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

, one of the most eminent physicians of the last century, was born Dec, 11, 1712, of respectable though indigent parents in Lanarkshire. Hav^ ing served a short apprenticeship to a surgeon and apothecary in Glasgow, he obtained the place of a surgeon in one of the merchant’s vessels from London to the West Indies. Not liking his employment, he returned to his own county, where he practised a short time in the parish of Shotts, among the farmers and country people, and then removed to Hamilton, intending to practise there as a physician. While he resided near Shotts, Archibald duke of Argyle made a visit to a gentleman in that neighbourhood. His grace was engaged in some chemical researches which required elucidation by experiments, for which he then wanted the proper apparatus. The gentleman, recollecting young Cullen, mentioned him as the person who could most probably supply his wants. He was consequently invited to dinner, and presented to the duke, with whom he commenced an acquaintance, to which he was probably indebted for all his future fortune. The name of Cullen having thus become known, his reputation as a practitioner was soon established in the neighbourhood. The duke of Hamilton likewise happened then to be for a short time in that part of the country, and having been suddenly taken ill, was induced by the character which he had heard of Cullen to send for his assistance, and was not only benefited by his skill, but amply gratified xvith his conversation. He accordingly obtained for him a place in the university of Glasgow, where his talents soon became more conspicuous. It was not, however, solely to the favour of these two great men that Cullen owed his literary fame. He was recommended to the notice of men of science in a way still more honourable to himself. The disease of the duke of Hamilton having resisted the effect of the first applications, Dr. Clarke was sent for from Edinburgh; and he was so much pleased with every thing that Cullen had done, that he became his eulogist upon every occasion. Cullen never forgot this; and when Clarke died, gave a public oration in his praise in the university of Edinburgh; which, it is believed, was the first of the kind in that kingdom.

In the year 1716, Cuilen, who had now taken the degree of doctor in physic, was appointed a lecturer in chemistry in the university of Glasgow; and in the month of October began his lectures in that science. His singular talents for arrangement, his distinctness of enunciation, his vivacity of manner, and his knowledge of the science he taught, rendered his lectures interesting to the students to a degree that had been till then unknown at that university. He became, therefore, in some measure, adored by the students. The former professors were eclipsed by the brilliancy of his reputation: and he had to experience all those little rubs that envy and disappointed ambition naturally threw in his way. Regardless, however, of these, he pressed forward with ardour in his literary career; and, supported by the favour of the public, he consoled himself lor the contumely he met with from a few individuals. His practice as a physician increased from day to day; and a vacancy having occurred in the year 1751, he was then appointed by the king professor of medicine in that university. This new appointment served only to call forth his powers, and to bring to light talents that it was not formerly known he possessed; so that his fame continued to increase.

Some years afterwards, on the death of Dr. White, the magistrates once more appointed Dr. Cullen to give lectures on the theory of physic in his stead. And it was on that occasion Dr. Cullen thought it expedient to resign the chemical chair in favour of Dr. Black, his former pupil, whose talents in that department of science were then well known, and who filled the chair till his death with great satisfaction to the public. Soon after, on the death of Dr. Rutherford, who for many years had given lectures with applause on the practice of physic, Dr. John Gregory having become a candidate for this place along with Dr. Cullen, a sort of compromise took place between them, by which they agreed each to give lectures, alternately, on the theory and on the practice of physic during their joint lives, the longest survivor being allowed to hold either of the classes he should incline. In consequence of this agreement, Dr. Cullen delivered the first course of lectures on the practice of physic, in winter 176G; and Dr. Gregorysucceeded him in that branch the following year. Never, perhaps, did a literary arrangement take place, tli*t could have proved more beneficial to the students than this. Both these men possessed great talents, though of a kind extremely dissimilar. Both of them had certain failings or defects, which the other was aware of, and counteracted. Each of them knew and respected the talents of the other. They co-operated, therefore, in the happiest manner, to enlarge the understanding, and to forward the pursuits of their pupils. Unfortunately this arrangement was soon destroyed, by the unexpected death of Dr. Gregory, who was cut off in the flower of life by a sudden and unforeseen event After this time, Culleu continued to give lectures on the practice of physic till a few months before his death, which happened on the 5th of February, 1790, in the seventy-seventh year of his age.

