morale evangelique, comparée à celle des differentes sectes de religion et de philosophie,” 1772, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Traité sur le Providence,” which was read in ms. and approved by cardinal de Choiseul, previous to its being published. 4. “L'Esprit des Peres, comparé aux plus celebres ecrivains, sur les matieres interessantes de la philosophie et de la religion,” 1791, 3 vols. 12mo. In this work he attempts to prove that the fathers are unanimous in all the essential doctrines of religion. M. Rose was also a good mathematician, and in 1778 sent to the academy of sciences at Paris, a “Memoire sur une courbe à double courbure,” of which it is sufficient to say that it was approved by La Place, and, printed in 1779 at Besançon. In the same year he sent to the same academy, a memoir, which had been read in that of Besançon, relative to “the passage of Venus over the Sun.” In 1791 he published a small work on “the organization of the Clergy,” and left some valuable papers in manuscript. He appears to have escaped the dangers of the revolution, although an orthodox and pious priest. He died August 12, 1805, and the tears of the poor spoke his eulogium.

At length, in 1608, when he was in his thirty-first year, the cardinal Andrew Peretti took him into his service, as secretary, and with him he lived near twenty years, that is, until the cardinal’s death, in 1628. Rossi tells us in one of his letters that he accepted this situation much against his will, and remained in it only because he could obtain no other; and complain* of the little care the cardinal took to promote his dependents, and his general want of liberality towards them. His residence here, however, appears to have cured him of all his ambition, and he resolved for the future to devote himself to study only. From this time accordingly, he was employed in perusing the scriptures and the fathers, and in the composition of his various works; and that he might be enabled to enjoy all this in quiet, he went to a retired part of Rome, where he afterwards built a small church dedicated to St. Mary. In some of his works he styles himself a Roman citizen, and a commissary of the water of Marana; but, according to one of his letters to Fabio Chjgi, afterwards pope Alexander VIL, he neither knew what the duty of that office was, what this water of Marana was, where it came from, whither it flowed, or what benefit the people of Rome derived from it, except that he had been told it turned some mills. There was, however, an annual salary annexed, which he found not inconvenient. He died Nov. 15, 1647, and was interred in the church which he built for the use of the hermits of the congregation of Peter of Pisa, whom also he made his heirs. His first publication is entitled< Eudemiae libri Decem/* Cologne (Leyden), 1645. To this, which is a bitter satire on the corrupt manners of the Romans, he prefixed his assumed name of Janus Nicius Erythraeus. His other works consist of “Dialogues,” religious tracts, orations, and letters; but that for which he is most known is his “Pinacotheca imaginum illustrjum doctrinse vcl ingenii laude virorum, qui uuctore superstite diem suum ohierunt,” in three parts, Cologn, 1643—1648, reprinted at Leipsic in 1692, and in 1729. As containing many particulars of contemporary history, this is a work necessary to be consulted, but it contains more opinions than facts, and his criticisms are often injudicious.

, a celebrated French poet, was born August 21, 1609, at Dreux. The merit of his come-; dies and tragedies gained the favour of cardinal de Richelieu, who gave him a pension and what was a higher ho-? nour, the famous Peter Corneille called him his father in tragedy, and highly valued his works. It is said that Rotrou lived at a great expence, and when he was distressed for money, could compose a piece in two months. He purchased a civil office, in the bailiwic of Dreux, and held it till his death, which happened at Drenx? June 28, 1650. This author left thirty-seven dramatic pieces, among which “Antigone,” and “Venceslas,” are the most esteemed. The best of them may be found in the “Theatre Francois,” Paris, 1737, 12 vols. 12mo; but it is very difficult to procure a complete set of his works. -When all the poets combined against the “Cid,” Rotrou alone refused to humour cardinal Richelieu’s jealousy, though he received a pension of 600 livres from him, and continued always the admirer and zealous partizan of Corneille. When settled at Dreux, he gained the esteem of the whole province by his integrity, prudent conduct, and piety. That city being visited by an epidemical disorder, his friends at Paris pressed him in the most earnest maruier to quit so dangerous a situation, and save his life; but he replied, that be could not answer it to his conscience to follow their advice, because he was the only person who could keep things in. any order at that time, ending his letter with the following words: “Not but that the hazard I run is very great, for while I write the bells are tolling for the twenty-second person who has died this day. They will toll for me when It pleases God.” 'He was attacked himself some days after, and died, as the French biographers express themselves, witht&e most fervent sentiments of religion and piety.

The principal works of this laborious writer were, 1. “Description geographique, historique, et politique, du royaume de Sardaigne, 9 ' Cologn, 1718, 12mo. 2.” Histoire de cardinal Alberoni,“translated from the Spanish, Hague, 1719, 12mo, and in 1720 enlarged to 2 vols. 3.” Mercure historique et politique,“15 vols. from August 1724 to July 1749. 4.” Histoire du prince Eugene, du due de Marl borough, du prince d'Orange,“Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols.; fol. the first volume was by Dumont. The whole is valued chiefly for its fine plates and plans. 5.” Supplement au Corps Diplomatique de J. Dumont,“new arranged with large additions by Rousset, Amst. and Hague, 1739, 5 vois. fol. 6.” Interets des Puissances de TEurope,“founded on the treaties concluded at the peace of Utrecht, Hague, 1733, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted with additions, &c. four times; but the last edition of Trevoux, 1736, 14 vols. 12mo, is said to have been mutilated. 7.” Recueil Historique d'Actes et de Negociations,“from the peace of Utrecht, Hague, 1728, Amst. 1755, 21 vols. 12mo, but with the addition of some other political tracts and collections by our author, is generally to be found in 25 vols. 8.” Relation historique de la grande Revolution arrives dans la republique des Provinces-Unies en 1747,“Amst. 4to, without date. Rousset was also edicor of Mably’s” Droit Public“the abbe Raynal’s history of the Stadholderate, in which he attacks the abbe and his country; St. Manr’s French translation of Milton; Mrs. Manley’s” Atalantis," &c. In all his works, his ambition was to pass for a man of such impartiality that the reader could discover neither his country nor his religion. In this, however, he has not always succeeded, although it is apparent that his attachment to both had been considerably weakened.

He was soon after engaged as a tutor in a gentleman’s family, which situation he quitted in about a year for that of schoolmaster in the parish of Lawrence-Kirk. After passing three years and a half in this employment, he had a favourable opportunity of removing to advantage, owing to an accidental introduction to the celebrated Dr. Pitcairne. This gentleman happening to pass through Lawrence-Kirk, was detained by a vidlent storm, and wanting amusement, inquired of his hostess whether she could procure him any agreeable companion at dinner. She replied, that the parish schoolmaster, though young, was said to be learned, and, though modest, she was sure could talk. Pitcairne was delighted with the conversation and learning of his new companion, and invited him to Edinburgh, with a promise of his patronage. Ruddiman accordingly quitted Lawrence-Kirk, and soon after his arrival at Edinburgh was appointed assistant- keeper of the advocates’ library. The emoluments of this place were trifling, but it made him known and made him learned; and after the regular hours of attendance at the library (from 10 to 3) he occupied his leisure hours as a private tutor in the Latin language to various young gentlemen. As his merits became better known, his assistance was anxiously solicited by those who were engaged in literary publications. His first employment of this kind was as editor to sir Robert Sibbald’s “Introductio ad historiam rerum a Romanis gestarum in ea Borealis Britannise parte quse ultra murum Picticum est,” and he likewise contributed his aid to Sir Robert Spottiswood’s “Practiques of the Laws of Scotland.” So little was literary labour rewarded at that time, that for the former of these works he received only 3l. and for the latter 5l. Such poor encouragement obliged him, in 1707, to commence auctioneer. The same year he published an edition of “Voluseni de Animi Tranquillitate Dialogus,” to which he prefixed a life of Volusenus, or Wilson, a learned countryman, who had been patronized by cardinal Wolsey. In 1709, h published “Johnstoni Cantici Solomonis Paraphrasis Poetica,” and “Johnstoni Cantica,” with notes, which he dedicated to his i'riend and patron Dr. Pitcairne. The edition consisted of two hundred copies, which he sold at one shilling each. The expence of printing amounted to 51. 10s. He was next employed by Freebairne, the bookseller, on a new edition of Gawin Douglas’s “Virgil’s yneid,” which he corrected throughout, added the glossary, and probably the forty-two general rules for understanding the language, for all which he received the sum of Sl 6s. Sd.

, a Spanish political and moral writer, was born May 6, 1584, at Algezares, in the kingdom of Murcia, and studied at Salamanca. In 1606, he went to Rome as secretary to the cardinal Gaspar de Borgia, who was appointed Spanish ambassador to the pope, and assisted in the conclaves of 1621 and 1623, held for the election of the popes Gregory XV. and Urban VIII. For these services Saavedra was rewarded with a canonry in the church of St. James, although he had never taken priest’s orders. Some time after he was appointed agent from the court of Spain at Rome, and his conduct in this office acquired him general esteem. In 1636, he assisted at the electoral congress held there, in which Ferdinand III. was chosen king of the Romans. He afterwards was present at eight diets held in Swisserland, and lastly at the general diet of the empire at Ratisbonne, where he appeared in quality of plenipotentiary of the circle and of the house of Burgundy. After being employed in some other diplomatic affairs, he returned to Madrid in 1646, and was appointed master of ceremonies in the introduction of ambassadors; but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died Aug. 24, 1648. In his public character he rendered the state very important services, and, as a writer, is ranked among those who have contributed to polish and enrich the Spanish language. The Spanish critics, who place him among their classics, say he wrote Spanish as Tacitus wrote Latin. He has long been known, even in this country, by his “Emblems,” which were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in the early part of the last century. These politico-moral instructions for a Christian prince, were first printed in 1640, 4to, under the title of “Idea de un Principe Politico* Christiano representada en cien empress,” and reprinted at Milan in 1642; they were afterwards translated into Latin, and published under the title of “Symbola Christiano-Politica,” and have often been reprinted in various sizes in France, Italy, and Holland. He wrote also “Corona Gotica, Castellana, y Austriaca politicamente illustrada,” 1646, 4to, which was to have consisted of three parts, but he lived to complete one only: the rest was by Nunez de Castro; and “Respublica Literaria,” published in 1670, 8vo. Of this work an English translation was published by I. E. in 1727. It is a kind of vision, giving a satirical account of the republic of letters, not unlike the manner of Swift. The French have a translation of it, so late as 1770.

, an eminent English statesman, was born in 1507, at Hackney, in Middlesex. He was the son of Henry Sadler, who, though a gentleman by birth, and possessed of a fair inheritance, seems to have been steward or surveyor to the proprietor of the manor of Gillney, near Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII. who took him into his service, but at what time is not very clear. He was employed in the great work of dissolving the religious houses, and had his full share of the spoil. In 1537, he commenced a long course of diplomatic services, byan embassy to Scotland, whose monarch was then absent in France. The objects of his mission were to greet the queen dowager, to strengthen the English interests in the councils of regency which then governed Scotland, and to discover the probable consequences of the intimate union of Scotland with France. Having collected such information as he could procure on these topics, he returned in the beginning of the following year, but went again to Scotland soon after, ostensibly to maintain a good correspondence between the two crowns, but really, as appears from his state-papers, to detach the king of Scotland from the councils of cardinal Beaton, who was at the head of the party most in the interest of France. He was instructed also to direct the king’s attention to the overgrown possessions of the church as a source of revenue, and to persuade him to imitate his uncle Henry VHIth’s conduct to the see of Rome, and to make common cause with England against France. In all this, however, he appears to have failed, or at least to have left Scotland without having materially succeeded in any part of his. mission.

, a polite and learned Italian, was born at Modena in 1477, and was the son of an eminent civilian, who, afterwards becoming a professor at Ferrara, took him along with him, and educated him with great care. He acquired a masterly knowledge in the Latin and Greek early, and then applied himself to philosophy and eloquence; taking Aristotle and Cicero for his guides, whom he considered as the first masters in these branches. He also cultivated Latin poetry, in which he displayed a very high degree of classical purity. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Alexander VI. when he was about twentytwo, he was taken into the family of cardinal Caraffa, who loved men of letters; and, upon the death of this cardinal in 1511, passed into that of Frederic Fregosa, archbishop of Salerno, where he found Peter Bembus, and contracted an intimacy with him. When Leo X. ascended the papal throne in 1513, he chose Bembus and Sadolet for his secretaries men extremely qualified for the office, as both of them wrote with great elegance and facility and soon after made Sadolet bishop of Carpentras, near Avignon. Upon the death of Leo, in 1521, he went to his diocese, and resided there during the pontificate of Adrian VI.; but Clement VII. was no sooner seated in the chair, in 1523, than he recalled him to Rome. Sadolet submitted to his boliness, but oh condition that he should return to his diocese at the end of three years. Paul III. who succeeded Clement VII. in 1534, called him to Rome again; made him a cardinal in 1536, and employed him in many important embassies and negotiations. Sadolet, at length, grown too old to perform the duties of his bishopric, went no more from Rome; but spent the remainder of his days there in repose and study. He died in 1547, not without poison, as some have imagined; because he corresponded too familiarly with the Protestants, and testified much regard for some of their doctors. It is true, he had written in 1539 a Latin letter to the senate and people of Geneva, with a view of reducing them to an obedience to the pope; and had addressed himself to the Calvinists, with the affectionate appellation of “Charissimi in Christo Fratres;” but this proceeded entirely from his moderate and peaceable temper and courteous disposition. He was a sincere adherent to the Romish church, but without bigotry. The liberality of sentiment he displayed in his commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans incurred the censure of the Roman court.

, in Latin Sanctesius, was born in 1525, at Perche. He entered as a regular canon in the abbey de St. Cheron, near Chartres; at the age of fifteen was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne, 1555, and resided afterwards in the house of cardinal de Lorraine, who employed him at the conference of Poissy, in 1561, and persuaded king Charles IX. to send him to the council of Trent, with eleven other doctors. In 1566 De Sainctes, with Simon Vigor, afterwards archbishop of Narbonne, disputed against two protestant ministers, at the house of the duke de Nevers, and published the records of this conference two years after, and had also a controversy with Sadeel, as we have recently noticed in his article. He became so celebrated for his writings, sermons, and zeal against the protestants, as to be promoted to the bishopric of Evreux in 1575. The following year he attended the states of Blois, and in 1581, the council of Rouen; but having afterwards joined the most violent among the Leaguers, was seized at Louviers by Henry IVth’s party, who found a writing among his papers, in which he pretended to justify the assassination of Henry III. and declared that the present king deserved the same treatment. Being carried as a prisoner to Caen, he would there have received the punishment due to his attempt, had not cardinal de Bourbon, and some other prelates, interceded that his punishment should be perpetual imprisonment. He was accordingly confined in the castle de Crev^cceur, in the diocese of Lisieux, where he died in 1591, De Sainctes left many learned works, the largest and most scarce among which is a “Treatise on the Eucharist,” in Latin, folio, an edition of St. James’s, St. Basil’s, and St. Chrysostom’s “Liturgies,” Antwerp, 1560, 8vo, afterwards reprinted, but this is the only edition that is valued.

, a French poet, was born at Roan in Normandy in 1594. In the epistle dedicatory to the third part of his works, he tells us, that his father commanded a squadron of ships in the service of Elizabeth queen of England for twenty-two years, and that he was for three years prisoner in the Black Tower at Constantinople. He mentions also, that two brothers of his had been killed in an engagement against the Turks. His own life was spent in a continual succession of travels, which were of no advantage to his fortune. There are miscellaneous poems of this author, the greatest part of which are of the comic or burlesque, and the amatory kind. The first volume was printed at Paris in 1627, the second in 1643, and the third in 1649, and they have been reprinted several times. “Solitude, an ode,” which is one of the first of them, is his best piece in the opinion of Mr. Boileau. In 1650 he published “Stances sur la grossesse de la reine de Pologne et de Suede.” In 1654 he printed his “Moise sauve”, idylle heroique,“Leyden which had at first many admirers: Chapelain called it a speaking picture but it has not preserved its reputation. St. A main wrote also a very devout piece, entitled” Stances a M. Corneille, sur son imitation de Jesus Christ," Paris, 1656. Mr. Brossette says that he wrote also a poem upon the moon, in which he introduced a compliment to Lewis XIV. upon his skill in swimming, an amusement he often took when young in the river Seine; but the king’s dislike to this poem is said to have affected the author to such a degree, that he did not survive it long. He died in 1661, aged sixty-seven. He was admitted a member of the French academy, when first founded by cardinal Richelieu, in 1633; and Mr. Pelisson informs us, that, in 1637, at his own desire, he was excused from the obligation of making a speech in his turn, on condition that he would compile the comic part of the dictionary which the academy had undertaken, and collect the burlesque terms. This was a task well suited to him; for it appears by his writings that he was extremely conversant in these terms, of which he seems to have made a complete collection from the markets and other places where the lower people resort.