, a very learned divine, and bishop of Peterborough, the son of an honest citizen of London, who by his industry acquired a competent, though not a great fortune, was born in the parish of St. Anne, near Aldersgate, July 15th, 1632. He was educated at St. Paul’s school, under the care of Mr. John Langley, and was moved from thence to Magdalen-college, in Cambridge, probably in 1649, where he was contemporary with some very worthy and learned persons; such as Dr. Hezekiah Burton, his intimate friend and acquaintance, a very learned and pious divine; Dr. Hollings, an eminent physician at Shrewsbury; sir Samuel Moreland, admired for his skill in the mathematics; the celebrated Mr. Pepys, secretary to the admiralty; and the lord keeper Bridgeman, to whom himself, and his friend Dr. Burton, were chaplains at the same time. He was very remarkable, while fellow of his college, for his diligent application to his studies, as well as for the unaffected piety and unblemished probity of his life. He took his degree of B. A. in 1653, and in 1656 he became M. A. at which time he had thoughts of applying himself to physic, which he actually studied for some time. He was incorporated M. A. in the university of Oxford, July 14th, 1657, and went out B. D. at a public commencement at his own university, A. D. 1663, with universal applause. His first preferment was the rectory of Brampton, in the deanery of Haddon, in the archdeaconry and county of Northampton, which was given him by sir John Norwich, a gentleman who descended of a most ancient and noble family, and was advanced to the dignity of a baronet by king Charles the First. Mr. Cumberland was admitted December 3d, 1658, upon the demise of the reverend Mr. John Ward; and after the restoration, having never had the least scruple to the authority of the church, he had a legal institution, and read the Thirty-nine Articles, as directed by law, November 24th, 1661, and was the same year appointed one of the twelve preachers in the university of Cambridge. This, however, was a temporary avocation only, owing to the high character he had raised by the masterly manner in which he had performed all academical exercises, and from which he quickly returned to the duties of his parochial charge. In this rural retirement he minded little else than the duties of his function, and his studies. His relaxations from these were very few, besides his journies to Cambridge, which he made frequently, to preserve a correspondence with his learned acquaintance in that place. Here he might probably have remained during the course of his whole life, if his intimate friend and kind benefactor, sir Orlando Bridgeman, upon his receiving the seals in 1667, had not sent for him up to London, made him his chaplain, and soon after bestowed upon him the living of Alhallows, in Stamford. He discharged the functions of his ministry in that great town with indefatigable diligence; for, besides the duties incumbent upon him by his parochial charge, he accepted of the weekly lecture, and then preached three times every week in the same church, and at the same time cultivated his philosophical, mathematical, and philological studies. He gave a noble proof of this, and one which equally demonstrated the soundness of his morals and the solidity of his parts, in publishing his work “De Legibus Naturae Disquisitio philosophica,” Lond. 1672, 4to, written while he was chaplain to sir Orlando Bridgeman, to whom it was dedicated, and there is prefixed to it a short preface to the reader, by the author’s friend and fellow chaplain to the lord-keeper, Dr. Hezekiah Burton. Dr. Cumberland being at a distance from the press when this book was published, it came into the world very incorrectly printed, and in subsequent editions these faults were multiplied in a very surprizing manner. We may hence form an idea of the excellency of a work that could, notwithstanding, support its author’s reputation both at home and abroad, and be constantly esteemed one of the best performances that ever appeared, and that too upon one of the nicest and most important subjects. Mr. Payne says very justly, that it was one of the first pieces written in a demonstrative way on a moral subject, and at the same time the most perfect. It is indeed on all hands admitted, that Hobbes was never so closely handled, or his notions so thoroughly sifted, as by Dr. Cumberland. He has, however, taken a new road, very different from Grotius, Puffendorff, and other writers, more difficult, and less entertaining indeed, but at the same time much more convincing. It was desired that a piece of such general utility should be made better known by being put into an easier method, and translated into the English language. This the author would not oppose, though he did not undertake it; being very sensible that the obscurity complained of by some, was really in the subject itself, and would be found so by those who meddled with it. The project, however, was pursued by James Tyrrel, esq. grandson to the famous archbishop Usher, who published his performance under the following title: “A brief Disquisition of the Law of Nature, according to the principles and method laid down in the reverend Dr. Cumberland’s (now lord bishop of Peterburgh’s) Latin treatise on that subject, &c.” London, 1692, 8vo. Mr. Payne had also an intention to have translated it, but was anticipated by the rev. John Maxwell, in a translation published at London, 1727, 4to; and in 1750 appeared a third translation by the rev. John Towers, D. D. prebendary of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, 4to, Dublin, with large explanatory notes, &c. In 1744, Barbeyrac published a French translation.

Having obtained, through the patronage of lord Halifax, a small establishment as crown agent for Nova Scotia, Mr. Cumberland tendered his addresses to Elizabeth, the only daughter of George Ridge, esq. of Kilmiston, Hants, to whom he was married, Feb. 19, 1759. On the king’s accession to the throne, Mr. Cumberland composed and published without his name, a poem in blank verse addressed to the young sovereign; and on the appointment of lord Halifax to be lord lieutenant of Ireland, he accompanied that nobleman as Ulster secretary, and his father was made one of the chaplains. William Gerard Hamilton was at this time chief secretary, but not by the choice of lord Halifax, to whom he was little known, and in the first instance not altogether acceptable, and Cumberland’s situation appears to have been unpleasant. However, towards the close of the session his lordship expressed his satisfaction in Cumberland’s services, and offered him a baronetcy, an honour which after due consideration he declined, though he says he had afterwards reason to think that it contributed to weaken his interest with lord Halifax. Why such an honour should have been offered to a youngman totally unprovided for, we know not. Even when his patron was made secretary of state, he applied, in vain, for the situation of under-secretary, and afterwards obtained only the clerkship of reports in the office of trade and plantations under the earl of Hillsborough.

, born Sept. 30, 1714, was the son of Mr. James Cuming, an eminent merchant in Edinburgh. Alter a suitable education in the high-school of that city, and under the particular tuition of Mr. Alexander Muir, formerly professor of philosophy at Aberdeen, he applied himself to the study of physic four years in the university of Edinburgh, and became connected with some of the most eminent students in that science. In 1735 he spent nine months at Paris, improving himself in anatomy and the French language: and he passed some time at Leyden the following year; but returned immediately before the death of his father. In 1738 he quitted Edinburgh for London: and while his friends were meditating a settlement for him at Lynne in the room of the late sir William Browne, his friend Dr, Fothergill found out a more promising situation at Dorchester; where he remained to the last, notwithstanding the most pressing invitations from Dr. Fothergill to succeed Dr. Russel in London. In the space of a few years after his establishment at Dorchester, he came to be employed in many, and in process of time, with an exception of three or four at most, in all the families of distinction within the county, and frequently in the adjacent ones. At length his chaste manners, his learning, and his probity, as they were more generally known, rendered him not only the physician, but the confidential friend of some of the best families into which he was introduced. His warm and friendly attention to the interests of the late Mr. Hutchins, author of the History of Dorset, in advancing the publication of that well written and well arranged work, cannot better be expressed than in the grateful language of its author: “One of the gentlemen to whom my acknowledgments are eminently due, permitted part of that time which is so beneficially employed to far better purposes, and is so precious to a gentleman of his extensive practice, to be diverted to the work in hand; the publication of which he patronised and promoted with great zeal and assiduity: nor did his success fall short of his zeal. Without his friendly assistance my papers might yet have remained undelivered to the press; or, if they had been committed to the public, would have wanted several advantages and embellishments with which they now appear.” The doctor bequeathed his interleaved copy of this work to Mr.Gough, his friend and coadjutor in its publication. In 1752 he received a diploma from the university of Edinburgh; and was soon after elected a fellow of the royal college of physicians there, of which he died senior fellow. He was elected in 1769 fellow of the society of antiquaries of London; and in 1781 of that of Scotland. The tenderness of his eyes was, through life, the greatest misfortune he had to struggle with; and, considering the many obstacles which the complaints in those organs have occasioned in the pursuit of knowledge, it is wonderful how he attained the degree of erudition which he was well known to possess. In his retreat from the more busy pursuits of this world, the surviving companions of his youth continued the friends and correspondents of his advanced years; and he enjoyed to the last the singular satisfaction of being visited by the most respectable persons in the county for probity, rank, and fortune. We cannot but regret that the doctor, who lias been the means of so many valuable performances being laid before the public, and some of them improved by his pen, had not himself stood forth, to give that information for which he was so well qualified, both in point of classical learning and elegant composition. He died of a dropsy, in the 7 kh year of his age, March 25, 1788.