, a French moral and political writer, was born in 1658, of a noble family, at Saint-Pierre in Normandy. He studied at the college of Caen, and was brought up to the church, and obtained some preferment; but was more distinguished for his political knowledge. Previous to his appearing in political life, he wrote some observations on philosophical grammar, in consequence of which he was admitted a member of the academy in 1695. His political fame induced the cardinal Polignac to take him with him to the conferences for the peace of Utrecht; and here he appears to have announced one of his favourite projects, the establishment of a kind of European diet, in order to secure a perpetual peace, which cardinal Fleury received with good humour, but saw at once its practical difficulties. Such indeed was the case with most of the schemes he published in his works, which are now nearly forgotten. He certainly, however, had the merit of discovering the defects of the government of Louis XIV. and pleaded the cause of a more free constitution with much boldness. One of his best works was “A Memorial on the establishment of a proportional Taille,” which is said to have meliorated the state of taxation in France. He d,ied in 1743, aged eightyfive. After the death of Louis XIV. he published some of his spirited sentiments of that monarch in a pamphlet entitled “La Polysvnodie,” or the plurality of councils, for which he was excelled the French academy, Fontenelle only giving a vote in his favour. An edition of his works was published in H-.li md, 1744. 18 vols. 12mo.

Upon the death of his father, in 1640, he returned for a time into France; and, on going to Paris, was much caressed by cardinal Richelieu, who used all possible means to detain him, and even offered him his own terms; but could not prevail. The obligation he had to the States of Holland, the love of freedom and independence, and the necessity of a privileged place, in order to publish such things as he was then meditating, were the reasons which enabled him to withstand the cardinal. Salmasius also refused the large pension, which the cardinal offered him, to write his history, because in such a work he thought he must either give offence, or advance many things contrary to his own principles, and to truth, While he was in Burgundy to settle family affairs, the cardinal died, and was succeeded by Mazarin, who, upon our author’s return to Paris, honoured him with the same solicitations as his predecessor had done. Salmasius, however, declined his offers, and after about three years absence, returned to Holland: whence, though attempts were afterwards made to draw him back to France, it does not appear that he ever entertained the least thought of removing. In the summer of 1650, he went to Sweden, to pay queen Christina a visit, with whom he continued till the summer following. The reception and treatment he met with, as it is described by the writer of his life, is very characteristic of that extraordinary patroness of learned men. “She performed for him all offices,” says he, “which could have been expected even from an equal. She ordered him to choose apartments in her palace, for the sake of having him with her, * ut lateri adhaereret,' whenever she would But Sal^ masius was almost always ill while he stayed in Sweden, the climate being more than his constitution could bear: at which seasons the queen would come to the side of his bed, hold long discourses with him upon subjects of the highest concern, and, without any soul present, but with the doors all shut, would mend his fire, and do other necessary offices for him.” She soon, however, changed her mind with regard to Salmasius, and praised his antagonist Milton, with whom his celebrated controversy had now begun. After the murder of Charles I Charles II., now in Holland, employed Salmasius to write a defence of his father and of monarchy. Salmasius, says Johnson, was at this time a man of skill in languages, knowledge of antiquity, and sagacity of emendatory criticism, almost exceeding all hope of human attainment; and having, by excessive praises, been confirmed in great confidence of himself, though he probably had not much considered the principles of society or the rights of government, undertook the employment without distrust of his own qualifications, and, as his expedition in writing was wonderful, produced in 1649 his “Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Serenissimum Magnae Britannise Regem Carolum II. filium natu majorem, hseredem et successorem legitimum. Sumptibus Regiis, anno 1649.” Milton, as we have noticed in his life, was employed, by the Powers then prevailing, to answer this book of Salmasius, and to obviate the prejudices which the reputation of his great abilities and learning might raise against their cause; and he accordingly published in 1651, a Latin work, entitled “Defensio pro Populo Anglicano contra Claudii Salmasii Defensionem Regiam.” Of these two works Hobbes declared himself unable to decide whose language was best, or whose arguments were worst, he might have added, or who was most to blame for scurrility and personal abuse. Dr. Johnson remarks, that Salmasius had been so long not only the monarch, but the tyrant of literature, that almost all mankind were delighted to find him defied and insulted by a new name, not yet considered as any one’s rival. There is no proof, however, that Salrnasius’s general reputation suffered much from a contest in which he had not employed the powers which he was acknowledged to possess. His misfortune was to treat of subjects which he had not much studied, and any repulse to a man so accustomed to admiration, must have been very galling. He therefore prepared reply to Milton, but did not live to finish' it, nor did it appear until published by his son in the year of the restoration, when the subject, in England at least, was no longer fit for discussion. He died at the Spa, Sept. 3, 1653, in consequence of an imprudent use of the waters; but as he had reproached Milton with losing his eyes in their contest, Milton delighted himself with the belief that he had shortened Salmasius’s life. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, if any credit is to be given to the account which Salmasius’s biographer, Clement, gives of his feeble constitution, and long illness.

, called Tl Salviati, from the favour and patronage of the cardinal Salviati, was the on of Michelangiolo Rossi, and was born at Florence in 1510. He was first placed as a pupil under Andrea del Sarto, and afterwards, with far more advantage, with Baccio Bandinelii. Here he had for his fellow pupil, Vasari, who afterwards pronounced him the greatest painter then in Rome. His employment kept pace with his reputation,­and, among other beneficial orders, he was engaged by his patron, the cardinal, to adorn his chapel with a series of frescoes, the subjects being taken from the life of St. John Baptist. He produced a set of cartoons of the history of Alexander, as patterns for tapestries; and, in conjunction with Vasari, ornamented the apartments of the Cancellaria with paintings in fresco. From Rome he went to Venice, where he painted many pictures, both for public edih'ces and private collections, particularly the history of Psyche for the Palazzo Grimaldi. He afterwards travelled through Lombardy, aid made some stay at Mantua, studying with much delight the works of Julio Romano. At Florence, he was employed by the grand-duke to adorn the Palazzo Vecchio: in one of the saloons he represented the victory and triumph of Furius Camillus, a work greatly admired for the truth and taste of the imitation, and the vigour and spirit of the composition.

A restless habit, and a disposition to rove, led Salviati to accept an invitation to France, from the cardinal de Lorraine in the name of Francis I., then engaged in constructing and adorning his palace at Fontainebleau; and during his stay here, he painted a fine picture for the church of the Celestines at Paris, of the taking down from the Cross. He soon after returned to Italy, where the turbulence of his temper and his continual disputes with his brethren shortened his days. Such continual agitation of mind brought on a fever, of which he died in 1563, at the age of fifty-three.

, a Roman catholic writer of considerable fame, and one of the principal champions of popery in the sixteenth century, was born about 1527, at Charlewood in Surrey, and educated at Winchester school, whence he removed to New college, Oxford. Here he studied chiefly canon law, and was made fellow of his college in 1548, and in 1550, or 1551, took the degree of bachelor of laws. When queen Mary came to the throne, he had the offer of being Latin secretary to her majesty, which he declined for the sake of a studious, academical life, and remained at Oxford during the whole of her reign. In 1557 he was one of the professors of canon law, and read what were called the “shaggling lectures,” i. e. lectures not endowed, until the accession of queen Elizabeth, when his principles induced him to quit England. He arrived at Rome about the latter end of 1560, and studying divinity, became doctor in that faculty, and was ordained priest by Dr. Thomas Goldwell, bishop of St. Asaph, who at that time resided in the English hospital at Rome. Soon after, cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent, hearing of his abilities, took him into his family, and made use of him, as his theologal, in the council. When the council broke up, Dr. Sanders accompanied the cardinal to Poland, Prussia, and Lithuania, where he was instrumental in settling the discipline of the Romish church; but his zeal disposing him to think most of his native country, he returned to Flanders, and was kindly entertained by sir Francis Englefield, formerly privy-counsellor to queen Mary, and then in great favour with the court of Spain; through whose hands a great part of those charitable collections passed, which his catholic majesty ordered for the subsistence of the English popish exiles. Sanders was appointed his assistant, and being settled at Louvaine, together with his mother and sister, he lived there twelve years, and performed many charitable offices to his indigent countrymen. Much of this time he employed in writing in defence of popery against Jewell, Nowell, and other eminent protestant divines.

, an eminent topographer and antiquary, was born at Antwerp, in Sept. 1586. He was first taught Latin at Oudenarde, and pursued his classical studies at the Jesuits’ college in Ghent. He then studied philosophy at Douay, and in 1609 obtained the degree of master of arts. After some stay in his native country, he entered on a course of theology at Louvain, which he completed at Douay, and in 1619, or 1621, took the degree of doctor in that faculty. Being ordained priest, he officiated for several years in various churches in the diocese of Ghent, was remarkably zealous in the conversion of heretics, i. e. protestants, and particularly contended much with the anabaptists, who were numerous in that quarter. Having, however, rendered himself obnoxious to the Hollanders, by some services in which he was employed by the king of Spain, their resentment made him glad to enter into the service of cardinal Aiphonso de la Cueva, who was then in the Netherlands, and made him his almoner and secretary. Some time after, by the cardinal’s interest, he was made canon of Ipres (not of Tournay, as father Labbe asserts) and finally theologal of Terouanne. He died in 1664, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, at Afflingham, an abbey of Brabant in the diocese of Mechlin, and was interred there, with a pious inscription over his grave, written by himself.

, an Italian ecclesiastical historian, was born June 31, 1692, and became, by the interest of his bishop, cardinal Rezzonico, who was afterwards pope Clement XIII. librarian and professor of ecclesiastical history at Padua, where he died, Feb. 23, 1751, in the fiftynrnth year of his age. He is known principally by his “Vitae Pontificum Romanorum,” Ferrara, 174-8, reprinted under the title of “Basis Historic Ecclesiasticae.” He also wrote “Historic Familiae Sacne;”. “HistoriaS. S. Apostolorum;” “Disputationes XX ex Historia Ecclesiastica ad Vitas Pontificum Romanorum,” and “Dissertations,” in defence of the “Historic Familiie Sacrae,” which father Serry had attacked.

, a French miscellaneous author, was born at Hermanville, in the neighbourhood of Caen, about 1604. It is said, in the “Segraisiana,” but we know not on what foundation, that he was the natural son of Mr. Fauconnier of Caen, a treasurer of France, by a woman of low rank, whom he afterwards married. Sarasin began his studies at Caen, and afterwards went to Paris, where he became eminent for wit and polite literature, though he was very defective in every thing that could be called learning. He then made the tour of Germany; and, upon his return to France, was appointed a kind of secretary to the prince of Conti. He was a man of a lively imagination and ready wit; and much caressed by those who thought themselves judges of that article. He was, however, so frequently invited on this account that he began to envy matter-of-fact men, from whom nothing of the kind is expected. He was also unfortunate in his marriage, his wife being a woman of a violent ungovernable temper. It is said that he persuaded the prince of Conti to marry the niece of cardinal Mazarin, and for this good office received a great sum; but this being discovered, the prince dismissed him from his service, with every mark of ignominy, as one who had sold himself to the cardinal. This treatment is supposed to have occasioned his death, which happened in 1654. Pelisson, passing through the town where Sarasin died, went to the grave of his old acquaintance, shed some tears, had a mass said over him, and founded an anniversary, though he himself was at that time a protestant.

, a learned Italian prelate, was born at Polignano in 1649, and studied principally at Naples. He commenced his career as an author about 1668, and published some pieces connected with grammar and polite literature. In 1675, after he had been admitted to priest’s orders, pope Clement X. made him honorary prothonotary; and in 1679, he was appointed grand vicar to cardinal Orsini, and obtained other preferment in the church. He died in 1724. He was the author of above thirty works, enumerated by Niceron and Moreri, of which we may mention, “Lettere ecclesiastiche,” in 9 vols. 4to “II Clero secolare nel suo Splendore, overo della vita commune clericale” “Bestiarum Schola ad Homines erudiendos ab ipsa rerum natura provide instituta, &c. decem et centum Lectionibus explicata;” “Memorie Cronologiche de* Vescovi et Arcivescovi di Benevento, con la serie de Duchi e Principi Longobardi nella stessa citta;” and the lives of Baptista Porta, Boldoni, &c. He sometimes wrote under assumed names, as Solomon Lipper, Esopus Primnellius, &c.

At this time he was in his twentieth year, and defended in a public assembly at Mantua, several difficult propositions in natural philosophy and divinity, with such uncommon genius and learning, that the duke of Mantua, a great patron of letters, appointed him his chaplain, at the same time that the bishop of that city made him reader of canon law and divinity in his cathedral. These employments animated him to improve himself in Hebrew; and he applied also with much vigour to the study of history, in which he was afterwards to shine. During his stay at Mantua he became acquainted with many eminent persons; and his patron, the duke, obliged him to dispute with persons of all professions, and on all subjects. Paul had a profound knowledge in the mathematics, but the utmost contempt for judicial astrology: “We cannot, 17 he used to say,” either find out, or we cannot avoid, what will happen hereafter." Fulgentio, his biographer, relates a ludicrous story, in which his patron appears to have been a chief actor. The duke, who loved to soften the cares of government with sallies of humour, having a mare ready to foal a mule, engaged Paul to take the horoscope of the animal’s nativity. This being done, and the scheme settled, the duke sent it to all the famous astrologers in Europe, informing them, that under such an aspect a bastard was born in the duke’s palace. The astrologers returned very different judgments; some asserting that this bastard would be a cardinal, others a great warrior, others a bishop, and others a pope, and these wise conjectures tended not a little to abate the credulity of the times.

Sarpi, however, finding a court life unsuitable to his inclination, left Mantua in about two years* and returned to his convent at Venice. By this time he had made a surprising progress in the canon and civil law, in all parts of physic, and in the Chaldee language; and, as usually happens, his great reputation had exposed him to much envy. For, before he left Mantua, one Claudio, who was jealous of his superior talents, accused him to the inquisition of heresy, for having denied that the doctrine of the Trinity conld be proved from, the first chapter of Genesis: but Paul, appealing to Rome, was honourably acquitted, and the inquisitor reprimanded for presuming to determine upon things written in a language he did not understand. At twenty-two he was ordained priest; and afterwards, when he bad taken the degree of doctor in divinity, and was admitted a member of the college of Padua, was chosen provincial of his order for the province of Venice, though he was then but twenty- six an instance which had never happened before among the Servites. He acquitted himself in this post, as he did in every other, with the strictest integrity, honour, and piety; insomuch that, in 1579, in a general chapter held at Parma, he was appointed, with two others, much his seniors, to draw up new regulations and statutes for his order. This employment made it necessary for him to reside at Rome, where his exalted talents recommended him to the notice of cardinal Alexander Farnese, and other great personages.

Father Paul’s great fame would not suffer him any longer to enjoy his retreat: for he was now appointed procuratorgeneral of his order; and during three years at Rome, where he was on that account obliged to reside, he discovered such extraordinary talents, that he was called by the pope’s command to assist in congregations where matters of the highest importance were debated. He was very much esteemed by Sixtus V. by cardinal Beliarmine, and by cardinal Castegna, afterwards Urban VII. Upon his return to Venice, he resumed his studies, beginning them before sun-rise, and continuing them all the morning. The afternoons he spent in philosophical experiments, or in conversation with his learned friends. He was now obliged to remit a little from his usual application: for, by too intense study, he had already contracted infirmities, with which he was troubled till old age. These made it necessary for him to drink a little wine, from which he had abstained till he was thirty years old; and he used to say, that one of the things of which he most repented was, that he had been persuaded to drink wine. He ate scarce any thing but bread and fruits, and used a very small quantity of food, because the least fulness rendered him liable to violent pains of the head.

His tranquillity was now interrupted by other causes. Upon leaving Venice to go to Rome, he had left his friends under the direction of Gabriel Collissoni, with whom he had formerly joined in redressing certain grievances. But this man did not answer Paul’s expectation, being guilty of great exactions: and, when Paul intended to return to Venice, dissuaded him from it, well knowing that his return would put an end to his impositions. He therefore artfully represented, that, by staying at Rome, he would be sure to make his fortune: to which Paul, with more honesty than policy, returned an answer in cypher, that “there was no advancing himself at the court of Rome, but by scandalous means; and that, far from valuing the dignities there, he held them in the utmost abomination.” After this he returned to Venice; and, coming to an irreconcileable rupture with Collissoni, on account of his corrupt practices, the latter shewed his letter in cypher to cardinal Santa Severina, who was then at the head of the inquisition. The cardinal did not think it convenient to attack Paul himself, although he shewed his disaffection to him by persecuting his friends; but when Paul opposed Collissoni’s being elected general of the order, the latter accused him to the inquisition at Rome of holding a correspondence with the Jews; and, to aggravate the charge, produced the letter in cypher just mentioned. The inquisitors still did not think proper to institute a prosecution, yet Paul was ever after considered as an inveterate enemy to the court of Rome. He was charged also with shewing too great respect to heretics, who, on account of his reputation, came to see him from all parts; and this prevented pope Clement VIII. from nominating him, when he was solicited, to the see of Noia. He was also accused of being an intimate friend of Mornay, of Diodati, and several eminent Protestants; and, that when a motion was*made at Rome to bestow on him a cardinal’s hat, what appeared the chief obstacle to his advancement was, his having more correspondence with heretics than with Catholics. “Diodati informed me,” says Ancillon, in his “Melange de Literature,” that, “observing in his conversations with Paul, how in many opinions he agreed with the Protestants, he said, he was extremely rejoiced to find him not far from the kingdom of heaven; and therefore strongly exhorted him to profess the Protestant religion publicly. But the father answered, that it was better for him, like St. Paul, to be anathema for his brethren; and that he did more service to the Protestant religion in wearing that habit, than he could do by laying it aside. The elder Daille told me, that in going to and coming from Rome with de Villarnoud, grandson to Mornay, whose preceptor he was, he had passed by Venice, and visited Paul, to whom Mornay had recommended him by letters; that, having delivered them to the father, he discovered the highest esteem for the illustrious Mr. Da Plessis Mornay; that he gave the kindest reception to Mr. de Villarnoud his grandson, and even to Mr. Daille; that afterwards Mr. Daille” became very intimate with father Paul," &c. All this is confirmed by father Paul’s letters, which on every occasion express the highest regard for the Protestants.

About 1602, he was diverted from his private studies, which he had now indulged, though amidst numerous vexations, for many years, by the state of public affairs. A dispute arose between the republic of Venice and the court of Rome, relating to ecclesiastical immunities; and, as both divinity and Taw were concerned in it, father Paul was appointed divine and canonist for the republic of Venice, to act in concert with the iaw-consultors. The dispute had commenced, and been carried on, under ClementVIII.; but when Paul V. came to the popedom, he required absolute obedience without disputes. At length, when he found his commands slighted, the pope excommunicated the duke, the whole senate, and all their dominions, in April 1606, and the Venetians in return recalled their ambassador at Rome, suspended the inquisition by order of state, and published by sound of trumpet a proclamation to this eilect, viz. “That whosoever hath received from Rome any copy of a papal edict, published there, as well against the law of God, as against the honour of this nation, shall immediately bring it to the council of ten upon pain of death.” But as the minds, not only of the common burghers, but also of some noble personages belonging to the state, were alarmed at this papal interdict, Paul endeavoured to relieve their fears, by a piece entitled “Consolation of mind, to quiet the consciences of those who live well, against the terrors of the interdict by Paul V.” As this was written for the sole use of the government under which he was born, it was deposited in the archives of Venice; till at length, from a copy clandestinely taken, it was first published at the Hague, both in the Italian and French languages, and the same year in English, under this title, “The Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, argued from the civil, canon, and common law, under the several heads of Excommunications, Interdicts, Persecution, Councils, Appeals, Infallibility, describing the boundaries of that power which is claimed throughout Christendom by the Crown and the Mitre; and of the privileges which appertain to the subjects, both clergy and laity, according to the laws of God and Man.” Paul wrote, or assisted in writing and publishing, several other pieces in this controversy between the two states; and had the Inquisition, cardinal Bellarmine, and other great personages, for his antagonists. Paul and his brother writers, whatever might be the abilities of their adversaries, were at least superior to them in the justice of their cause. The propositions maintained on the side of Rome were these; that the pope is invested with all the authority of heaven and earth that all princes are his vassals, and that he may annul their laws at pleasure that kings may appeal to him, as he is temporal monarch of the whole earth; that he can discharge subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and make it their duty to take up arms against their sovereign that he may depose kings without any fault committed by them, if the good of the church requires it that the clergy are exempt from all tribute to kings, and are not accountable to them even in cases of high treason; that the pope cannot err; that his decisions are to be received and obeyed on pain of sin, though all the world should judge them to be false; that the pope is God upon earth, and that to call his power in question, is to call in question the power of God; maxims equally shocking, weak, pernicious, and absurd, which did not require the abilities or learning of father Paul, to demonstrate their falsehood, and destructive tendency. The court of Rome, however, was now so exasperated against him, as to cite him by a decree, Oct. 30, 1606, under pain of absolute excommunication, to appear in person at Rome, to answer the charges of heresies against him. Instead cf appearing, he published a manifesto, shewing the invalidity of the summons; yet offered to dispute with any of the pope’s advocates, in a place of safety, on the articles laid to his charge.

In April 1607, the division between Rome and the republic was healed by the interposition of France; and Fulgentio relates, that the affair was transacted at Rome by cardinal Perron, according to the order of the king his master. But some English writers are of opinion, that this accommodation between the Venetians and the pope was owing to the misconduct of king James I., who, if he had heartily supported the Venetians, would certainly have disunited them from the see of Rome. Isaac Walton observes, that during the dispute it was reported abroad, “that the Venetians were all turned Protestants, which was believed by many: for it was observed, that the English ambassador (Wotton) was often in conference with the senate and his chaplain, Mr. Bedel, more often with father Paul, whom the people did not take to be his friend and also, for that the republic of Venice was known to give commission to Gregory Justiniano, then their ambassador in England, to make all these proceedings known to the king of England, and to crave a promise of his assistance, if need should require,” c. Burnet tells us, “That the breach between the pope and the republic was brought very wear a crisis, so that it was expected a total separation not only from the court, but the church of Rome, was like td follow upon it. It was set on by father Paul and the seven divines with much zeal, and was very prudently conducted by them. In order to the advancing of it, king James ordered his ambassador to offer all possible assistance to them, and to accuse the pope and the papacy as the chief authors of all the mischiefs of Christendom. Father Paul and the seven divines pressed Mr. Bedel to move the ambassador to present king James’s premonition to all Christian princes and states, then put in Latin, to the senate; and they were confident it would produce a great effect. But the ambassador could not be prevailed on to do it at that time; and pretended, that since St. James’s day was not far off, it would be more proper to do it on that day. Before St. James’s day came, the difference was made up, and that happy opportunity was lost; so that when he had his audience on that day in which he presented the book, all the answer he got was, that they thanked the king of England for his good will, but they were now reconciled to the pope; and that therefore they were resolved not to admit any change in their religion, according to their agreement with the court of Rome.” Welwood relates the same story, and imputes the miscarriage of that important affair to “the conceit of presenting king James’s book on St. James’s day.” But JDr. Hickes attempts to confute this account, by observing, that the pope and the Venetians were reconciled in 1607, and that the king’s premonition came not out till 1609, which indeed appears to be true; so that, if the premonition was really presented, it must have been only in manu* Script.

Cardinal Perron gave his opinion of father Paul in these terms “I see nothing eminent in that man he is a man of judgment and good sense, but has no great learning I observe his qualifications to be mere common -ones, and little superior to an ordinary monk’s.” But the learned Morhoff has justly remarked, that “this judgment of Perron is absurd and malignant, and directly contrary to the clearest evidence; since those who are acquainted with the great things done by father Paul, and with the vast extent of his learning, will allow him to be superior, not only to monks, but cardinals, and even to Perron himself.” Courayer, his French translator, says, that “in imitation of Erasmus, Cassander, Thuanus, and other great men, Paul was a Catholic in general, and sometimes a Protestant in particulars. He observed every thing in the Roman religion, which could be practised without superstition; and, in points which he scrupled, took great care not to scandalize the weak. In short, he was equally averse to all extremes: if he disapproved the abuses of the Catholics, he condemned also the too great heat of the reformed; and used to’say to those who urged him to declare himself in favour of the latter, that God had not given him the spirit of Luther.” Courayer likewise observes, that Paul wished for a reformation of the Papacy, and not the destruction of it; and was an enemy to the abuses and pretences of the popes, not their place.“We see by several of Paul’s letters, that he wished well to the progress of the reformation, though in a gentler manner than that which had been taken to procure it; and, if he himself had been silent on this head, we might have collected his inclinations this way, from circumstances relating to Fulgentio, the most intimate of his friends, and who was best acquainted with his sentiments. Burnet informs us, that Fulgentio preaching upon Pilate’s question,” What is Truth“told the audience, that at last, after many searches, he had found it out and holding forth a New Testament, said, it was there in his hand but, adds he, putting it again in his pocket,” the book is prohibited."

, seigneur de Breves, a learned Frenchman who had the merit of introducing oriental printing into his country about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the French ambassador at Constantinople for twenty-two years. On his return, about 1611, Henry IV. sent him to Rome as ambassador in the pontificate of Paul V. where, in 1613, he appears to have established a printing-office; for in the title of a translation of Bellarmin’s conclusion, and a Psalter into Arabic, they are said tp come tx typographia Savariana. Savary is said to have cast the types, and employed on these two works, as correctors, Scialac and Sionita, two Maronites from mount Lebanon. In 1615, Savary returned to Paris, bringing with him Sionita and the printer Paulin, who, in the same year, printed in small quarto, in Turkish and French, the “Treaty of 1604, between Henry the Great, king of France, and the sultan Amurath,” &c. The following year appeared an Arabic Grammar, edited by Sionita and Hesronita. It appears that Savary had the liberality to lend his types to those who were desirous of printing works in the oriental languages. He died in 1627, when, we are told, the English and Dutch made offers for the purchase of his types, and the oriental manuscripts which he had collected in the Levant; but the king of France bought them, and soon after a new establishment appeared at Paris for oriental printing, all the credit of which was given to the cardinal Richelieu, while the name of Savary was not once mentioned. Sic vos non vobis, &c. These types are said to be still extant in the royal printing office. Savary published an account of his travels, from which we learn, that he projected certain conquests in the Levant, for the extension of the commerce of his country, and the propagation of Christianity. The number of oriental Mss. which he brought from the Levant amounted to ninety-seven.

, an eminent burlesque French writer, was the son of Paul Scarron, a counsellor in parliament, and born at Pari’s in 1610. Although deformed, and of very irregular manners, his lather designed him for an ecclesiastic, and he went to Italy for that purpose, in his twenty-fourth year, whence he returned equally unfit for his intended profession, and continued his irregularities until he lost the use of his limbs, and could only use his hands and tongue. This happened in his twenty-seventh year but, melancholy as his condition was, his burlesque humour never forsook him he was continually talking and writing in this strain and his house became the rendezvous of all the men of wit. Afterwards, a fresh misfortune overtook him: his father, who had hitherto supplied his wants, incurred the displeasure of cardinal Richelieu, and was banished, and although Scarron presented an humble request to Richelieu, which from its humour pleased that minister, no answer appears to have been returned, and both Richelieu and his father died soon after. Scarron at length, helpless, and deformed as he was, conceived thoughts of marriage; and, in 1651, was actually married to mademoiselle d'Aubigne, afterwards the celebrated madam de Maintenon, who lodged near him, and was about sixteen years of age. Unequal as this match was, she, had influence enough to produce some salutary change in his manners and habits, and her wit and beauty served to increase the good company which frequented his house. Scarron died in 1660, and within a few minutes of his death, when his acquaintance were about him all in tears, “Ah! my good friends, 7 ' said he,” you will never cry for me so much as I have made you laugh."

, a very learned German, to whom the republic of letters has been considerably indebted, was born at Antwerp, Sept. 12, 1552; and educated at Louvain. Upon the taking and sacking of Antwerp in 1577, he retired to Douay; and, after some stay there, went to Paris, where Busbequius received him into his house, and made him partner of his studies. Two years after, he went into Spain, and was at first at Madrid; then he removed to Alcala, and then in 1580 to Toledo, where his great reputation procured him a Greek professorship. The cardinal Gaspar Quiroga, abp. of Toledo, conceived at the same time such an esteem for him, that he lodged him in his palace, and entertained him as long as he remained in that place. In 1584, he was invited to Saragossa, to teach rhetoric and the Greek language; and, two years after, entered into the society of Jesuits, and was called by the general of the order into Italy to teach rhetoric at Rome, He continued three years there., and then returned to his own country, where he spent the remainder of a long life in study and writing books. He was not only well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but had also in him a candour and generosity seldom to be found among the men of his order. He had an earnest desire to oblige all mankind, of what religion or country soever and would freely communicate even with heretics, if the cause of letters could her served: hence protestant writers every where mention him with respect. He died at Antwerp Jan. 23, 1629, after having published a great number of books. Besides works more immediately connected with and relating to his own profession, he gave editions of, and wrote notes upon, several of the classics; among which were Aurelius Victor, Pomponius Mela, Seneca Rhetor, Cornelius Nepos, Vale* rius Flaccus, &c. He wrote the life of Francis di Borgia, and “Hispania illustrata,” 4 vols. folio, hut there are reasons for doubting whether the “Bibliotheca Hispana,” $ vols. in one, 4to, was a publication of his own; it seems rather to have been compiled from his Mss. He published, however, an edition of Basil’s works, and is said to have translated Photius; but this has been thought to be so much below the abilities and learning of Schott, that some have questioned his having been the author of it.

Her father, who had settled at Utrecht while she was an infant, and afterwards removed to Franeker for the more convenient education of his children, died there in 1623. His widow then returned to Utrecht, where Anna Maria continued her studies very intensely; which probably prevented her from marrying, as she might have done advantageously v.ith Mr. Cats, pensionary of Holland, and a celebrated poet, who wrote verses in her praise when she was only fourteen. Her modesty, which was as great as her knowledge, would have kept her in obscurity, if Rivetus, Spanheim, and Vossius, had not made her merit known. Salmasius also, Beverovicius, and Huygens, maintained a literary correspondence with her; and, by shewing her letters, spread her fame into foreign countries. This procured her a correspondence with Balzac, Gassendi, Mersennus, Bo chart, Conrart, and other eminent men; persons of the first rank paid her visits, and cardinal Richelieu likewise shewed her marks of his esteem. About 1650, a great alteration took place in her religious system. She performed her devotions in private, without frequenting any church, upon which it was reported that she was inclined to popery; but she attached herself to the famous mystic Labadie, and embracing his principles and practice, lived some time with him at Altena, in Holstein, and attended him at his death there in 1674. She afterwards retired to Wiewart, in Friseland, where the famous Penn, the Quaker, visited her in 1677; she died at this place in 1678. She took for her device these words of St. Ignatius: “Amor meus crucifixus est.”

, a learned German writer, and one of the most arrogant and contentious critics of his time, was born about 1576; and studied first at Amberg, then at Heidelberg, afterwards at Altdorf, at the charges of the elector palatine. Having made a considerable stay at Ingolstadt, he returned to Altdorff, where he began to publish some of his works. Ottavia Ferrari, a celebrated professor at Padua, says, that he “published books when he was but sixteen, which deserved to be admired by old men;” some, however, of his early productions do not deserve this encomium. He took a journey into Italy; and, after he had been some time at Verona, returned into Germany, whence he went again into Italy, and published at Ferrara a panegyric upon the king of Spain and pope Clement VIII. Iti 1599, he embraced the Roman catholic religion, but had an extraordinary antipathy to the Jesuits; against whom, Baillet tells us, he wrote about thirty treatises under fictitious names. Nor was he more lenient to the Protestants, and solicited the princes to extirpate them by the most bloody means, in a book which he published at Pavia in 1619, under the title of “Gasp. Scioppii Consiliarii Regii Classieum belli sa'cri, sive, Heldus Redivivus.” The following is the title of another, printed at Mentz in 1612, against Philip Mornay du Plessis; and which, as he tells us in the title-page, he sent to James I. of England, by way of new-year’s gift: “Alexipharmacum Regium felli clraconum et veneno aspidum sub Philippi Mornaei de Piessis nuper Papatus historia abdito appositum, et sereniss. Jacobo Magnae Britanniae Regi strenae Januariae loco muneri missum.” He had before attacked the king of England, by publishing in 1611, two books with these titles; “Ec­clesiasticus auctoritati Sereniss. D. Jacob), &c. oppositus,” and “Collyrium Regium Britanniae Regi graviter ex oculis laboranti muneri missum;” that is, “An Eye-salve for the use of his Britannic majesty.” In the first of these pieces he ventured to attack Henry IV. of France in a most violent manner which occasioned his book to be burnt at Paris. He gloried, however, in this disgrace and, according to his own account, had the farther honour of being hanged in effigy in a farce, which was acted before the king of England. He did not, however, always escape with impunity; for, in 1614, the servants of the English ambassador are said to have beaten him with great severity at Madrid. Of the wounds he received in this conflict, he, as usual, made his boasts, as he also did of having been the principal contriver of the Catholic league, which proved so ruinous to the Protestants in Germany. In his way through Venice in 1607, he had a conference with father Paul, whom he endeavoured by promises and threats to bring over to the pope’s party; which, perhaps, with other circumstances, occasioned his being imprisoned there three or four days. After he had spent many years in literary contests, he applied himself to the prophecies of holy scripture, and flattered himself that he had discovered the true key to them. He sent some of these prophetical discoveries to cardinal Mazarine, who paid no attention to them. It has been said that he had thoughts at last of going back to the communion of Protestants; but this, resting upon the single testimony of Hornius, has not been generally believed. He died in 1649.