, an historian, was born in Scotland, in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation, in 1654; his father was minister at Ettrick, in the shire and presbytery of Selkirk. He was educated, according to the custom of the Scotch gentlemen of those times who. were of the presbyterian sect, in Holland, where we may suppose he imbibed his principles of government, and was much with the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague before the revolution, particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland. He came over to England with the prince of Orange; and was honoured with the confidence and intimacy of many leading men among the friends of king William and the revolution. We find him employed, at different times, in the character of a travelling companion or tutor; first to the earl of Hyndford and his brother Mr. William Carmichael, solicitor-general in the reign of queen Anne for Scotland; secondly, with the lord Lome, afterwards so well known under the name of John duke of Argyle; and thirdly, with the lord viscount Lonsdale. In 1703 we find him at Hanover with the celebrated Atldison, and graciously received by the elector and princess Sophia.

His first appearance from the press was on occasion of the lamented death of his intimate friend Dr. Bell, a young physician of great hopes, settled at Manchester. His elegant and interesting tribute to the memory of this person was published in 1785, in the first volume of the Transactions of the Manchester Philosophical and Literary Society, of which they were both members. He was elected a member of the London Medical Society in 1790, and communicated to it a paper “On Tetanus and Convulsive Disorders,” published in the third volume of its memoirs. In 1792 he became a fellow of the Royal Society. A very curious and instructive “Account of the remarkable effects of a shipwreck,” communicated by him to that body, was published in the Philosophical Transactions of that year. Soon after this, having with many other men of political study, viewed the war with France consequent to its great revolutionary struggle with disapprobation, with respect as well to its principles, as to its probable effect on the happiness of both countries, he wrote a pamphlet. This appeared in 1793, under the title of “A Letter Commercial and Political, addressed to the right hon. William Pitt; by Jasper Wilson, esq.;” it soon attained a second edition, and various answers attested the degree of importance attached to it in the public estimation. In the mean time, he was far from being neglectful of the duties of his profession. To those who employed him he was abundantly known as a skilful and sedulous practitioner; and the medical papers he had already published gave him reputation among his brethren. This reputation was widely extended and raised to an eminent degree by a publication which first appeared in October 1797, entitled “Medical Reports on the Effects of Water Cold and Warm, as a Remedy in Febrile Diseases; with observations on the nature of Fever, and on the effects of opium, alcohol, and inanition.” The practice of affusion of cold water in fevers, which is the leading topic in this work, was suggested to the author by Dr. Wright’s narrative, in the London Medical Journal, of his successful treatment of a fever in a homeward-bound ship from Jamaica. Dr. Carrie copied and greatly extended it, and investigated the principles by which its use should be directed and regulated. He discovered that the safety and advantage of the application of cold was proportionate to the existing augmentation of the animal heat; and he found the thermometer a very valuable instrument to direct the practitioner’s judgment in febrile cases. He may therefore be considered as the principal author of a practice which has already been attended with extraordinary success in numerous instances, and bids fair to prove one of the greatest medical improvements in modern times. The work, which contained many ingenious speculations and valuable observations, was generally read and admired. A new volume was added to it in 1804, consisting of much interesting matter on different topics, especially in confirmation of the doctrine and practice of the former volume respecting cold arYusion. The free and successful employment of this remedy in the scarlatina, was one of its most important articles. The author had the satisfaction of receiving numerous acknowledgments of the benefit derived from his instructions, both in private and in naval and military practice. He himself was so much convinced of the utility of the methods he recommended, lhat a revision of the whole work for a new edition, was one of the latest labours of his life.

In 1758 he was invested with the dignity of privy-counsellor; and in 1795 became principal of the faculty of philosophy. He twice held the office of pro-rector of the university, in which he gave universal satisfaction. During a period of thirty-four years, he taught, with indefatigable diligence, all the branches of history, statistics, and geography; explained the Roman antiquities, the imitative arts, natural and experimental philosophy, rural economy, &c. and gave introductory lessons on the formation of a good Latin style. At the same time, he fulfilled all his other college-duties with the most scrupulous fidelity, till the few last weeks of his active life. His health was tolerably good, excepting that he was sometimes attacked with a paralytic affection, and symptoms of the stone. In the spring of 1802, his constitution began to break; and, notwithstanding all the attention of his friend and physician, Michaelis, his health declined rapidly. In the last twelve or fourteen days of his life, his memory was considerably impaired. He had been particularly distinguished by the strength of that faculty; and has frequently been known to write down in his lectures, whole tables, containing dates of years, and other figures, merely from recollection, and without a single error. This alteration, and the anxiety he felt hecause he was prevented from attending his official duties, preyed on his mind, and weakened him more than his disorder. On the 22d of August, 1802, this venerable man expired, aged seventy-eight years and four days.

Cutts, whose known worth no herald needs proclaim,

Cyprian’s behaviour, both before and after his baptism, was so highly pleasing to the bishop of Carthage, that he ordained him priest a few months after, although it was rather irregular to ordain any person in his noviciate: But Cyprian was so extraordinary a person, and thought capable of doing such singular service to the church, that it might seem allowable in his case to dispense a little with the form and discipline of it. Besides his known talents as a man of learning, he had acquired a high reputation of sanctity since his conversion; having not only separated himself from his wife, which in those days was thought an extraordinary act of piety, but also consigned over all his goods to the poor, and given himself up entirely to the things of God; and on this account, when the bishop of Carthage died the year after, that is, in the year 248, none was judged so proper to succeed him as Cyprian. Cyprian himself, as Pontius tells us, was extremely against it, and kept out of the way on purpose to avoid being chosen; but the people insisted upon it, and he was forced to comply. The quiet and repose which the Christians had enjoyed for the last forty years, had, it seems, greatly corrupted their manners; and therefore Cyprian’s first care, after his advancement to the bishopric, was to correct disorders and reform abuses. Luxury was prevalent among them; and many of their women were remarkable indecorous in the article of dress. This occasioned him to draw up his piece, “De habitu virginum, or, concerning the dress of young women;” in which, besides what he says on that particular head, he inculcates many lessons of modesty and sobriety.