, an eminent naturalist, was born in 1725, at Cavalese, in the bishopric of Trent. He studied at Inspruck, and at twenty years old obtained the degree of licentiate in medicine, and afterwards was intrusted with the care of the hospitals of Trent, and of hi* native town Cavalese; but as this stage was too small for his ambition, he requested that his parents would permit him to go to Venice. In that city, under the auspices of Lo taria Lotti, he extended his knowledge of medicine, and added to it a more intimate acquaintance with pharmacy, botany, and natural history. On his return he traversed the mountains of Tirol and Carniola, where he laid the foundation of his “Flora” and “Entomologia Carniolica.” In 1754- he accompanied count de Firmian, prince bishop, and afterwards cardinal, to Gratz, from whence he went to Vienna to obtain a diploma to practice in the Austrian dominions. His examination is said to have been rigorous, and his thesis on a new method of classing plants to have been received with great regard. The friendship of Van Swieten, if in this instance it can be called friendship, procured him the office of first physician to the Austrian miners of Tirol. In this banishment he continued more than ten years; for it was only in 1766, after repeated solicitations, that he obtained the post of counsellor in the mining department, and professor of mineralogy at Schemnitz; but in this interval he produced his “Anni tres Historico-naturales,” 1769 to 1771, 8vo. In this new office he was indefatigable in teaching, exploring new mines, composing different works on fossils, and improving the method of treating minerals; but after ten years’ labour, he was not able to obtain the newly-established chair of natural history at Vienna; yet soon after his attempt, about the end of 1776, he was appointed professor of chemistry and botany at Pavia. In this situation he published some pharmaceutical essays, translated and greatly augmented Macquer’s Dictionary, and explained the contents of the cabinet of natural history belonging to the university, under the title of " Deliciae Florae et Faunae Insubricee,' 7 the last part of which he did not live to complete. The president of the Linnsean society, who dedicated the Scopolia to his memory, informs us that, after some domestic chagrin, and much public persecution, he died at Pavia, May 8, 1788. He had been concerned with all the most eminent men of that university, Volta, Fontana, and others, in detecting the misconduct of their colleague, the celebrated Spallanzani, who had robbed the public museum. But the emperor, loth to dismiss so able a professor, contented himself with a personal rebuke at Vienna to the culprit, and his accusers were silenced, in a manner which was supposed to have caused the death of Scopoli. The survivors told their story, as explicitly as they durst, in a circular letter to the learned of Europe.

, a French writer of eminence in his day, was descended from an ancient and noble family of Apt in Provence, and born at Havre-de-Grace in 1603. He spent part of his youth at Apt, and afterwards came and settled at Paris, where at first he subsisted by the efforts of his pen, particularly in poetry, and dramatic pieces, none of which are now in any estimation, and we may, therefore, be spared the trouble of giving their titles. In 1627 he published observations upon the “Cid” of Corneille, with a view of making his court to cardinal Richelieu, who was absurdly envious of that great poet, and did every thing he could to oppose the vast reputation and success of the “Cid:” and by his influence alone enabled even such a man as Scuderi “to balance,” as Voltaire says, “for some time, the reputation of Corneille.” Scuderi was received a member of the academy in 1650. He had before been made governor of the castle of Notre-Dame de la Garde, in Provence; and although this was a situation of very little profit, Scuderi, who was still more vain than indigent, gave a pompous description of it in a poem, which drew upon him the raillery of Chapelle and Bachaumont. Scuderi died at Paris, May 14, 1667, leaving a name now better known than his works.

, sister of the preceding, and his superior in talents, was born at Havre-de-Grace in 1607, and became very eminent for her wit and her writings. She went earty to Paris, where she gained admission into the assemblies of learning and fashion. Having recourse, like her brother, to the pen, she gratified the taste of the age for romances, by various productions of that kind, which were very eagerly read, and even procured her literary honours. The celebrated academy of the Ricovrati at Padua complimented her with a place in their society; and some great personages showed their regard by presents, and other marks of esteem. The prince of Paderborn, bishop of Munster, sent her his works and a medal; and Christina of Sweden often wrote to her, settled on her a pension, and sent her her picture. Cardinal Mazarin left her an annuity by his will: and Lewis XIV. in 1683, at the solicitation of M. de Maintenon, settled a good pension upon her, which was punctually paid. His majesty also appointed her a special audience to receive her acknowledgments, and paid her some very flattering compliments. She had an extensive correspondence with men of learning and wit: and her house at Paris was the rendezvous of all who would be thought to patronize genius. She died in 1701, aged 94; and two churches contended for the honour of possessing her remains, which was thought a point of so much consequence, that nothing less than the authority of the cardinal de Noailles, to whom the affair was referred, *was sufficient to decide it. She was a very voluminous writer as well as her brother, but of more merit; and it is remarkable of this lady, that she obtained the first prize of eloquence founded by the academy. There is much common-place panegyric upon her in the “Menagiana,” from the personal regard Menage had for her but her merits are better settled by Boileau, in the “Discours” prefixed to his dialogue entitled “Les Hero des Roman.” Her principal works are, “Artamene, ou le Grand Cyrus,” 1650, 10 vols. 8 vo; “Clelie,” 1660, 10 vols. 8vo; “Celanire, ou la Promenade de Versailles,” 1693, 12mo; “Ibrahim, ou l'Illustre Bassa,” 1641, 4 vols. 8vo “Almahide, ou PEsclave Reine,” 1660, 8 vols. 8vo Celine,“1661, 8vo” Mathilde d'Aguiiar,“1667, 8vo;” Conversations et Entretiens," 10 vols. c. These last conversations are thought the best of Mad Scuderi’s wo^ks, but there was a time when English translations of her prolix romances were read. What recommended them to the French public was the traits of living characters which she occasionally introduced.

, an eminent painter, was born at Antwerp in 1.589. Under the instructions of Henry van Balen, and Abraham Janssens, he had made considerable progress in the art before he went to Italy. On his arrival at Rome, he became the disciple of Bartolommeo Manfredi; and from him adopted a taste for the vigorous style of Michael Angelo Caravaggio, to which he added somewhat of the tone and colour he had brought with him from his native country; producing the powerful effect of candle-light, though often falsely applied in subjects which appertain to the milder illumination of the day. He at length accepted the invitation of cardinal Zapara, the Spanish ambassador at Rome, to accompany him to Madjrid, where he was presented to the king, and was engaged in his service, with a considerable pension. After some years he returned to Flanders, and his fellow-citizens were impatient to possess some of his productions; but they who had been accustomed to the style of Rubens and Vandyke, were unable to yield him that praise to which he had been accustomed, and he was obliged to change his manner, which he appears to have done with facility and advantage, as many of his latter pictures bear evident testimony. His most esteemed productions are, the principal altar-piece in the church of the Carmelites at Antwerp, the subject of which is the marriage of the virgin; and the adoration of the magi, the altar-piece in the cathedral of Bruges. The former is much after the manner of Rubens. Vandyke painted his portrait among the eminent artists of his country, which is engraved by Pontius. He died in 1651, aged sixty-two. His son Daniel, who was born at Antwerp in 1590, was a painter of fruit and flowers, which he, being a Jesuit, executed at his convent at Rome. He appears, indeed, to have painted more for the benefit of the society to which he had attached himself, than for his private advantage: and when he had produced his most celebrated picture, at the command of the prince of Orange, it was presented to that monarch in the name of the society, which was munificently recompensed in return. He frequently painted garlands of flowers, as borders for pictures, which were filled up with historical subjects by the first painters. He died at Antwerp in 1660, aged seventy.

, an eloquent French divine, was born in 1601, at Paris, and was the son of Peter Senault, secretary to the council of the League. He entered young into the congregation of the oratory, then newly established by cardinal de Berulle, and was one of the most celebrated preachers and best directors of his time. He preached with uncommon reputation during forty years, at Paris, and in the principal cities of France, and wrote several books on pious and moral subjects, which were much esteemed by pious catholics. He appears to have been a disinterested man, for he refused some considerable pensions, and two bishoprics, but was elected general of the oratory in 1662. He died August 3, 1672, at Paris, aged seventy-one. His principal works are, “A Paraphrase on the Book oflob,” 8vo; “L' Usage des Passions,” 12mo; “L'Homme Chretien,” 4to; “L'Homme criminel,” 4to “Le Monarque, on les Devoirs du Souverain,” 12mo; “Panegyrics on the Saints,” 3 vols. 8vo; and the Lives of several persons illustrious for their piety, &c. It was this father, says L'Avocat, who banished from the pulpit that empty parade of profane learning, and that false taste, by which it was degraded, and who introduced a strong, sublime, and majestic eloquence, suited to the solemnity of our mysteries, and to the truths of our holy religion.

, surnamed Metaphrasfes, from his having written the lives of the saints in a diffuse manner, was born of noble parents at Constantinople, in the tenth century, and was well educated, and raised himself by his merit to very high trust under the reigns of Leo, the philosopher, and Constantine Pruphyrogenitus his son. It is said, that when sent on a certain occasion by the emperor to the island of Crete, which the Saracens were about to surprize, a contrary wind carried his ship to the isle of Pharos. There he nut with an anchorite, who advised him to write tho life of Theoctista, a female saint of Lesbos. With this he complied, and we may presume, found some pleasure in the undertaking, as be gradually extended his researches to the lives of an hundred and twenty other saints, which, with respect to style, are not disgraceful to a scholar, but, cardinal Bellarmin says, he describes his saints rather as what they ought to be, than as what they were. There are Latin translations of this work by Lipotian, Surius, and others, but no edition of the original Gveek; and iiis translators are accused of having added much of a fabulous nature. Some other religious tracts of Metaphrastes are extant, and some “Annals.” He died in 976 or 977.

In 1688 he published at Francfort, under the name of John Reuchlin, “Dissertation Critique sur la Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecc'eYiastiques par Du Pin, &c.” in which he supports with great spirit some principles in his “Critical History of the Old Testament,” which had been controverted by Du Pin. In 1689 came out his “Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament,” an English version of which was published the same year at London; in 1690, “Histoire Critique des versions du Nouveau Testament;” in 1693, “Histoire Critique des principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament;” in all which, as indeed in every thing else he wrote, there appears great acuteness, and great learning, with, however, an unfortunate propensity to singularities and novelties of opinion, and too much contempt for those who differed from him, and in this last work he has perhaps unsettled more than he has settled. In 1702 he published a French translation of the New Testament, with critical remarks, in 2 vols. 8vo: which was censured by cardinal de Noailles, and Bossuet, bishop of Meaux. In 1714, was published at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. 12mo, “Nouvelle Bibliotheque Choisie,” or, “A new select library, which points out the good books in various kinds of literature, and tht? use to be made of them;” but this must be reckoned a posthumous work; for Simon died at Dieppe in April 1712, in his seventy-fourth year, and was buried in St. James’s church.

, an Italian annalist, was born in 1613, and was a monk of Parma, where he employed the leisure hours which a monastic life afforded, in writing- the history of his times. The confidence placed in him by political men, and the correspondence to which he had access, enabled him to penetrate into the secret motives and causes of actions and events, and gave an air of authenticity and consequence to his public communications. He is said to have been the first, in Italy at least, who published a kind of political journal under the name of “Memorie recondite,” afterwards collected into volumes. The first two having found their way into France, induced cardinal Mazarine to entertain a very high opinion of the author, and by his persuasion, Louis XIV. invited Siri to Paris. On his arrival, he was preferred to a secular abbey, and quitting his ecclesiastical functions, lived at court in great intimacy and confidence with the king and his ministers, and was made almoner and historiographer to his majesty. There, in 1677, he published the 3d and 4th volumes of his journal, and continued it as far as the eighth, 4to. This, says Baretti, is as valuable a history as any in Italian, though the style and language are but indifferent, and it is very difficult to find all the volumes. The period of time they include is from 1601 to 1640. He published also another work of a similar kind, called “11 Mercurio, owero istoria de' correnti Tempi,” from 1647 to 1682, which extends to fifteen 4to volumes, the two last of which are more difficult to be found than all the rest. The former work, however, is in most estimation on account of the historical documents it contains, which are always useful, whatever colouring an editor may please to give. Siri has not escaped the imputation of venality, especially in his attachment to the French court, yet Le Cierc observes (Bibl. Choisie, vol. IV.) that no French writer dared to speak so freely of the public men of that nation as Siri has done. There is a French translation of the “Memorie recondite,” under the title of “Memoires secrets,” which, Landi says, might have been much improved from Siri’s extensive correspondence with almost all the ministers of Europe, now extant in the Benedictine library of Parma, and among the private archives of Modena. Siri died in 1683, in the seventieth year of his age.

, a very learned French Jesuit, was the son of a magistrate, and born at Riom, Oct. 12, 1559. At ten years of age he was sent to the college of Billon, in Lower Auvergne, the first seminary which the Jesuits had in France. He entered into the society in 1576, and two years after took the vows. His superiors, discovering his uncommon talents, sent him to Paris; where he taught classical literature two years, and rhetoric three. Two of his pupils were Charles of Valois, duke D‘Angouleme, the natural son of Charles IX., and Francis de Sales. During this time, he acquired a perfect knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages; and formed that style which has been so much esteemed by the learned. It is said that he took Muretus for his model, and never passed a day without reading some pages in his writings; and it is certain that by this, or his natural taste, he became one of the purest Latin writers of his time. In 1586, he began his course of divinity, which lasted four years. He undertook to translate into Latin the works of the Greek fathers, and began to write notes upon Sidonius Apollinaris. In 1590, he was sent for to Rome by the general of the order, Aquaviva, to take upon him the office of his secretary; which he discharged for sixteen years with success, and clothed the sentiments of his employer in very superior language. The study of antiquity was at that time his principal object: he visited libraries, and consulted manuscripts: he contemplated antiques, medals, and inscriptions: and the Italians, though jealous of the honour of their nation, acknowledged his acuteness as an antiquary, and consulted him in many cases of difficulty. At Rome he formed a friendship with the most eminent men of the time, particularly with Bellarmine and Tolet, who were of his own society, and with the cardinal Baronius, D’Ossat, and Du Perron. Baronius was much assisted by him in his “Ecclesiastical Annals,” especially in affairs relating to the Greek history upon which he furnished him with a great number of works, translated from Greek into Latin.

, originally called Francis Albisola Della Rovera, is said by some writers to have been the son of a fisherman at Celles, a village live leagues from Savona in the territory of Genoa, but others derive him from a branch of a noble family. He was born in 1413, entered the Franciscan order, took a doctor’s degree at Padua, and taught with reputation in the universities of Bologna, Pavia, Sienna, Florence, and Perugia. After this he became general of the Franciscans, then cardinal through the interest of cardinal Bessarion, and at length pope, August 9, 1471, on the death of Paul II. He immediately armed a fleet against the Turks, and displayed great magnificence and liberality during his whole pontificate. He was almost the founder of, and certainly greatly enriched the Vatican library, and entrusted the care of it to the learned Platina. He published a bull, March 1, 1746, granting indulgences to those who should celebrate the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin; the first decree of the Roman church concerning that festival. The establishment of the feast of St. Joseph, for which Gerson had taken great pains, is also ascribed to this pope. Historians have reproached him with conniving at the vices of his nephews, being too violent against the Medici family and the Venetians, and having joined in the conspiracy of the Pazzi at Florence. There seems upon the whole to have been little in his character to command the respect of posterity, except his patronage of literature. He died August 13, 1484, aged 71. Before his election to the pontificate, he wrote the following treatises “De Sanguine Christi,” Rome, 1473, fol. scarce “De futuris contigentibus” “De potentia Dei;” “De Conceptione beatse V.irginis,” &c.; a very scarce work is also attributed to him, entitled “Regulne Cuncellariae,” 1471, 4to, translated into French by Dupinet, 1564, 8vo, and reprinted under the title of “La Banque Romaine,” 1700, 12mo.

With no other tutor, his education commenced, and by a quick comprehension, strong memory, and unwearied application, he made such a surprising progress, that in 1534 he was thought fit to receive the cowl, and enter upon his noviciate; and, in 1535, was admitted to make his profession, being no more than fourteen. He pursued his studies with so much assiduity, that, in 1539, he was accounted equal to the best disputants, and was soon admitted to deacon’s orders. In 1545 he was ordained priest, and assumed the name of father Montalto: the same year, he took his bachelor’s degree, and two years after, his doctor’s; and was appointed to keep a divinity act before the whole chapter of the order, at which time he so effectually recommended himself to cardinal de Carpi, and cultivated so close an intimacy with Bossius his secretary, that they were both of them ever after his steady friends; and, indeed, he had frequent occasions for their interposition on his behalf; for the impetuosity of his temper, and his impatience of contradiction, had already subjected him to several inconveniencies, and in the subsequent part of his life involved him in many more difficulties. While all Italy was delighted with his eloquence, he was perpetuallyembroiled in quarrels with his monastic brethren: he, however, formed two new friendships at Rome, which were afterwards of signal service to him one with the Colonna family, who thereby became his protectors the other with father Ghisilieri, by whose recommendation he was appointed inquisitor-general at Venice, by Paul IV. soon after his accession to the papacy in 1555. But the severity with which he executed his office, was so offensive to a people jealous of their liberties, as the Venetians were, that he was obliged to owe his preservation to a precipitate flight from that city.