In the year 249, the emperor Decius began to issue out very severe edicts against the Christians, which particularly affected those living upon the coasts of Africa; and in the beginning of the year 250, the heathens, in the circus and amphitheatre at Carthage, loudly insisted upon Cyprian’s being thrown to the lions: a common method, as is well known, of destroying the primitive Christians. Cyprian upon this withdrew from his church at Carthage, and fled into retirement, to avoid the fury of the persecution; which step, how justifiable soever in itself, gave great scandal, and seems to have been considered by the clergy of Rome, in a public letter written upon the subject of it to the clergy of Carthage, as a desertion of his post and pastoral duty. It is no wonder, therefore, to find Cyprian himself, as well as his apologist, Pontius, the writer of his life, so solicitous to excuse it; which they both endeavour to do by affirming, in the true spirit of the times, “that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven; and that his flight was not the effect of any other fear but that of offending God.” It is remarkable, that this father was a great pretender to visions. For instance, in a letter to Caecilius, he declares, “that he had received a divine admonition, to mix water with wine in the sacrament of the eucharist, in order to render it effectual.” In another to the clergy, concerning certain priests, who had restored some lapsed Christians too hastily to the communion of the church, he threatens them to execute “what he was ordered to do against them, in a vision, if they did not desist.” He makes the same threat to one Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him, and withdrawn himself from his communion. In a letter likewise to the clergy and the people, he tells them, “how he had been admonished and directed by God to ordain one Numidicus a priest.” Dodwell, in his “Dissertationes Cyprianicae,” has made a large collection of these visions of Cyprian, which he treats with more reverence than they seem to deserve.

, of Jerusalem, was ordained a priest of that church by Maximus bishop of Jerusalem; and after Maximus’s death, which happened about the year 350, became his successor in that see, through the interest of Acacius bishop of Caesarea, and the bishops of his party. This made the orthodoxy of Cyril highly suspected, because Acacius was an Arian; aiul St. Jerome accuses Cyril, as if he was one too: but Theodoret assures us, that he was not. His connexions, however, with Acacius, were presently broken by a violent contest which arose between them about the prerogatives of their respective sees. The council of Nice had decreed to the bishop of Jerusalem the honour of precedency amongst the bishops of his province, without concerning himself at all with the right of the church of Cassarea, which was metropolitan to that of Jerusalem. This made Maximus, and after him Cyril, who were bishops of Jerusalem, to insist upon certain rights about consecrating bishops, and assembling councils, which Acacius considered as an encroachment upon the jurisdictions of his province. Hence a dispute ensued, and Acacius calling a synod, contrived to have Cyril deposed, under the pretence of a very great sin he had committed in the time of a late famine, by exposing to sale the treasures of the church, and applying the money to the support of the poor. This, however, might possibly have been passed over, as an offence at least of a pardonable nature, but for one circumstance that unluckily attended it; which was., that amongst these treasures that were sold there was a rich embroidered robe, which had been presented to the church by Constantine the Great; and this same robe was afterwards seen to have been worn by a common actress upon the stage: which, as soon as it was known, was considered as a horrible profanation of that sacred vestment.

, a learned French physician and indefatigable botanist, was born at Caen in 1513, studied medicine and botany at Montpelier, xvas admitted doctor in medicine in 1547, and died at Lyons, where he had long practised physic, in 1538. He published several elaborate translations, particularly of the fifteen books of Athenseus into Latin, in 1552, in 2 vols. fol. illustrated with notes and figures; and some of the works of Galen and Paul Egineta into French. In 1556 he published a translation of “Ccelius Aurelianus de Morbis acutis” and in 1569, “Chirurgie Franchise, avec plusieurs figures d'instrumens,” 8vo, which has been several times reprinted. He principally followed the practice of Paree, from whose work he borrowed the figures of the instruments; but he has added a translation into French of the seventh book ol' Paree, with annotations, and some curious cases occurring in his own practice. He was also the editor of an edition of Pliny with notes, published in 1537. His first work, according to Ilaller, was an 8vo edition of Iluellius’s Commentary on Dioscorides, which appeared at Lyons in 1552, enriched by Dalechamp with thirty small figures of plants, at that time but little known. But his principal performance in this branch was an universal history of plants, in Latin, with above two thousand five hundred wooden cuts, besides repetitions, published after his death in two folio volumes. The publisher, William Uouille, seems to take upon himself the chief credit of collecting and arranging the materials of this great work, though he allows that Dalechamp laid its first foundations. Haller says the latter was engaged in it for thirty years; his aim being to collect together all the botanical knowledge of his predecessors, and enrich it with his own discoveries. He employed John Bauhin, then a young man, and resident at Lyons, to assist him; but Bauhin being obliged on account of his religion to leave France for Switzerland, like many other good and great men of that and the following century, the work in question was undertaken by Des Moulins, and soon afterwards Dalechamp died. It is often quoted by the title of“Historia Lugdunensis,” and hence the merits of its original projector are overlooked, as well as the faults arising from its mode of compilation, which are in many instances so great as to render it useless. A French translation was published in 1615, and again in 1653. Besides these Dalechamp published, 1. “Caelius Aurelianus de morbis chronicis,” Lond. 1579, 8vo; and 2. An edition of the works of the two Senecas, the orator and the philosopher, with notes and various readings, Geneva, 1628, 2 vols. fol.