After his retreat from Venice, we find him acting in many public affairs at Rome, and as often engaged in disputes with the conventuals of his order; till he was appointed, as chaplain and consultor of the inquisition, to attend cardinal Buon Compagnon, afterwards Gregory XIII. who was then legate a latere to Spain. Here Montalto had great honours paid him: he was offered to be made one of the royal chaplains, with a table and an apartment in the palace, and a very large stipend, if he would stay there; but having centered his views at Rome, he declined accepting these favours, and only asked the honour of bearing the title of his majesty’s chaplain wherever he went." While things were thus circumstanced at Madrid, news was brought of the death of Pius IV. and the elevation of cardinal Alexandrine to the holy see, with the title of Pius V. MontaUo was greatly transported at this news, the new pontiff having ever been his steadyfriend and patron; for this new pope was father Ghisilieri, who had been promoted to the purple by Paul IV. Montalto’s joy at the promotion of his friend was not ill-founded, nor were his expectations disappointed; for Pius V. even in the first week of his pontificate, appointed him general of his order, an office that he executed with his accustomed severity. In 1568 he was made bishop of St. Agatha; and, in 1570, was honoured with a cardinal’s hat and a pension. During this reign he had likewise the chief direction of the papal councils, and particularly was employed to draw up the bull of excommunication against queen Elizabeth.

Being now in possession of the purple, he began to aspire to the papacy. With this view “he became humble, patient, and affable; so artfully concealing the natural impetuosity of his temper, that one would have sworn this gentleness and moderation was born with him. There was such a change in his dress, his air, his words, and all his actions, that his nearest friends and acquaintance said, he was not the same man. A greater alteration, or a more absolute victory over his passions, was never seen in any one; nor is there an instance, perhaps, in all history, of a person supporting a fictitious character in so uniform and consistent a manner, or so artfully disguising his foibles and imperfections for such a number of years.” To which may be added, that, while he endeavoured to court the friendship of the ambassadors of every foreign power, he very carefully avoided attaching himself to the interest of any one; nor would he accept favours, that might be presumed to lay him under peculiar obligations. He was not less singular in his conduct to his relations, to whom he had heretofore expressed himself with the utmost tenderness; but now he behaved very differently, “knowing that disinterestedness in that point was one of the keys to the papacy. So that when his brother Antony came to see him at Rome, he lodged him in an inn, and sent him back again the next day with only a present of sixty crowns; strictly charging him to return immediately to his family, and tell them, ‘That his spiritual cares increased upon’him, and he was now dead to his relations and the world; but as he found old age and infirmities begin to approach, he might, perhaps, in a while, send for one of his nephews to wait on him',” Upon the death of Pius V. which happened in 1572, Montalto entered the conclave with the rest of the cardinals; but, appearing to give himself no trouble about the election, kept altogether in his apartment, without ever stirring from it, except to his devotions. He affected a total ignorance of the intrigues of the several factions; and, if he was asked to engage in any party, would reply, with seeming indifference, “that for his part he was of no manner of consequence; that, as he had never been in the conclave before, he was afraid of making some false step, and should leave the affair to be conducted wholly by people of greater knowledge and experience.” The election being determined in favour of cardinal Buon Compagnon, who assumed the name of Gregory XIII. Montalto did not neglect to assure him, “that he had never wished for any thing so much in his life, and that be should always remember his goodness, and the favours he received from him in Spain.” The new pope, however, not only shewed very little regard to his compliment, but during his pontificate, treated him with the utmost contempt, and deprived him of the pension which had been granted to him by Pins V. Nor was he held in greater esteem by the generality of the cardinals, who considered him as a poor, old, doting fellow, incapable of doing either good or harm; and who, by way of ridicule, they were used frequently to style, “the ass of La Marca.” He seldom interfered in> or was present at any public transactions; the chief part of his time was employed in works of piety and devotion; and his benevolence to the indigent was so remarkable, that, when a terrible famine prevailed at Pome, the poor said openly of him, “that cardinal Montalto, who lived upon charity himself, gave with one hand what he received with the other; while the rest of the cardinals, who wallowed in abundance, contented themselves with shewing them the way to the hospital.”

Notwithstanding this affected indifference to what passed in the world, he was never without able spies, who informed him from time to time of every the most minute particular. He had assumed great appearance of imbecility and all the infirmities of old age, for some years before the death of Gregory XIII. in 1585; when it was not without much seeming reluctance, that Montalto accompanied the rest of the cardinals into the conclave, where he maintained the same uniformity of behaviour in which he had so long persisted. “He kept himself close shut up in his chamber, and was no more thought or spoken of, than if he had not been there. He very seldom stirred out, and when he went to mass, or any of the scrutinies, appeared so little concerned, that one would have thought he had no manner of interest in any thing that happened within those walls;” and, without promising any thing, he flattered everybody. This method of proceeding was judiciously calculated to serve his ambition. He was early apprised, that there would be great contests or divisions in the conclave; and he knew it was no uncommon case, that when the chiefs of the respective parties met with opposition to the person they were desirous of electing, they would all willingly concur in the choice of some very old and infirm cardinal, whose life would last only long enough to prepare themselves with more strength against another vacancy. These views directed his conduct, nor was he mistaken in his expectations of success. Three cardinals, who were the heads of potent factions, finding themselves unable to choose the persons they respectively favoured, all concurred to elect Montalto. As it was not yet necessary for him to discover himself, when they came to acquaint him with their intention, “he fell into such a violent fit of coughing, that they thought he would have expired upon the spot.” When he recovered himself, he told them, “that his reign would be but for a few days that, besides the continual difficulty of breathing, he had not strength enough to support such a weight; and that his small experience in affairs made him altogether unfit for a charge of so important a nature.” Nor would he be prevailed on to accept it on any other terms, than that “they should all three promise not to abandon him, but take the greatest part of the weight off his shoulders, as he was neither able, nor could in conscience pretend, to take the whole upon himself.” The cardinals giving a ready assent to his proposal, he added, “If you are resolved to make me pope, it will be only placing yourselves on the throne; we must share the pontificate. For my part, I shall be content with the bare title; let them call me pope, and you are heartily welcome to the power and authority.” This artifice succeeded; and, in confidence of engrossing the administration, they exerted their joint interests so effectually, that Montalto was elected. He now immediately pulled off the mask which be had worn for fourteen years, with an amazing steadiness and uniformity. As soon as ever he found a sufficient number of votes to secure his election, he threw the staff with which he used to support himself into the middle of the chapel; and appeared taller by almost a foot than he had done for several years. Being asked according to custom, “Whether he would please to accept of the papacy,” he replied somewhat sharply, “It is trifling and impertinent to ask whether I will accept what I have already accepted: however, to satisfy any scruple that may arise, I tell you, that I accept it with great pleasure; and would accept another, if I could get it; for I find myself strong enough, by the divine assistance, to manage two papacies.” Nor was the change in his manners less remarkable than in his person: he immediately divested himself of the humility he had so long professed; and, laying aside his accustomed civility and complaisance, treated every body with reserve and haughtiness.

The lenity of Gregory’s government had introduced a general licentiousness among all ranks of people; which, though somewhat restrained while he lived, broke out into open violence the very day after his death. Riots, rapes, robberies, and murders, were, during the vacancy of the see, claily committed in every part of the ecclesiastical state; so that the reformation of abuses, in the church as well as the state, was the first and principal care of Sixtus V. for such was the title Montalto assumed. The first days of his pontificate were employed in receiving the congratulations of the Roman nobility, and in giving audience to foreign ministers; and though he received them with seeming cheerfulness and complaisance, yet he soon dismissed them, desiring to be excused, “for he had something else to do than to attend to compliments.” It having been customary with preceding popes to release prisoners on the day of their coronation, delinquents used to surrender themselves after the pope was chosen; and several offenders, judging of Montalto’s disposition by his behaviour while a cardinal, came voluntarily to the prisons, not making the least doubt of a pardon: but they were fatally disappointed; for when the governor of Rome and the keeper of St. Angelo’s castle waited on his holiness to know his intention upon this matter, Sixtus replied, “You certainly do not either know your proper distance, or are very impertinent. What have you to do with pardons and acts of grace, and releasing of prisoners? Don't you think it sufficient, that our predecessor has suffered the judges to lie idle and unemployed these thirteen years? Would you have us likewise stain our pontificate with the same neglect of justice? We have too long seen, with inexpressible concern, the prodigious degree of wickedness that reigns in the ecclesiastical state, to think of granting any pardon. God forbid we should entertain such a design! So far from releasing any prisoners, it is our express command, that they be more closely confined. Let them be brought to a speedy trial, and punished as they deserve, that the prisons may be emptied, and room made for others; and that the world may see, that Divine Providence has called us to the chair of St. Peter to reward the good, and to chastise the wicked; that we bear not the sword in vain, but are the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil.”

In the page where Skelton mentions his being curate of Trompington, he informs us that he was at the same time (1507) rector of Diss in Norfolk, and probably had held this living long before. Tradition informs us, that his frequent buffooneries in the pulpit excited general censure. Of what nature those buffooneries were, we cannot now determine, but it is certain that at a much later period the pulpit was frequently debased by irreverent allusions and personal scurrilities. There appear to have been three subjects at which Skeltori delighted to aim his satire; these were, the mendicant friars, Lilly the grammarian, and cardinal Wolsey. From what we find in his works, his treatment of these subjects was coarse enough in style, and perhaps illiberal in sentiment; and there is some reason to think that he did not preserve a due reverence for the forms and pomp of the established religion, which above all other faults would naturally tend to bring him into disgrace and danger. Those who felt his satire would be glad to excite a clamour against his impiety; and it must be allowed that the vices of his age are frequently represented in such indelicate language, as to furnish his enemies with the very plausible reproach, that he was not one of those reformers who begin with themselves.

, an excellent German historian, was born in 1506, at Sleiden, a small town upon the confines of the duchy of Juliers, whence he derived his name. His origin, according to Varillas, was so obscure, that not knowing the name of his father, he adopted that of his birth-place; but this is the report of an enemy, as his father’s name was Philip, and his family not of the lower order. He went through his first studies in his own country, together with the learned John Sturmius, who was born in the same town with himself; and afterwards removed, first to Paris, and then to Orleans, where he studied the law for three years. He took the degree of licentiate in this faculty, but, having always an aversion to the bar, he continued his pursuits chiefly in polite literature. Uporf his return to Paris, he was recommended by his friend Sturmius, in 1535, to John Du Bellay, archbishop and cardinal; who conceived such an affection for him, that he settled on him a pension, and communicated to him affairs of the greatest importance; for Sleidan had a turn for business, as well as letters. He accompanied the ambassador of France to the diet of Haguenan, but returned to Paris, and remained there till it was not safe for him to stay any longer, as he was inclined to the sentiments of the reformers. In 1542 he retired to Strasburg, where he acquired the esteem and friendship of the most considerable persons, and especially of James Sturmius; by whose counsel he undertook, and by whose assistance he was enabled, to write the history of his own time. He was employed in some uegociations both to France and England; and, in one of these journeys, he met with a lady whom he married in 1546. About the same time the princes of the league of Smalcald honoured him with the title of their historiographer, and granted him a pension, and when he lost this by the dissolution of the league in 1547, the republic of Strasburgh gave him another. In 1551, he went, on the part of the republic, to the council of Trent; but, the troops of Maurice, elector of Saxony, obliging that council to break up, he returned to Strasburgh without having transacted any business. He was employed in other affairs of state, when the death of his wife, in 1555, plunged him into a deep melancholy, with such a total loss of memory, as that he did not know his own children. Some imputed this to poison; and others to natural causes. It ended, however, in his death, at Strasburg, Oct. 31, 1556, in the fiftieth year of his age.

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

, called L‘Abate Ciccio, from his mode of dressing like an abbot, an illustrious Italian painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Nocera de’ Pagani near Naples in 1657. His father Angelo, who had been a scholar of Massimo, and was a good painter and a man of learning, discerned an uncommon genius in his son; who is said to have spent whole nights in the studies of poetry and philosophy. He designed also so judiciously in chiaro obscure, tiiat his performances surprised all who saw them. Angelo intended him for the Jaw, and did not alter his purpose, though he was informed of his other extraordinary talents, till cardinal Orsini advised him. This cardinal, afterwards Benedict Xiji. at a visit happened to examine the youth in philosophy, and, although satisfied with his answers, observed, that he would do better, if he did not waste so much of his time in drawing; but when these drawings were produced, he was so surprised, that he told the father how unjust he would be both to his son and to the art, if he attempted to check a genius so manifestly displayed. Ou this, Solimene had full liberty given him to follow his inclination. Two years passed on, while he studied under his lather, after which, in 1674, he went to Naples, and put himself under the direction of Francesco di Maria. Thinking, however, that this artist laid too great a stress on design, he soon left him, and guided himself by the works of Lanfranc and Calabrese in composition and chiaro obscuro, while those of Pietro Cortona and Luca Jordano were his standards for colouring, and Guido and Carlo Maratti for drapery. By an accurate and well-managed study of these masters, he formed to himself an excellent style, and soon distinguished himself as a painter. Hearing that the Jesuits intended to paint the chapel of St. Anne in the church Jesu Nuovo, he sent them a sketch by an architecture painter; not daring to carry it himself, lest a prejudice against his youth might exclude him. His design was nevertheless accepted, and, while he was employed on this chapel, the best painters of Naples visited him, astonished to h'nd themselves surpassed by a mere boy. This was his first moment of distinction, and his reputation increased so fast, that great works were offered him from every quarter. His fame extending to other countries, the kings of France and Spain made him very advantageous proposals to engage him in their service, all which he declined. Philip V. arriving at Naples, commanded him to paint his portrait, and allowed him to sit in his presence: and the emperor Charles VI. knighted him on account of a picture he sent him. In 1701, he resided at Rome during the holy year: when the pope and cardinals took great notice of him. This painter is also known by his sonnets, which have been often printed in collections of poetry; and, at eighty years of age, he could repeat from memory the most beautiful passages of the poets, in the application of which he was very happy. He died in 1747, at almost ninety. He painted entirely after nature; being fearful, as he said, that too servile an attachment to the antique might damp the fire of his imagination. He was a man of a good temper, who neither criticised the works of others out of envy, nor was blind to his own defects. He told the Italian author of his life, that he had advanced many falsities in extolling the character of his works: which had procured him a great deal of money, but yet were very far short of perfection. The grand duke of Tuscany with difficulty prevailed on Solimene’s modesty to send him his picture, which he wanted to place in his gallery among other painters.

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

Cardinal Rospigliosi being likely to succeed Alexander VII. in the papal chair, Sorbiere made a second journey to Rome. He was known to the cardinal when he was at Rome before, and having published a collection of poems in his praise, fancied that promotion must follow. Rospigliosi was made pope, and took the name of Clement IX.; but Sorbiere was disappointed; for, though the pope gave him good words, yet he gave him nothing more, except a small sum to defray the charges of his journey. Sorbiere is said to have been one of those who could not be content, and was therefore never happy. He was continually complaining of the injustice and cruelty of fortune; and yet his finances were always decent, and he lived in tolerable plenty. Louis XIV,. cardinal Mazarine, and pope Alexander VII. had been benefactors to him; and many were of opinion, that he had as much as he deserved. He could not help bemoaning himself even to Clement IX. who contenting himself, as we have observed, with doing him some little honours, without paying any regard to his fortune, is said to have received this complaint from him, “Most holy father, you give ruffles to a man who is without a shirt.”

Though his name is so well known in the literary world, yet it is not owing to any productions of his own, but rather to the connections he sought, and the correspondences he held with men of learning. He was not the author of any considerable work, although there are more than twenty publications of his of the smaller kind. Some have been mentioned in the course of this memoir, and there are others as, “Lettres & Discours sur diverses matieres curieuses,” Paris, 1660, 4to; “Discours sur la Comete,” written upon Gassendi’s principles against comets being portents, 1665; “Discours sur la transfusion de sang d‘un animal clans le corps d’un homme,” written at Rome; “Discours sceptiqne sur le passage dn chyle, & sur le mouvement du cceur,” a production of Gassendi, but published by Sorbiere in his own name. He published in 1669 at Paris, “Epistolueillustrintn & eruditorum virorum;” among which are some of Clement IXth’s letters to him, while that pope was vet cardinal. This publication was thought improper, and imputed to vanity. He translated some of our English authors into French: as More’s Utopia, some of Hobbes’s works, and part of Camden’s Britannia. He corresponded with Hobbes; and a story has been circulated of his management in this correspondence, which is not much to his credit. Hobbes used to write to Sorbiere on philosophical subjects; and, those letters being sent by him to Gassendi, seemed so worthy of notice to that great man, that he set himself to write proper answers to them. Gassendi’s answers were sent by Sorbiere as his own to Hobbes, who thought himself happy in the correspondence of so profound a philosopher: but at length the artifice being discovered, Sorbiere was disgraced. Other minute performances of Sorbiere are omitted as being of no consequence at all. There is a “Sorberiana,” which is as good as many other of the “Ana;”' that is, good for very little.