, a very learned Lutheran divine of the sixteenth century, of whose personal history little is known, deserves notice as thetranslator of Luther’s German Bible into the Sclavonian, which language being . spoken in Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, the states of those countries came to a determination that this Bible should be printed for their use. They first employed John Manlius, a printer of Laybach, who was the first that printed the Sclavonic in Roman letters: but while Manlius was making his calculations of expence, &c. the archduke Charles of Austria forbad him to print it. This appears to have happened in 1580. The states, however, only changed their determination so far as to have it printed elsewhere, and sent Dalmatin for that purpose to Gratz, where he was to correct the press, after the copy had been carefully revised at Laybach by him, in conjunction with other eminent divines and Oriental scholars. But, finding that no impression of this Bible would be permitted in the Austrian dominions, the states sent, in April 1583, Dalmatin, and another divine, Adam Bohoritsch, to Wittemberg, with a recommendation to the elector of Saxony, and the work being begun in May 1583, was finished Jan. 1, 1584. They had agreed with Samuel Seelfisch, bookseller at Wittemberg, that he should print fifteen hundred copies, each to contain two hundred and eighty sheets of the largest paper, on a fine character, with wooden cuts; for which the states of Carniola were to pay after the rate of twenty florins for every bale of five hundred sheets. The expences of the impression of this Bible amounted to about eight thousand florins: towards which the states of Styria gave a thousand florins, those of Carirrthia nine hundred, and the evangelic states of Carniola six thousand one hundred. These particulars may not be unacceptable to typographical students, as it is but seldom we have access to the history of early printing. Of Dalmatin we are only told that he afterwards was put in possession of the cure of St. Khazaim, or St. Catiani, near Aurspergh, by Christopher, baron of Aurspergh, in 1585, who, when the popish party banished Dalmatin in 1598, kept him concealed in his house; and a vault under the stable before the castle used long to be shewn as the hole of the preacher."

, an eminent Scotch lawyer and antiquary, and brother to the preceding, was born in Edinburgh on the 28th of October 1726, and was educated at Eton school, where he was distinguished no less for his acquisitions in literature-than for the regularity of his manners. From Eton he was removed, to complete his studies at Utrecht, where he remained till 1746. In 1748 he was called to the Scotch bar, where, notwithstanding the elegant propriety of the cases which he drew, his success did not answer the expectations which had been formed of him. This was not owing either to wajjt of science or to want of industry, but to certain peculiarities, which, if not inherent in his nature, were the result of early and deep-rooted habits. He possessed on all occasions a sovereign contempt, not only for verbal antithesis, but for well-rounded periods, and every thing which had the semblance of declamation; and indeed he was wholly unfitted, by an ill-toned voice, and ungraceful elocution, for shining as an orator. It is not surprizing, therefore, that his pleadings, which were never addressed to the passions, did not rival those of some of his opponents, who, possessed of great rhetorical powers, did not, like him, employ strokes of irony too fine to be perceived by the bulk of any audience, but expressed themselves in full, clear, and harmonious periods. Even his memorials, though classically written, and often replete with valuable matter, did not on every occasion please the court; for they were always brief, and sometimes, it was said, indicated more attention to the minutiye of forms than to the merits of the cause. Yet on points which touched his own feelings, or the interests of truth and virtue, his language was animated, his arguments forcible, and his scrupulous regard to form thrown aside. He was on all occasions incapable of misleading the judge by a false statement of facts, or his clients, by holding out to them fallacious grounds of hope. The character indeed which he had obtained for knowledge and integrity in the Scotch law, soon raised him to an eminence in his profession. Accordingly, in March 1766, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of session with the wannest approbation of his countrymen; and in May 1776 he succeeded to the place of a lord commissioner of the justiciary on the resignation of lord Coalston, his wife’s father. Upon taking his seat on the bench he assumed the title of lord Hailes, in compliance with the usage established in the court of session: this is the name by which he is generally known among the learned of Europe.

, the seventh baron and first viscount Stair, was born in 1609, studied at the college of Glasgow, and passed all the regular degrees of learning in that university. On the commencement of the rebellion in the reign of Charles I. he accepted a captain’s commission from the parliament, in the earl of Glencain.'s regiment, but was soon called off to a more suitable province, that of filling a philosophy chair in the university of Glasgow. Having applied himself particularly to the study of the laws, he entered as an advocate in 1648, and became eminent for his judgment and skill, if not for his integrity. When the estates of the nation sent commissioners to Breda to invite Charles II. to Scotland, he was appointed secretary to the embassy, and acquitted himself entirely to his majesty’s satisfaction. He then resumed his practice at the bar, but could not be prevailed upon to take any oaths to the government during the usurpation. When Charles II. was restored to the throne, he conferred on Mr. Dalryrnple the honour of knighthood, appointed him a senator of the college of justice, and in 1671, lord president of the session, in which office his conduct was very unpopular; and in 1682, being dismissed from all his offices, he retired to Holland, where he became such a favourite with William prince of Orange, that when advanced to the throne of these kingdoms, his majesty restored him to his place of lord president, and raised him to the dignity of viscount Stair, lord Glenluce and Stranrawer. His lordship continued to enjoy his high legal office, and the favour of his prince, till his death, Nov. 25, 1695 4 His character as a politician has not been favourably drawn by some historians, particularly Mr. Laing, in. his lately -published “History of Scotland.” His personal character seems liable to less objection, and of his learning no doubt can be justly entertained. He wrote: 1. “The Institutions of the Law of Scotland,” second edit. fol. 1693. 2. “Decisions of the Court of Session from 1661 to 1681,'” 2 vols. fol. 3. “Philosophia nova experimentalis,” published in Holland during his exile, and much commended by Bayle in his Journal. 4. “A Vindication of the Divine Perfections, &c. by a Person of Honour,” 1695, 8vo. 5. “An Apology for his own Conduct,” 4to, the only copy of which extant is said to be in the advocates’ library at Edinburgh. Had lord Orford read much of his history, he needed not have added that “it is not known on what occasion-he published it.”

, an English lawyer, was born somewhere in the county of Cambridge, in 1554, and bred to his profession in Lincoln’s-inn, or Gray’s-inn, and was formerly as well known for his book on the office of justice of the peace, as Burn is at present: his “Duty of Sheriffs” was also a book in good esteem. In Neal’s “History of the Puritans,” mention is made of Mr. Dalton the queen’s counsel, who, in 1590, pleaded against Mr. Udal, who was condemned for writing a libel called “A demonstration of Discipline:” this was probably our Dalton, who also in 1592 supported the episcopal power in parliament, of which he was a member, when attacked by the puritan party. There is a ms. of his in the British Museum, entitled “A Breviary or Chronology of the state of the lioinan or Western church or Empire; the decay of true religion, and the rising of papacy, from the time of our Saviour till Martin Luther.” In this he is styled Michael Dalton of Gray’s-inn, esq. It is supposed that he died before the commencement of the civil war.