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

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

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

, a German painter, was the son of a merchant, and born at Antwerp in 1546. He was brought up under variety of masters, and then went to Rome, where cardinal Farnese took him into his service, and afterwards recommended him to pope Pius V. He was employed at Belvidere, and spent thirty-eight months in drawing the picture of “The Day of Judgment;” which picture is said to be still ovtr that pope’s tomb. While he was working upon it, Vasari told his holiness that “whatever Sprangher did was so much time lost;” yet the pope commanded him to go on. After a great number of pictures done in several parts of Rome, he returned to Germany, and became chief painter to the emperor Maximilian II. and was so much respected by his successor Rodolphus, that he presented him with a gold chain and medal, allowed him a pension, honoured him and his posterity with the title of nobility, lodged him in his own palace, and would not suffer him to paint for any body but himself. After many years continuance in his court, he obtained leave to visit his own country; and accordingly went to Antwerp, Amsterdam, Haerlem, and several other places; and having had the satisfaction of seeing his own works highly admired, and his manner almost universally followed in all those parts, as well as in Germany, he returned to Prague, and died at a good old age, in 1623. Fuseli says that Sprangher may be considered as the head of that series of artists who, disgusted by the exility and minuteness of method then reigning in Germany, imported from the schools of Florence, Venice, and Lombardy, that mixed style which marks all the performances executed for the courts of Prague, Vienna, and Munich, bv himself, John ab Ach, Joseph Heinz, Christopher Schwartz, &c. Colour and breadth excepted, it was a style more conspicuous for Italian blemishes than beauties, and in design, expression, and composition, soon deviated to the most outrageous manner.

, a celebrated controversialist on the side of the papists, was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in 1535, of a genteel family from Yorkshire. Having been educated at Canterbury and Winchester, he was removed to New college, Oxford, where he obtained a perpetual fellowship in 1554. In the same reign, which was that of Mary, he was made prebendary of Chichester; but on the accession of Elizabeth, left the kingdom, vith his father and other relations, and settled at Louvain, where he distinguished himself by his controversial writings against Jewel, Home, Whitaker, and other eminent divines of the English church. He also visited Paris and Rome, but returned to Louvain, where he translated Bede’s Church History into English. He then became regius professor of divinity in the new university of Douay, and canon in the church of St. Amoiue. He became a Jesuit, but again relinquished the order, and returning to Louvain, was appointed regius professor in divinity there, canon of St. Peter’s, and dean of Hillerbeck. He died in 1598, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain. Clement VIII. had invited him to Rome, but he did not choose to go. This pope, it is said, intended to bestow upon him a cardinal’s hat, and that this honour was prevented by his death. He was, however, so great an admirer of Stapleton’s writings, that he ordered them to be read publicly at his table. Cardinal Perron, who was an eminent author himself, esteemed him, both for learning and acuteness, the first polemical divine of his age; and Whitaker himself, seems to allow no less.

, an eminent painter, the son of Francis Stella, a Fleming, was born in 1596 at Lyons, where his father had settled on his return from Italy. Although he was but nine years old at his father’s death, the latter had successfully initiated him in the principles of the art, which he afterwards improved in Italy. At the age of twenty, being at Florence, the great duke Cosmo de Medicis, perceiving him to be a man of genius, assigned him lodgings and a pension equal to that of Callot, who was there at the same time; and here, during a residence of seven years, he exhibited many proofs of his skill in painting, designing, and engraving. Thence he went to Rome, where he spent eleven years, chiefly in studying the antique sculptures, and Raphael’s paintings. Having acquired a good taste, as well as a great reputation, in Rome, he resolved to return to his own country; intending, however, to pass thence into the service of the king of Spain, who had invited him more than once. He took Milan in his way to France; and cardinal Albornos offered him the direction of the academy of painting in that city, which he refused. When he arrived in Paris, and was preparing for Spain, cardinal Richelieu detained him, and presented him to the king, who assigned him a good pension and lodgings in the Louvre. He gave such satisfaction here, that he was honoured with the order of St. Michael, and painted several large pictures for the king, by whose command the greatest part of them were sent to Madrid. Being very laborious, he spent the winter-evenings in designing the histories of the Holy Scriptures, country sports, and children’s plays, which were engraved, and make a large volume. He also drew the designs of the frontispieces to several books of the Louvre impression; and various antique ornaments, together with a frieze of Julio Romano, which he brought out of Italy. He died of a consumption in 1647. This painter had a fine genius, and all his productions were wonderfully easy. His talent was rather gay than terrible: his invention, however, noble, and his design in a good style. His models were evidently Raphael and Poussin. He was upon the whole an excellent painter, although somewhat of a mannerist. Sir Robert Strange has a fine engraving from a “Holy Family” by this artist.

, the son of Paul, was born at Geneva in 1594, studied at Lyons, and came to Paris at the age of eighteen. He abjured the protestant religion, and in 1614 obtained the title of printer to the king and to the clergy. The cardinal Duperron became his patron, and gave him a pension of 500 livres, which he enjoyed as long as that prelate lived. He reprinted for the booksellers of Paris, the Greek fathers, and published other important works, as Merin’s Bible, Duval’s Aristotle, Strabo, Xenophon, Plutarch, &c. He had by his wife Jean Leclerc several children, and a son Henry, who would have succeeded him, but he died in 1661. Anthony himself became unfortunate, and when infirm and blind, was obliged to solicit a place in the Hotel-Dieu, where he died in 1674, in the eightieth year of his age.

, a poet of the Elizabethan period, was the son of John Storer, a native of London, and was elected student of Christ-clmrcn, Oxford, about 1587. He took his degree of master of aits, and had the fame of excellent poetical talents, which were exhibited, not only in verses before the books of many members of the university, but in his poem entitled “The Life and De^th of Thomas Wolsey, cardinal: divided into three pans: his aspiring; triumph; and death,” Lond. 1599, 4to. He obtained also great credit for some pastoral airs and madrigals, which were published in the collection called “England’s Helicon.” He died in the parish of St. Michael Bassishaw, London, in Nov. 1604, and had his memory celebrated by many copies of verses. His poem on Wolsey is far from despicable, and contains many curious historical particulars. It is of the greatest rarity; but there is a copy in the Bodleian, and another in the British Museum.

In this suffering Stubbs had the sympathy of the people, and did not lose the regard of thuse who had previously known his learning and talents, and who probably thought little of an offence that proceeded from his zeal for the reformation, and evidently from no principle of disloyalty. A very few years afterwards he was employed by the lord treasurer, to answer cardinal Allan’s “Defence of the English Catholics;” a task which he executed with acknowledged ability. Several letters of Stubbs, addressed to the lord treasurer and his secretary Hickes, are preserved in the Burghley -papers, now in the British Museum; and most of them having been written with his left-hand, he usually, in allusion to the loss of his right, signed himself Scæva. Whether his answer to Allen was ever published is uncertain; but he translated Beza’s meditations on the first Psalm, and the seven penitential Psalrns, from the French, which he dedicated to lady Anne Bacon, wife of sir Nicholas Bacon. The dedication is dated from v Thelveton in Norfolk, where he appears to have taken up his residence, May 31, 1582, and it is signed “John Stubbe, Sceva.” It is said that Stubbs was afterwards a commander in the army in Ireland, but we have no farther accouu- of him, or any notice of his death. Wood is of opinion, that he was either father or brother to Philip Stubbs, author of “The Anatomy of Abuses,” and other works against the vices and abuses of his time. This man, who was not m orders, although all his publications are such as might have been expected from a divine, lived about the same time with John Stubbs; but Wood’s account of him is imperfect.

In 1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from the court of France, while on a hunting-party near Senlis; from whence, his guards being dispersed, he instantly passed the Seine at Poissy, and went to Tours, where he no sooner arrived than he resumed the exercise of the Protestant religion. A war was now expected; and Catharine de Medicis began to tremble in her turn: and, indeed, from that time to 1S89, Henry’s life presents us only with a mixture of battles, negociations, and love-intrigues, which last made no inconsiderable part of his business. Sully- was one of those who attended him in his flight, and who continued to attend him to the end of his life, serving him in the different capacities of sofdier and statesman, as the various conditions of his affairs required. Henry’s wife whom Catharine had brought to him in 1578, was a great impediment to him yet by his management she was sometimes of use also. There were frequent ruptures between him and the court of France; but at last Henry III. confederated with him sincerely, and in good earnest, to resist the League, which was more furious than ever, after the death of the duke of Guise and the cardinal his brother. The reconciliation and confederacy of these two kings was concluded in April 1589: their interview was at Tours the 30th of that month, attended with great demonstration of mutual satisfaction. They joined their troops some time after to lay siege to Paris: they besieged it in person, and were upon the point of conquering that great city, when the king of France was assassinated by James Clement, a Dominican friar, the 1st of August, at the village of St. Cloud. “The league,” says Renault, “is perhaps the most extraordinary event in history; and Henry III. may be reckoned the weakest prince in not foreseeing, that he should render himself dependant on that party by becoming their chief. The Protestants had made war against him, as an enemy of their sect; and the leaguers murdered him on account of his uniting with the king of Navarre, the chief of the Huguenots.”

Henry III. upon his death-bed declared the king of Navarre his successor, who accordingly succeeded him, but not without very great difficulties. He was acknowledged king by most of the lords, whether catholic or protestant, who happened then to be at court; but the leaguers refused absolutely to acknowledge his title till he had renounced the protestant religion; 'and the city of Paris persisted in its revolt till the 22d of March, 1594. He embraced the catholic religion, as the only method of putting an end to the miseries of France, by the advice of Sully, whom he had long taken into the sincerest confidence; and the celebrated Du Perron, afterwards cardinal, was made the instrument of his conversion. He attempted also to convert Sully, but in vain: “My parents bred me,” said the minister, “in the opinions and doctrines of the reformed religion, and I have continued constant in the profession of it; neither threatenings, promises, variety of events, nor the change even of the king my protector, joined to his most tender solicitations, have ever been able to make me renounce it.”

His next conquests were Harfleur, Tankerville, Crotoy, where he defeated the troops of the duke of Burgundy, who had deserted the English interest, Longueville in Normandy, Carles, and Manille, and performed feats of great bravery, when the French attempted to recover Pontoise. In truth, all the reputation which the English arms in France still retained appears to have been almost wholly owing to the abilities, courage, and activity of lord Talbot: and in consideration of so great merit, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Shrewsbury, his patent of creation bearing date May 20, 1442. In the following year, he was constituted one of the ambassadors to treat of peace with Charles VII. king of France; and the year after, the king acknowledging himself indebted to him in the sum of 10, M6l. 4. and a farthing, in consideration of his great services, as well to king Henry V. (his father) as to himself, botli in France and Normandy, granted, that after the sum of twenty-one thousand pounds, in which he stood indebted unto Henry the cardinal bishop of Winchester, were paid, he should receive, yearly, four hundred marks out of the customs and duties issuing from tfje port of Kingston upon Hull. He was, the same year, again retained to serve the king in his wars of France, with one baron, two knights, fourscore and sixteen men at arms, and three hundred archers, the king having given him ten thousand pounds in hand.

As soon as the departure of the prince of Salerno was known, he, and all his adherents, were declared rebels to the state; and Torquato Tasso, though but nine years of age, was included by name in that sentence. Bernardo, following the prince of Salerno into France, committed his son to the care of his friend and relation Maurice Cataneo, a person of great ability, who assiduously cultivated the early disposition of his pupil to polite literature. After the death of Sanseverino, which happened in three or four years, Bernardo returned to Italy, and engaged in the service of Guglielmo Gonzaga, duke of Mantua, who had given him a pressing invitation. It was not long before Ije received the melancholy news of the decease of his wife Portia, which determined him to send for his son, that they might be a mutual support to each other in their affliction. He was now his only child, for his wife, before her death, had married his daughter to Martio Sersale, a gentleman of Sorrento. He was greatly surprised, on his son’s arrival, to see the vast progress he had made in his studies. Although but twelve years of age, he had, according to the testimony of the writers of his life, entirely completed his knowledge in the Latin and Greek tongues: he was well acquainted with the rules of rhetoric and poetry, and completely versed in Aristotle’s ethics. Bernardo soon determined to send him to the university of Padua, to study the laws, in company with the young Scipio Gonzaga, afterwards cardinal, nearly of the same age as himself. With this nobleman Tasso, then seventeen years of age, contracted a friendship that never ended but with hi life. He prosecuted his studies at Padua with great diligence and success: at the same time employ ing his leisure hours upon philosophy and poetry, he soon gave a public proof o/ his talents, by his poem of f< Rinaldo,“which he published in the eighteenth year of his age. This poem, which is of the romance kind, is divided into twelve books in ottava rima, and contains the adventures of Rinaldo, the famous Paladin of the court of Charlemain, who makes so principal a figure in Ariosto’s work, and the first achievements of that knight for the love of the fair Clarice, whom he afterwards marries. The action of this poem precedes that of the” Orlando Furioso.“It was composed in ten months, as the author himself informs us in the preface, and was first printed at Venice in 1562. Paolo Beni speaks very highly of this performance, which undoubtedly is not unworthy the early efforts of that genius which afterwards produced the” Jerusalem."

Here Tasso formed the design of his celebrated poem, ie Jerusalem Delivered:“he invented the fable, disposed the different parts, and determined to dedicate this work to the glory of the house of Este. He was greatly esteemed by Alphonso II. the last duke of Ferrara, that great patron of learning and learned men, and by his brother, cardinal Luigi. There was a sort of contest between these two brothers, in relation to the poem: the cardinal imagined that he had a right to he the Maecenas of all Tasso‘ s works, as ’fRinaldo,” hi? first piece, had been dedicated to him: the duke, on the other bane), thought that, as his brother had already received his share pf honour, he ought not to be offended at seeing the name qf Alphonso at the head of the “Jerusalem Delivered.” Tasso for three or four years Suspended his deterrainatipn: at length, being earnestly pressed by both the brothers to take up his residence in Ferrara, he suffered himself to be prevailed upon. The duke gave him an apartment in his palace, where he lived in peace and affluence, and pursued his design of completing his “Jerusalem,” which be riov resolved to dedicate to Alphonso. The duke, who was desirous of fixing Tasso near him, had thoughts of marrying hiin advantageously, but he always evaded any proposal of that kind: though he appeared peculiarly devoted to Alphonso, yet he neglected not to pay his court to the cardinal.

The name of M asso now became famous through all Europe: and the caresses he received from Charles IX. in a journey he made to France with cardinal Luigi, who went thither in quality of legate, show that his reputation was not confined to his own country. The cardinal’s legation being finished, Tasso returned to Ferrara, where he applied himself to finish his “Jerusalem,” and in the mean time published his “Aminta,” a pastoral comedy, which was received with universal applause. This performance was looked upon as a master- piece in its kind, and is toe original of the “Pastor Fido” and “Filli di Sciro.” It was not easy to imagine that Tasso could so well paint the effects of love, without having himself felt that passion: it began to be suspected that, like another Ovid, he had raised his desires too high, and it was thought that in many of his verses he gave hints of that kind. There were at the duke’s court three Leonoras, equally witty and beautiful, though of different quality. The first was Leonora of Este, sister to the duke, who having refused the most advantageous matches, lived unmarried with Lauretta, duchess of Urbino, her elder sister, who was separated from her husband, and resided at her brother’s court. Tasso had a great attachment to this lady, who, on her side, honoured him with her esteem and protection. She was wise, generous, and not only well read in elegant literature, but even versed in the more abstruse sciences. All these perfections were undoubtedly observed by Tasso, who was one of the most assiduous of her courtiers and it appearing by his verses that he was touched with the charms of a Leonora, they tell us that we need not seek any further for the object of his passion.

At the approach of winter they returned to Naples, when the prince of Palena again pressed Tasso to reside with him; but Tasso, who judged it highly unadvisable to comply with his request, resolved to retire to Rome, and wait there the issue of his law-suit. He lived in that city about a year in high esteem with pope Sixtus V; when, being invited to Florence by Ferdinando, grand duke of Tuscany, who had been cardinal at Rome when Tasso first resided there, and who now employed the pope’s interest to procure a visit from him, he could not withstand such solicitations, but went to Florence, where he met with a most gracious reception. Yet not all the caresses he received at the duke’s court, nor all the promises of that prince, could overcome his love for his native country, or lessen the ardent desire he had to lead a retired and independent life. He therefore took his leave of the grand duke, wbo would have loaded him with presents; but Tasso, as usual, could be prevailed upon to accept of no more than was necessary for his present occasions. He returned to Naples by the way of Rome, and the old prince of Conca dying about this time, the young count of Palena prevailed upon Tasso, by the mediation of Manso, to accept of an apartment in his palace. Here he applied himself to a correction of his Jerusalem, or rather to compose a new work entitled “Jerusalem Conquered,” which he had begun during his first residence at Naples. The prince of Conca, being jealous lest any one should deprive him of the poet and poem, caused him to he so narrowly watched that Tasso observed it, and being displeased at such a proceeding, left the prince’s palace, and retired to his friend Manso’s, where he lived master of himself and his actions; yet he still continued upon good terms with the prince of Conca.