, an Irishman by birth, was born in the county of Kerry in 1595, and became a Dominican, adopting the name of Dominicus a Rosario. He was at first educated in a convent of his order at Tralee, but studied principally in Flanders. The fame which he acquired for learning and piety procured him an invitation to Lisbpn, to assist in founding a convent for the Irish Dominicans, which had been projected by Philip IV. then master of Portugal. This being accomplished, he was elected the first superior. He also assisted at the foundation of a second, for the natives of Ireland, and so entirely gained the good opinion and confidence of the duke of Braganza when he ascended the throne, that in 1655, his majesty honoured him with the appointment of ambassador to Louis XIV. of France, to negociate a treaty of alliance and affinity between the two courts. At Paris he was equally valued in the character of churchman and statesman, and became highly popular by his works of piety and charity. He died at Lisbon June 30, 1662, and was interred in the chapel of his convent, with a monument and inscription; from which we learn that at the time of his death he was bishop elect of Coimbra. He had before refused the archbishopric of Goa. Among his ecclesiastical dignities, he was censor of the inquisition, visitor-general and vicargeneral of the kingdom. One book only of his is known, which is probably a very curious one, “Initium, incrementum, et exitus fainiliae Giraldinorum Desmoniae comitum. Palatinorum Kyerria in Hibernia, ac persecutionis hsereticorum descriptio, ex nonnullis fragmentis collecta'ac latinitate donata,” Lisbon, 1655, 8vo.

, or John of Damascus, a learned priest and monk of the 'eighth century, surnamed Mansur, was born at Damascus about G76. His father, who was rich, and held several considerable offices, had him instructed in the sciences by an Italian monk, named Cosmo, and he was afterwards raised to the highest posts, and became chief counsellor to the prince of the Saracens All these dignities, however, St. John Damascenus resigned, and entered himself a monk in the monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem, where he led a pious and exemplary life, and became famous in the church by his piety and writings. It is said, that the caliph Hiocham, having ordered his right hand to be cut off on account of a forged letter by the emperor Leo, the hand was restored to him the night following by a miracle, as he slept; which miracle was universally known, or as much so as many other miracles propagated in the credulous ages. He died about the year 760, aged eighty-four. He left an excellent treatise on the orthodox faith, and several other works published in Greek and Latin, by le Quien, 1712, 2 vols. fol. A book entitled “Liber Barlaam et Josaphat Indite regis,” is ascribed to St. John Damascenus, but without any foundation; it has no date of time or place, but was printed about 1470, and is scarce. There are several French translations of it, old, and little valued. Damascenus may be reckoned the most learned man of the eighth century, if we except our countryman Bede; and, what is less to his credit, ono of the first who mingled the Aristotelian philosophy with the Christian religion. He became among the Greeks what Thomas Aquinas was afterwards among the Latins. Except with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, most of his notions were erroneous, and his learning and fame gave considerable support to the worshipping of images, and other superstitions of that time.

Fuller’s account, who lived near enough to the time of his death to have known something of his character, is worth transcribing:

D'Antine (Francis), a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at Gouvieux in the diocese of Liege, in 1688, and made himself highly respected among his brethren by his piety and charitable attention to the poor and afflicted. To the learned world he is known as the editor of the first five volumes of the new edition of Du Gauge’s Glossary, in 1736, which he very much improved and enlarged. He was also one of the editors of the great collection of French historians begun by Bouquet, and of the “Art de verifier les dates,” of which a new edition was published by Clement in 1770, folio. D'Amine translated the Psalms from the Hebrew, Paris, 1739 and 1740. He died in 1746.

He founded also an alms-house, and a free-school, at Malmesbury in Wiltshire. In his latter days he chose a retired life and (upon what account is not well known) fell under the displeasure of the court. At length, he died at his house in Cornbury Park in Oxfordshire, Jan. 20, 1643-4, in the seventy-first year of his age: and was buried in the chancel of the parish-church of Dantesey, under a noble monument of white marble, with an epitaph which contains a high character of him. He was never married.

In 1753, the author published the first volume of“Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life,” 4to. The second volume, which completed the author’s plan, was printed in 1796. As the eccentric genius of the author was known, great expectations were formed of this work, the labour, we were told, of more than twenty years. It was to reform, or entirely new model, the whole system of medicine, professing no less than to account for the manner in which man, animals, and vegetables are formed. They all, it seems, take their origin from living filaments, susceptible of irritation, which is the agent that sets them in motion. Archimedes was wont to say, “give me a place to stand on, and I will move the earth:” such was his confidence in his know edge of the power of the lever. Our author said, “give me a fibre susceptible of irritation, and I will make a tree, a dog, a horse, a man.” “I conceive,” he says, Zoonomia, vol. I. p. 492, “the primordium, or rudiment of the embryon, as secreted from the blood of the parent, to consist in a single living filament, as a muscular fibre, which I suppose to be the extremity of a nerve of loco-motion, as a fibre of the retina is the extremity of a nerve of sensation; as, for instance, one of the fibrils which compose the mouth of an absorbent vessel; I suppose this living filament, of whatever form it may be, whether sphere, cube, or cylinder, to be endued with the capacity of being exciied into action by certain kinds of stimulus. By the stimulus of the surrounding fluid in which it is received from the mah-, it may bend into a ring, and thus form the lieg'nninj of a tube. This living ring may now embrace, or absorb a nutritive particle of the fluid in which it swims, and by drawing it into its pores, or joining it by compression to its extremities, may increase its own length or crassitude, and, by degrees, the living-ring may become a living tube. With this new organization, or accretion of parts, new kinds of irritability may commence,” &c.; whence, sensibility, which may be only an extension of irritability, and sensibility further extended, beget perception, memory, reason, and, in short, all those faculties which have been, it seems, erroneously attributed to mind, for which, it appears, there is not the smallest necessity; ajid as the Deity does nothing in vain, of course such a being does not exist. It would be useless to enter into a further examination of theZoonomia, which has long ceased to be popular; those who wish to see a complete refutation of the sophisms contained in it will read with satisfaction, “Observations on the Zoonomia of Dr. Darwin, by Thomas Brown, esq.” published at Edinburgh in 8vo, in 1798. In ISOi, the author published “Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening;” but the public, tired with the reveries of the writer, let this large book of 600 pages in 4to pass almost unnoticed. As little attention was paid to a small tract on Female Education, which had little indeed to attract notice. “It is,” Miss Seward observes, “a meagre work, of little general interest, those rules excepted, which are laid down for the preservation of health.” It is, however, harmless, a character that can by no means be accorded to the Zoonomia, as may he gathered from the strictures which the author of his life in the Cyclopædia has justly passed on that work, and to which nothing could have given even a temporary popularity but the activity of a small sect to whom the author’s political and religious, or rather irreligious principles, were endeared. His son, Charles Darwin, who died at Edinburgh the 15th of May, 1778, while prosecuting his studies in medicine, deserves to be noticed for having discovered a. test distinguishing pus from mucus, for which a gold medal was adjudged him by the university. “As the result of numerous experiments,” he says, “when any one wishes to examine the matter expectorated by his patient, let him dissolve a portion of it in vitriolic acid, and another portion of it in caustic alkaline lixivium, and then add pure water to both solutions; if there is a precipitation in each solution, it is clear the expectorated matter is pus; if there is no precipitation, the matter is simply mucus.” Mr. Darwin left an unfinished essay on the retrograde motion of the absorbent vessels of animal bodies in some diseases. This was, some time after the death of the young man, published by his father, together with the dissertation for which he had obtained the prize medal.