Manso’s garden commanded a full prospefct of the sea. Tasso and his friend being one day in a summer-house with Scipio Belprato, Manso’s brother-in-law, observing the waves agitated with a furious storm, Beiprato said, “that he was astonished at the rashness and folly of men who would expose themselves to the rage of so merciless an element, where such numbers had suffered shipwreck.” “And yet,” said Tasso, “we every night go without fear to bed, where so many die every hour. Beheve me, death will rind us in all parts, and those places that appear the least exposed are not always the most secure from his attacks.” While Tasso lived with his friend Manso, cardinal Hippolito Aldobrandirii succeeded to the papacy by the name of Clement VIII. His two nephews, Cynthio and Pietro Aldobrandini, were created cardinals: the first, afterwards called the cardinal of St. George, was the eldest, a great patron of science, and a favourer of learned men: he had known Tasso when he resided last at Rome, and had the greatest esteem for him; and now so earnestly invited him to Rome, that he could not peluse, but once more abandoned his peaceful retreat;it Naples. As in consequence of the confines of the ecclesiastical state being infested with banditti, travellers, for security, used to go together in large companies, Tasso joined himself to one of these; but when they came within sight of Mola, a little town near Gaietu, they received intelligence that Sciarru, a famous captain of robbers, was near at hand with a great body of men. Tasso was of opinion, that they should continue their journey, and endeavour to defend themselves, if attacked: however, this advice was overruled, and they threw themselves for safety into Mola, in which place they remained for some time in a manner blocked up by Sciarra. But this outlaw, hearing that Tasso was one of the company, sent a message to assure him that he might pass in safety, and offere.i himself to conduct him wherever he pleased. Tasso returned him thanks, but declined accepting the offer, not choosing, perhaps, to rely on the word of a person of such character. Sciarra upon this sent a second message, by which he informed Tasso, that, upon his account, he would withdraw his men, and leave the ways open. He accordingly did so, and Tasso, continuing his journey, arrived without any accident at Rome, where he was most graciously welcomed by the two cardinals and the pope himself. Tasso applied himself in a particular manner to cardinal Cynthio, who had been the means of his coming to Rome; yet he neglected not to make his court to cardinal Aldobrandini, and he very frequently conversed with both of them. One day the two cardinals held an assembly of several prelates, to consult, among other things, of some method to put a stop to the license of the pasquinades. One proposed that Pasquin’s statue should be broken to pieces and cast into the river. But Tasso' s opinion being asked, he said, “it would be much more prudent to let it remain where it was; for otherwise from the fragments of the statue would be bred an infinite number of frogs on the banks of the Tyber, that would never cease to croak day and night.” The pope, to whom cardinal Aldobrandini related what had passed, interrogated Tasso upon the subject. “It is true, holy father,” said he, “such was my opinion; and I shall add moreover, that if your holiness would silence Pasquin, the only way is to put such people into employments as may give no occasion to any libels or disaffected discourse.”

At last, being again disgusted with the life of a courtier, he obtained permission to retire to Naples to prosecute his law-suit. At his arrival there, he took up his lodging in the convent of St. Severin, with the fathers of St. Benedict. Thus was Tasso once more in a state of tranquillity and retirement, so highly agreeable to his disposition; when cardinal Cynthio again found means to recall him, by prevailing on the pope to give him the honour of being solemnly crowned with laurel in the capitol. Though Tasso himself was not in the least desirous of such pomp, yet he yielded to the persuasion of others, particularly of his dear friend Manso, to whom he protested that he went merely at his earnest desire, not with any expectation of the promised triumph, which he had a secret presage would never be. He was greatly affected at parting from Manso, and took his leave of him as of one he should never see again. In his way he passed by Mount Cassino, to pay his devotion to the relics of St, Benedict, for whom he had a particular veneration. He spent the festival of Christmas in that monastery, and thence repaired to Rome, where he arrived in the beginning of 1595. He was met at the entrance of that city by many prelates and persons of distinction, and was afterward introduced, by the two cardinals, Cynthio and Pietro, to the presence of the pope, who was pleased to tell him, “that his merit would add as much honour to the laurel he was going to receive, as that crown had formerly given to those on whom it had hitherto been bestowed.”

His presages were but too true, for, while they waited for fair weather to celebrate the solemnity, cardinal Cynthio fell ill, and continued for some time indisposed: and, as soon as the cardinal began to recover, Tasso himself was seized with his last sickness.

Though he had only completed his fifty- first year, his studies and misfortunes had brought on a premature old age. Being persuaded that his end was approaching, he resolved to spend the few days he had yet to live in the monastery of St. Onuphrius. He was carried thither in cardinal Cynthio’s coach, and received with the utmost tenderness by the prior and brethren of that order. His distemper was now so far increased, and his strength so exhausted, that all kind of medicine proved ineffectual. On the 10th of April he was taken with a violent fever, occasioned perhaps by having eat some milk, a kind of aliment he was particularly fond of. His life now seemed in imminent danger: the most famous physicians in Rome tried all their art, but in vain, to relieve him: he grew worse and worse every day. Rinaldini, the pope’s physician, and Tasso’s intimate friend, having informed him that his last hour was near at hand, Tasso embraced him tenderly, and with a composed countenance returned him thanks for his tidings; then looking up to Heaven, he “acknowledged the goodness of God, who was at last pleased to bring him safe into port after so long a storm.” From that time his mind seemed entirely disentangled from earthly affairs: he received the sacrament in the chapel of the monastery, being conducted thither by the brethren. When he was brought back to his chamber, he was asked where he wished to be interred; he answered, in the church of St. Onuphrius: and being desired to leave some memorial of his will in writing, and to dictate himself the epitaph that should be engraven on his tomb, he smiled and said, “that in regard to the first, he had little worldly goods to leave, and as to the second, a plain stone would suffice to cover him.” He left cardinal Cynthio his heir, and desired that his own picture might be given to Giovanni Baptista Manso, which had been drawn by his direction. At length having attained the fourteenth day of his illness, he received the extreme unction. Cardinal Cynthio hearing that he was at the last extremity, came- to visit him, and brought him the pope’s benediction, a grace never conferred in this manner but on cardinals and persons of the first distinction. Tasso acknowledged this honour with great devotion and humility, and said, “that this was the crown he came to receive at Rome.” The cardinal having asked him “if he had any thing further to desire,” he replied, “the only favour he had now to beg of him, was, that he would collect together the copies of all his works (particularly his” Jerusalem Delivered,“which he esteemed most imperfect) and commit them to the flames: this task, he confessed, might be found something difficult, as those pieces were dispersed abroad in so many different places, but yet he trusted it would not be found altogether impracticable.” He was so earnest in his request, that the cardinal, unwilling to discompose him by a refusal, gave him such a doubtful answer as led him to believe that his desire would be complied with. Tasso then requesting to be left alone, the cardinal took his farewel of him with tears in his eyes, leaving with him his confessor and some of the brethren of the monastery. In this condition he continued all night, and till the middle of the next day, the 25th of April, being the festival of St. Mark; when, finding himself fainting, he embraced his crucifix, uttering these words: In manus tuas, Domine but expired before he could finish the sentence. Tasso was tall and well-shaped, his complexion fair, fyut rather pale through sickness and study; the hair of his head was of a chesnut colour, but that of his beard somewhat lighter, thick and bushy; his forehead square and high, his head large, and the tore part of it, towards the end of his life, altogether bald; his eye-brows were dark; his eyes full, piercing, and of a clear blue; his nose large, his lips thin, his teeth well set and white; his neck well proportioned; his breast full; his shoulders broad, and all his limbs more sinewy than fleshy. His voice was strong, clear, and solemn; he spoke with deliberation, and generally reiterated his last words: he seldom laughed, and never to excess. He was very expert in the exercises of the body. In his oratory, he used little action, and rather pleased by the beauty and force of his expressions, than by the graces of gesture and utterance, that compose so great a part of elocution. Such was the exterior of Tasso: as to his mental qualities, he appears to have been a great genius, and a soul elevated above the common rank of mankind. It is said of him, that there never was a scholar more humble, a wit more devout, or a man more amiable in society. Never satisfied with, his works, even when they rendered his name famous throughout the world; always satisfied with his condition, even when he wanted every thing; entirely relying on Providence and his friends; without malevolence towards his greatest enemies; only wishing for riches that he might be serviceable to others, and making a scruple to receive or keep auy thing himself that was not absolutely necessary. So blameless and regular a life was ended by a peaceable death, which carried him off in 1595, in the fifty-second year of his age.

He was buried the same evening, without pomp, according to his desire, in the church of St. Onuphrius, and his body was covered with a plain stone. Cardinal Cynthio had purposed to erect a magnificent monument to his memory; but the design was so long prevented by sickness and other accidents, that, ten years after, Manso coming to Rome, went to visit his friend’s remains, and would have taken on himself the care of building a tomb to him; but this cardinal Cynthio would by no means permit, having determined himself to pay that duty to Tasso. However, Manso prevailed so far as to have the following words engraven on the stone:

Cardinal Cynthio dying without putting his design in execution, cardinal Bonifacio Bevilacqua, of an illustrious family of Ferrara, caused a stately sepulchre to be erected, in the church of St. Onuphrius, over the remains of a man whose works had made all other monuments superfluous.

, an Italian poet of great fame, was born at Modeua, in 1565. He was early left an orphan, and exposed to many difficulties, yet he cultivated the knowledge of the learned languages with great assiduity, and, in 1597, entered into the service of cardinal Ascanio Colonna, as his secretary. With him he went into Spain; and, after the death of that patron, contrived to be introduced into the court of Charles Emanuel duke of Savoy. Not agreeing with the prince cardinal, son of the duke, he retired, after a time, and sought an asylum with cardinal Ludovisio, who gave him a pension of 400 Iloman crowns, and apartments in his palace. After the death of this cardinal, he had recourse at length to his natural sovereign Francis I. d'Este, duke of Modena, from whom he received an honorary salary. He died in 1635, and was buried in N St. Peter’s. He was a member of the academy of the Umoristi. His character was lively and agreeable, notwithstanding his turn for satire.

, a pious layman of the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, descended from an ancient family in Norfolk, and was the eldest son of John Taverner of Brisley, where he was born in 1505. He is said to have studied logic for some time in Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, and, if so, must have been contemporary with archbishop Parker. He afterwards removed to Oxford, and was one of the learned scholars invited by cardinal Wolsey to his new college there. Wood informs us that he took the degree of A. B. on May 21, 1527, and that of A.M. in 1530, having been made one of the junior canons the year before. Having thus acquired a competent knowledge in the sciences and learned languages, he studied law in the Inner Temple. In 1534 he was introduced to court, and being taken into the service of sir Thomas Cromwell, principal secretary of state, he was recommended by him to the king for one of the clerks of the signet in 1537, which place he held until the reign of queen Mary, notwithstanding his commitment to the Tower about four years after for “slandering the ladie Anne of Cleve,” or rather on account of his being deemed one of the gospellers, as they were termed, of his college. He certainly was a friend to the reformation, and in order to promote it undertook a new translation or edition of the English bible, “recognized with great diligence after most faithful examples,” Lond. 1539, fol. It was dedicated to the king, and allowed to be read in churches. But in 1545, his patron, lord Cromwell, being then dead, the popish bishops caused the printers to be imprisoned and punished; and the editor himself also was committed to the Tower. Here however he acquitted himself so well, that he was not only soon after released, but restored again to the king’s favour, and chosen a member of parliament in 1545. Bale calls Taverner’s edition of the Bible, “Sacrortim Bibliorum recognitio, seu potius versio nova;” but it is neither a bare revisal of the preceding editions, nor a new version, but between both. It is a correction of what is called Matthewe’s Bible; many of whose marginal notes are adopted, and many omitted, and others inserted by the editor. Archbishop Newcome thinks it probable that Taverner’s patron, Cromwell, encouraged him to undertake this work, on account of his skill in the Greek tongue; but it is more probable that he was principally induced to it by the printers, as we learn from a passage in the dedication, in which, after telling the king that a correct or faultless translation of the Bible must be the production of many learned men, and of much time and leisure, he adds; “but forasmuch as the printers were very desirous to have the Bible come forth as faultless and emendately as the shortness of the time for the recognising of the same would require, they desired him, for default of a better learned, diligently to overlook and peruse the whole copy, and, in case he should find any notable default that needed correction, to amend the same, &c.”

, a lady of considerable talents, took the habit of a religious at the monastery of Montfleuri, near Grenoble. Becoming tired of that mode of life, she went to Paris, where she lived in the world, and solicited a bull from the pope to authorize this unusual proceeding. With cardinal Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV. she was on good terms, and he gave her no molestation. Her house at Paris was the general meeting of all who had wit, or wished to have the credit of it. The gaiety of her society was, however, disturbed by some unfortunate adventures particularly by the death of La Fresnaye, a counsellor of state, who was killed in her apartment. Mademoiselle Tencin was prosecuted as concerned in the murder, and was confined first in the Chatelet, and afterwards in the Bastille; but was at length discharged as innocent. She died at Paris in 1749, being then a good deal advanced in years. She appeared as an author in several instances, and produced, 1. “Le Siege de Calais,” a romance of considerable delicacy and genius, though not without faults. 2. “Memoires de Comminges,” 12mo, another novel which has had its admirers. A nephew of M. de Tencin, M. Pont-de-veste, had some share in both these productions. 3. “Les Malheurs de l'Amour,” a novel, in which some have supposed that she describes a part of her own history. 4. “Anecdotes of Edward II.” a posthumous work, published in 1776. All her works were published at Paris in 1786, in seven small volumes, 12 mo.

, a learned Portuguese Dominican, was born in 1543. He was prior of the convent at Santaren, 1578, when king Sebastian undertook the African expedition in which he perished. Cardinal Henry, who succeeded him, dying soon after, Texeira joined the friends of Anthony, who had been proclaimed king by the people, and constantly adhered to him. He accompanied this prince into France, 1581, to solicit help against Philip II. who disputed the crown with him. Though Anthony’s almoner, he was honoured with the title of preacher and counsellor to Henry III; and after the death of that monarch, attached himself to Henry IV“. with whom he became a great favourite. He died about 1620. Texiera’s works clearly discover his hatred of the Spaniards, and his aversion to Philip II. who took Portugal from prince Anthony. It is asserted, that as he was preaching one day on the love of our neighbour, he said,” We are obliged to love all men of whatever religion, sect, or nation, even Castilians.“His political, historical, and theological writings are very numerous.” De Portugallioe ortu,“Paris, 1582, 4to, 70 pages, scarce. A treatise” On theOrifi'tmme,“1598, 12mo;” Adventures of Don Sebastian," 8vo.

, an excellent engraver, was born in 1758, at Pattrington, in Holderness, in the East Riding of York, where his father was an innkeeper. At a proper age he was placed as an apprentice to a cooper, at which business, on the expiration of his apprenticeship, he worked some time. During the American war he became a private in ifie Northumberland militia; at the conclusion of which, in 1783, he came to settle at Hull, where he commenced engraver of shop-bills, cards, &c. One of his fust attempts was a card for a tinner and brazier, executed in a very humble style. He engraved and published a plan of Hull, which is dated May 6, 1784, and afterwards solicited subscriptions for two views of the dock at that place, which, it is thought, he shortly after published. He also engraved, while there, a head of Harry Rowe, the famous puppet-showman of York, after a drawing by J. England. Another account says, that an engraving of an old woman’s head, after Gerard Dow, was his first attempt, and appeared so extraordinary, that on the recommendation of the hon. Charles Fox, the duchess of Devonshire, and lady Duncannon, he was appointed historical engraver to the prince of Wales. In 1788, the marquis of Carmarthen, whose patronage he first obtained by constructing a very curious camera obscura, wrote him a recommendatory lelter to Alderman Boy dell, who immediately offered him 300 guineas to engrave a plate from Northcote’s picture of Edward V. taking leave of his brother the duke of York. He afterwards engraved, for Boydell, a number of capital plates from the Shakespeare gallery,and from the paintings by sir Joshua Reynolds, Shee, Westall, Smirke, Fuseli, Northcote, Peters, &c. all which are very extraordinary specimens of graphic excellence, and have been highly and deservedly approved by the connoisseur, and well received by the public. Of Boydell’s Shakspeare, nineteen of the large plates are from his hand. He had received very little instruction, but depended solely on native genius, aided by an intense application, by which \\e suddenly arrived at great excellence in the art. Almost at the outset of his career he became connected with Messrs. Boydell by extensive engagements on their Shakspeare, a work which will long bear ample testimony to his rare merit and talents. The distinguishing characteristics of his practice consisted in most faithfully exhibiting the true spirit and style of each master; a most minute accuracy, a certain polish, and exquisite delicacy of manner; with the appropriate character given to all objects, while a mildness of tone and perfect harmony pervaded the whole piece. The Cardinal Wolsey entering Leicester Abbey, from Westall, is certainly the greatest effort of his skill, and is, by many of the bestinformed connoisseurs and artists, held to be a first-rate specimen in that style of engraving. This ingenious artist died in July 1802, at Stevenage in Hertfordshire.