This play had success enough to procure him the recommendation, if nothing more substantial, of many persons of distinction, and of the wits of the times; and with such encouragement he renewed his attendance at court, adding to its pleasures by his dramatic efforts, and not sparingly to the mirth of his brethren the satirists, by the unfortunate issue of some of his licentious gallantries. For several years his plays and masks were acted with the greatest applause, and his character as a poet was raised very high by all who pretended to be judges. On the death of Ben Jonson, in 1638, the queen procured for him. the vacant laurel, which is said to have given such offence to Thomas May, his rival, as to induce him to join the disaffected party, and to become the advocate and historian of the republican parliament. In 1639, Davenaut was appointed “Governor of the king and queen’s company acting at the Cockpit in Drurv-lane, during the lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson, hath or doth hold in the said house.” When the civil commotions had for some time subsisted, the peculiar nature of them required that public; amusements should be the decided objects of popular resentment, and Davenant, who had administered so copiously to the pleasures of the court, was very soon brought under suspicions of a more serious kind. In May 16M, he was accused before the parliament, of being a partner with many of the king’s friends, in the design of bringing the army to London for his majesty’s protection. His accomplices effected their escape, but Davenant was apprehended at Feversham, and sent up to London. In July following he was bailed, but on a second attempt to withdraw to France, was taken in Kent. At last, however, he contrived to make his escape without farther impediment, and remained abroad for some time. The motive of his flight appears not to have been cowardice, but an unwillingness to sacrifice his life to popular fury, while there was any prospect of his being able to devote it to the service of his royal master. Accordingly, when the queen sent over a considerable quantity of military stores for the use of the earl of Newcastle’s army, Davenant resolutely ventured to return to England, and volunteered his services under that nobleman, who had been one of his patrons. The earl ma.le him lieutenant-general of his ordnance, a post for which, if he was not previously prepared, he qualified himself with so much skill and success, that in September 1643, he was rewarded with the honour of knighthood for the service he rendered to the royal cause at the siege of Gloucester. Of his military prowess, however, we have no farther account, nor at what time he found it necessary, on the decline of the king’s affairs, to retire again into France. Here he was received into the confidence of the queen, who in 1646 employed him in one of her importunate and ill-advised negociations with the king, who was then at Newcastle. About the same time Davenant had embraced the popish religion, a step which probably recommended him to the queen, but which, when known, could only tend to increase the animosity of the republicans against the court, which was already too closely suspected of an attachment to that persuasion. The object of his negociation was to persuade the king to save his crown by sacrificing the church; a proposition which his majesty rejected with becoming dignity; and this, as lord Clarendon observes, “evinced an honest and conscientious principle in his majesty’s mind, which elevated him above all his advisers.” The queen’s advisers in the measure were, his majesty knew, men of no religious principle, and he seems to have resented their sending an ambassador of no more consequence than the manager of a play-house.

, D. D. an eminent writer and antiquary, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century in Denbighshire, and educated by William Morgan, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph. He was admitted a student of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1589, where he took one degree in arts, and afterwards became a member of Lincoln-college in the same university. He was rector ol Malloyd, or Maynlloyd in Merionethshire, and afterwards a canon of St. Asaph, to which dignity he was promoted by Dr. Parry, then bishop, whose chaplain he was. He commenced doctor in 1616, and was highly esteemed by the university, says Wood, as well versed in the history and antiquities of his own nation, and in the Greek and Hebrew languages; a most exact critic, and indefatigable searcher into ancient writings, and well acquainted with curious and rare authors. The time of his death is not known. His works are, 1. “Antiques Linguae Britannicse nunc communiter dictae Cambro-Britannicoe, a suis Cymrascae vel Cambricee, ab aliis Wallicoe rudimenta,” &c. 1621, 8vo. 2. “Dietionarium Latino-Britannicum,” 1631, folio. With this is printed, “Dictionarium Latino-Britannicum,” which was begun and greatly advanced by Thomas Williams, physician, before 1600. It was afterwards completed and published by Dr. Davies. 3. “Aclagia Britannica, authorum Britannicorum nomina, & quando floruerunt,” 1632, printed at the end of the dictionary before mentioned. 4. “Adagiorum Britannicorum specimen,” ms. Bibl. Bodl. He also assisted W. Morgan, bishop of Landaff, and Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, in translating the Bible into Welsh, in that correct edition which came out in 1620. He also translated into the same language (which he had studied at vacant hours for 30 years) the book of “Resolution,” written by Robert Parsons, a Jesuit.

It is probable that these complimentary trifles made him known to the courtiers, for when the queen was to be entertained by Mr. Secretary Cecil, our poet, by desire, contributed his share in “A Conference between a gentleman usher and a post,” a dramatic entertainment, which does not add much to his reputation. A copy exists in the British Museum, Harl. ms. No. 286. His progress from being the terrae filius of a court to a seat in parliament is not known, but we find that he was chosen a member in the last parliament of Elizabeth, which met on the 27th of October 1601. He appears to have commenced his political career with spirit and intelligence, by opposing monopolies, which were at that time too frequently granted, and strenuously supporting the privileges of the house, for which the queen had not the greatest respect.