“The History of Perukes” is one of his most known and curious books. He designed it againat those ecclesiastics who were not contented to wear their own hair. The year 1621) (says he) is the epoch of perukes in France. He maintains, that no clergyman wore a peruke before 1660, and pretends that there is no instance of it in antiquity. He observes, that cardinal de Richelieu was the first who wore a calot and that the bishop of Evreux having prefixed to the life of St. Francis de Sales (which he presented to pope Alexander VIII.) a print wherein that saint appeared with a leather cap on, the pope had much ado to accept that book, attended with such an irregularity. M. Thiers exclaims against those ecclesiastics, who powder their perukes, and wear them of a different colour from their own hair. He answers the arguments that may be alledged in favour of the clergy. As for what concerns their beard and their bands, he says, no ecclesiastic wore a band before the middle of last century. There have been many variations about their beard. Sometimes shaving was looked upon as a kind of effeminacy, and a long beard appeared very suitable with the sacerdotal gravity; and sometimes a venerable beard was accounted a piece of pride and stateliness. When cardinal d'Angennes was about to take possession of his bishopric of Mans in 1556, he wanted an express order from the king to be admitted with his long beard, which he could not resolve to cut. M. Thiers acknowledges those variations about the beard; but he maintains that the discipline has been constant and uniform as to perukes; and therefore, he says, they ought to be laid aside, and beseeches the pope and the king to suppress such a novelty. Among his other works are, 2. “Traité des Superstitions qui regardent les Sacremena,” 4 vols. 12mo, a book esteemed agreeable and useful by those of his own communion. 3. “Traité de I'exposiiioii. du Saint Sacrement de PAutel,” 1663, 12mo. Some have esteemed this his best production. Many other articles are enumerated by his biographers, but few of them interesting in this country.

, a learned French divine, was born Aug. 28, 1619, at Aix in Provence, of a good and ancient family, and admitted at the age of fourteen into the congregation of the oratory, where he had been educated. After teaching ethics in his congregation, and philosophy, he was appointed professor of divinity at Saumur, and introduced in his school the method of treating theological subjects according to the scriptures, the fatheri, and councils. Being invited to Paris in 1654, he began to bold conferences of positive theology in the seminary of St. Magloire, according to the method he had adopted it Saumur, and continued them till 166S, at which time his superiors and several eminent prelates persuaded him to give the fruits of his labours to the public. He complied, and afterwards became so celebrated by his works, that pope Innocent XI. endeavoured to draw him to Koine, with an intention of giving him a cardinal’s hat, and making use of his talents; but the king of France replied that so learned a man was necessary in his dominions. The French clergy gave him a pension of Jooo livres, which the poor always shared with him. He was mild, modest, active, agreeable in his manners, and very assiduous in all his pursuits. He died December 25, 1695, aged seventyseven. His principal works are: 1. A large treatise on “Ecclesiastical Discipline,” reprinted 1725, 3 vols. fol. in French; of which he, made a Latin translation, reprinted also in 1706, 3 vols. fol. This work is highly praised by persons in the catholic community. 2. “Theological Dogmas,” 1680, 3 torn. fol. in Latin. 3. “Tracts on the Divine office, 8 vo; on the Feasts, 8vo; on the Fasts, 8 vo; on Truth and Falsehood, 8vo; on Alms, 8vo on Trade and on Usury, 8vo; 4.” Tr. dogmatique des Moyens dont on s’est servi dans tous les terns pour maintenir Tunite de i'Eglise,“1703, 3 vols. 4to. To these may be added,” Directions for studying and teaching philosophy in a Christian manner,“8vo the same” for the profane historians,“8vo; apian of the same kind for grammar or the languages with relation to the Holy Scriptures, 2 vols. 8vo;” A Universal Hebrew Glossary,“printed at the Louvre, 1697, fol.” Dissertations on the Councils,“in Latin, 1667, 1 vol. 4to;” Memoires sur la Grace," 1682, 4to, &c. His Life, written by father Bordes, is prefixed to his Hebrew Glossary.

The plague beginning at Paris in 1580, he retired to Touraine, and took an opportunity of seeing Normandy and Britany; and on his return to Paris, after the plague Stopped, was sent, with other counsellors in parliament, to administer justice in Guyenne. He came again to Paris in 1582, and had the misfortune not to arrive till the day after his father was buried. To make amends*, however, for not being able to pay his last duties to him, he erected a most noble monument to his memory, and adorned it with eulogiums written by the first wits of the age. la 1584 he was made master of the requests; and at that time, late as it may seem, entered upon a new course of study. He took into hix house Bressieu, the professor royal of mathematics; and under his d-rection applied, this year and the following, to read the Greek Euc-lu) with the notes of Proclus. The anvction which the cardinal de Vendome had conceived for him induced him to spend some time at court; but this affection abating, he withdrew from a place he did not at all like, and devoted -himself entirely to the composing his History, which he had begun two years before. In 1587 he took a wife, having first by the official of Paris been thoroughly absolved from all ecclesiastical engagements; for he had taken the four lesser orders. He lost his mother in 158S; and other troubles of a more public kind exercised him this year. The spirit of the league had seized Paris, and obfigef Henry II. to quit the city. Thuanus followed this prince^ and went by his order into Normandy, to sound the governors and magistrates; to acquaint them with what had happened at Paris; to confirm them m their duty; and to make known his intentions of assembling the states. Uponi his return, he was made a counsellor of state.

Thuanus had no children by his first wife; but three sons by the second, the eldest of whom, Francis Augustus Thuanus, a very excellent man, was beheaded at Lyons in 1642, for not revraling a conspiracy, which had been entrusted to him, against cardinal Richelieu. The cardinal was supposed not to be sorry for the opportunity that offered of revenging, upon the son, what the father had said of his great uncle Antony Duplessis de Richelieu, in the following passage of his history: “Antonius Plessianus Richelius, vulgo dictus Monachus, quod earn vitam prafessus fuisset; dein, voto ejurato, omni se licentiae ac libidinis generc contaminasset.” This unfortunate gentleman was thirty-five years of age.

, otherwise Pellegrino, an eminent artist, was of Milanese extraction, but probably a native of Bo. logna, and from the date of his earliest picture known to us, the Nativity in the palace Borghese at Rome, painted 1549, in his twenty-second year, must have been born in 1527. He entered the school of Bagnacavallo, and endeavoured to improve himself, according to Vasari, by designing from the pictures of that master in the refectory of S. Michele in Bosco; but departed for Rome in 1547, chiefly to study the works of Michael Angelo. There he was patronized by Monsig. afterwards cardinal Poggi, who sent him back to Bologna to complete the fabric of his palace, at present the Academical Institute, decorated by his pictures, and the principal monument of his art in Italy though the Carracci seemed to prefer, as objects of imitation for themselves and their scholars, the painting^ with which he had filled the sides and compartments of that noble chapel constructed by him in S. Giacopo of the Augustine friars.

From Bologna he went to Loretto, and in the church there built and ornamented a‘ chapel with stuccos and paintings; from thence he was called to Ancona to operate in the churches of S. Agostino and Ciriaco, in the last of which he painted a Christ highly relieved and larger than life; the Merchants 7 hall received its stuccos and paintings from his band. He superintended the fortifications of tha place as military architect, about 1560; and two years afterwards came to Pavia, where, by the order of cardinal Borromeo, he constructed the palace of the Sapienza; he then visited Milan, built the temple of S. Fidele, and before 1570 was elected architect of the cathedral. After disencumbering the dome of numerous empty gothic monuments, sepulchral urns, and trophies, and embellishing it in their stead with various elegant chapels and ’a majestic choir; Pellegrino was commissioned by Berardino Martirano, a Spaniard in the confidence of Philip II. to prepare designs and plans for the Escurial. He followed them himself to Spain in 1586, and superintended that enormous fabric as architect and painter, during nine years , when, satiated with glory, riches, and honours, he returned to Milan, where he died at an advanced age, and was buried in a tomb which he had selected for himself and his descendants in the dome. The precise year of his death is disputed, but his demise may safely be placed under the pontificate of Clement VIII. and some think about 1592.

, a learned cardinal, was born in 1532, at Cordova, and appointed professor of philosophy in the university of Salamanca at the early age of fifteen, which is not remarkable if, according to Dominic Soto, who was his master, he was a “monster of genius.” Having afterwards entered the Jesuits’ order, he was sent to Rome, where he taught theology and philosophy with reputation, and philosophised after the genuine manner of the Peripatetic school. Paul V. chose father Tolet for his preacher, and he held the same office under the succeeding pontiffs, with that of theologian in ordinary, besides being entrusted with several important commissions. Pope Gregory XIII. appointed him judge and censor of his own works, and Clement VIIL raised him to the cardinalate in 1594, being the first Jesuit who held that dignity. He is said to have been a lover of justice and equity, and laboured with great zeal and success to reconcile Henry IV. with the court of Rome. He died in that city in 1596, aged sixty-four. Henry IV. out of gratitude, ordered a solemn service to be performed for him at Paris and at Rouen. This learned cardinal left several works, the principal are “Commentaries on St. John,” Lyons, 1614, fol.; “On St. Luke,” Rome, 1600, folio “On St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Rome, 1602, 4to “A Summary of cases of conscience, or instruction for priests,” Paris, 1619, 4to, translated into French, 4to, and a great number of other treatises.

, a learned Italian scholar, was born at Venice, of an Albanian family, in 1456. He studied Greek at Florence, and made such progress, that be became able to explain Aristotle in the original language. For this purpose he was invited to Padua in 1497. He was brought up to the church, and taught the learned languages at Venice, but in 1520 he returned to Padua, where he gave instructions to cardinal Pole. He was much attached to the Platonic philosophy, and passed his time remote from worldly pursuits, and solely intent upon his studies. Bembo, Jovius, and others, speak of him with great esteem, and Erasmus mentions him with honour, as a man equally respectable for the purity of his morals and the profundity of his erudition. He died in 1531, and was buried in the church of St. Francis, at Padua. He translated several of the works of Aristotle, Proclus’s Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato, and other treatises of the ancient philosophers. He wrote ten dialogues on subjects, philosophical and moral, a work “De Varia Historia,” and some Italian poems.

, a learned cardinal, son of Julius Tommasio, or Tomrnasi, duke of Palma, was born at Alicata in Sicily, Sept. 14, 1649. Having from his infancy placed himself under the protection of the holy virgin, he assumed in the greater part of his works the name of Joseph Mariacarus . The same veneration led him to imitate the virtues of his protectress by taking the vow of chastity, and although the eldest son of an illustrious house, he chose to follow the example of an uncle and four sisters, who had renounced the world and all its honours. He entered the society of the Theatins, and became distinguished by his austere piety and mortifications. He did not neglect human learning however, but applied with great diligence to the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldaic languages, as well as to philosophy and ancient literature, but his favourite study was theology, church history, and especially the history of the offices and liturgies, valuable editions and collections of which he published from time to time. Cardinal Albani, who had a great regard for him, when he became pope appointed him first, qualificator of the holy office, then consultor of the congregation of the rites, and lastly cardinal in May 18, 1712; but this last honour he did not long enjoy, dying Jan. 1, 17 13, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.

, a celebrated Dominican, better known by the name of Turrecremata, was born in 1388, of an illustrious family at Valladolid. He attended the council of Constance in 1417, was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1429, held some important offices in his order, and became master of the sacred palace. Pope EugeniusIV. sent him to the council of Basil, where he strenuously supported the court of Rome. He was created cardinal in 1439, did oreat services to his order, and died at Rome, September 26, 14-68, aged eighty. His works are, “Commentaries on Gratian’s Decretal,” Venice, 157S, 5 torn. a treatise “On the Church and the Papal Authority,” Venice, 1562, fol. “Expositio super toto Psalterio,” Rome, 1470, 4to, reprinted in 1472, and at Mentz in 1474 “Medltatione*,” Rome, 1467, often reprinted in the same century, and all now of great rarity. He wrote also various others in Latin, in which, says L'Avocat, he servilely defends the Ultramontane opinions, like a slave to the court of Rome, rather than like an impartial divine, and a bishop. He was unquestionably an excessive bigot, and of a most persecuting spirit. Father Touron has written his life.

, -viscount de Turenne, a celebrated French general, was born in September 1611, at Sedan, and was the second son of Henry de la Tour, duke de Bouillon, descended from one of the most illustrious French families. He very early discovered uncommon talents for the military art, and made his first campaign in Holland under Maurice, and Frederic Henry of Nassau, his uncles on the mother’s side. He went socm after into Lorrain with his regiment in 1634, and having contributed to the taking of la Mothe, was appointed major-general, though at that time very young. In 1636 he took Saverne, and the year following, the castles of Hirson and Sorle, and it was on this occasion, that he acted like Scipio, with respect to a very beautiful woman, whom he sent back to her husband. He was made marechal of France, in 1644, and had the misfortune to be defeated at the battle of Mariendal, 1645; but gained that of Nortlingen, three months after, restored the elector of Treves to his dominions, and the following year effected,. that famous junction of the French with the Swedish army commanded by general Wrangel, which compelled the duke of Bavaria to sue for peace. This duke having broken the treaty he made with France, the viscount de Turenue defeated him at Zumarshausen, and drove him entirely from his dominions in 1643. During the civil wars he joined the princes, and was defeated at the battle of Rhetel, in 1650; but his majesty, being soon reconciled to him, gave him the command of his army in 1652. His conduct was afterwards much admired at the battles of Jergeau, Gien, and the Fauxbourg St. Antoine, and in his retreat before the army of the princes at Villeneuve-Sainte-George. In 1654 he forced the Spaniards to raise the siege of Arras, and in 1655, took Condé, Saint Guillain, and several other places; won the famous battle of the Downs, and took Dunkirk and Oudenarde, with almost all the rest of Flanders; which obliged Spain to conclude the peace of the Pyrenees in 1660. These important services deservedly acquired him the office of marechal-general of the royal camps and armies. A fresh war breaking out with Spain, 1667, Turenne commanded under the king’s orders in Flanders, where he took so many places that the Spaniards were forced to propose peace the following year. In the same year he abjured the Protestant religion, probably from ambitious motives. In 1672 he commanded the French troops during the war against Holland, took forty towns in 22 days, drove the elector of Brandenburg quite to Berlin, won the battles of Sintsheim, Lademburg, Ensheim, MuU hausen and Turkeim, and compelled the Imperial army, consisting of 70,000 men, to re-pass the Rhine. This campaign acquired the viscount de Turenne immortal honour. He crossed the Rhine to attack general Montecuculli, and pursued him to Saspach, near the town of Acheren; but having ascended an eminence to observe the enemy’s camp, he was killed by a cannon-ball, July 27, 1675, at the age of sixty-four. All France lamented the loss of this great man, whose generosity and modesty, joined to his military virtues, and the noblest qualities of the hero, had made him admired throughout Europe. The king ordered a solemn service to be performed for him in the cathedral church at Paris, as for the first prince of the blood, and that his remains should be interred in the abbey of St. Denys, the burying-place of the royal personages of France, where the cardinal, his nephew, raised a superb mausoleum to his memory. He married Anne de Nompar de Caumont, daughter of the duke and marechal de la Force, but had no children by her. His life has been written by the abbe Raguenet, and M. de Ramsay. The viscount de Turenne, one of his ancestors, wrote a valuable treatise on “The Military Art.”

He was so much addicted to books, that it was the late bishop Pearce’s opinion that he studied harder than any man in England. In consequence of this he was liable to absence of mind, as it is called, and frequently ordinary matters and occurrences passed unheeded before him. When at college, according to the imperfect account of him in the Supplement to the “Biographia Britannica,” he was somewhat dissipated, and was led to pursuits not becoming his intended profession. When he applied to Dr, Robinson, bishop of London, for orders, that prelate censured him, with much warmth, for having written a play (“Abramule”); but, after taking on him the sacred profession, he was uniform in a conduct which did credit to it. And his consistency in this respect for a series of years, during the most turbulent times, both in church and state, procured him the greatest honours and respect from persons of the first order and character. The university of Oxford, who confers her honours only by the test of merit, and the rules of propriety, could not express her opinion of his merit more significantly than by presenting him with a doctor of divinity’s degree, by diploma, in full convocation. When he preached his assize sermon at Oxford, 1739, it was observed, that the late rev. Dr. Theophilus Leigh, master of Baliol-college, and then vice-chancellor of Oxford, stood up all the time of his preaching, to manifest his high sense of so respectable a character. Nor was he regarded only by those of his own church and country, for he was much esteemed by foreigners, and even by those of the Romish communion, against whom he stood foremost in controversy, and that with some acrimony. When, in 1742, his son was at Rome, he was asked by one of the cardinals, whether he was related to the great Dr. Trapp, and the cardinal being informed that he was his son, he immediately requested, that on his return to England, he would not fail to make his particular respects to the doctor.