, a Welsh clergyman, was born in Tre'r-Abbot, in Whiteford parish, Flintshire. Of his personal history little is known, except that he was a good scholar, very conversant in the literary history of his country, and very unfortunate in attempting to turn his knowlege to advantage. He was a vehement foe to Popery, Arianism, and Socinianism, and of the most fervent loyalty. to George I. and the Hanoverian succession. Owing to some disgust, he quitted his native place, and probably his profession when he came to London, as he subscribes himself “counsellor-at-law;” and in one of his volumes has a long digression on law and law-writers. Here he commenced author in the humblest form, not content with dedicating to the great, but hawking his books in person from door to door, where he was often repulsed with rudeness, and seldom appears to have been treated with kindness or liberality. How long he carried on this unprosperous business, or when he died, we have not been able to discover. Mr. D'Israeli, who has taken much pains to rescue his name from oblivion, suspects that his mind became disordered from poverty and disappointment. He appears to have courted the Muses, who certainly were not very favourable to his addresses. The most curious of his works consist of some volumes under the general title of “Athenæ Britannicæ,” 8vo, 1715, &c. a kind of bibliographical, biographical, and critical work, “the greatest part (says Baker, the antiquary) borrowed from modern historians, but containing some things more uncommon, and not easily to be met with.” The first of these volumes, printed in 1715, is entitled Ειχων Μιχρο-βιβλιχε, sive Icon Libellorum, or a Critical History of Pamphlets.“In this he styles himself” a gentleman of the inns of, court.“The others are entitled” Athenæ Britannicæ, or a Critical History of the Oxford and Cambridge Writers and Writings, &c. by M. D.“London, 1716, 8vo. They are all of so great rarity, that Dr. Farmer never saw but one volume, the first, nor Baker but three, which were sent to him as a great curiosity by the earl of Oxford, and are now deposited in St. John’s college, Cambridge. In the British Museum there are seven. From the” Icon Libellorum," the only volume we have had an opportunity of perusing attentively, the author appears to have been well acquainted with English authors, their works and editions, and to have occasionally looked into the works of foreign bibliographers.

, an American clergyman of dissenting principles, and known by three volumes of sermons, in 8vo, edited by Dr. Gibbons, of London, was born November 3, 1721, in the county of Newcastle in Delaware, in America, and was early designed by his parents for the ministry, in which he became very popular. In 1759 he succeeded Mr. Jonathan Edwards as president of his college of New Jersey, which he held to his death, Feb. 4, 1761. He was succeeded in his post by the rev. Dr. S. Finley, who died on the 17th of July 1766, being the fourth president that filled that chair in the short space of less than nine years. In the sermons above mentioned Mr. Davies deserves little praise for style, and his editor not much for judgment of selection.

"Let me here, at the end of the apology, remark finally concerning Davison, that, though he was not an honest man, yet he was so nearly one, as to be a very prodigy for the ministry of Elizabeth. He refused, it appears, to sign that very bond of association which was signed by all the nation, and which even the despairing Mary offered, on her liberty being granted, to sign herself. Yet he refused, though Leicester pushed on the association, and though Elizabeth urged him to sign it. Among the pleas which he advances for himself in his other apology, he particularly states * his former absolute refusal to sign the band of association, being earnestly pressed thereunto by her majesty’s self,‘ (Robertson, II. 483). This indeed is a very strong evidence of a manly virtuousness in him. But he did other things in the same spirit of virtue. He declined to act as a commissioner on the examination of Babington and his accomplices for their conspiracy in favour of Mary, and took a journey to Bath, in order to save himself from acting, (Robertson, II. 483). He was a means, too, of preventing the commissioners who were sent to try Mary at Fotheringay castle, from pronouncing sentence upon her immediately after the trial, and of obliging them to return first to London, and report their proceedings to Elizabeth, (Robertson, II. 483). We have already seen that he kept the warrant for the execution of Mary five or six weeks in his hands, without offering to present it to Elizabeth for her signing. We have equally seen that he actually neglected to obey a personal command of Elizabeth’s for bringing the warrant to her, and that he thus neglected for ’ many days,‘ even till the queen fired at his conduct, and sent him a peremptory order to bring it. Even then, and even when Paulet’s answer had been received, and all delay was now at an end for ever, he would not be concerned in sending away the warrant himself, but returned it into the hands from which he had received it, and left Cecil and the council to send it. And, as in all the time ’ before her trial, he neither is nor can be charged, to have had any hand at all in the cause of the said queen, or done any thing whatsoever concerning the same, directly or indirectly,‘ so, * after the return thence of the commissioners, it is well known to all her council, that he never was at any deliberation or meeting whatsoever, in parliament or council, concerning the cause of the said queen, till the sending down of her majesty’s warrant unto the commissioners by the lords and others of her council,’ (Robertson, II. 481).

Availing himself of the patronage of Buffon, and of his influence with the government, Daubenton soon formed and executed a very extensive plan: he conceived that all the productions of nature should find a place in the temple he had consecrated to her; he was fully aware that those objects which are regarded as the most important, could only be thoroughly known by a comparison of them with others; and that there existed no one that had not a greater or less affinity with the rest of nature. Impressed with this view of the subject, he made the most unremitting efforts to render his collection complete; whilst at the same time he bestowed the greatest attention on the formation of those anatomical preparations which for a long time distinguished the cabinet of Paris, and which, however disagreeable they may be to the common eye, are not the less useful to those who wish to penetrate beyond the move surface of organized beings, and who endeavour to render natural history a philosophical science, by illustrating the phenomena it exhibits.

It gives us a very unfavourable idea of Buffon that after this he should himself commence the enemy of Daubenton. He was, however, weak enough to listen to some parasites, who persuaded him that it would redound greatly to his honour to dismiss his associate; and, accordingly, Buffon actually published a new edition of his Natural History, in 13 volumes, 12mo, in which are omitted not only the anatomy, but even the external characters, of the animals which Daubenton had furnished for the large edition; and as nothing was substituted in their stead, the work exhibits no idea of the form, colour, or distinctive attributes of the animals; so that this small edition cannot supply any data whereby to ascertain the animals to which the author alludes, especially as they are not to be found either in Pliny, or Aristotle, who likewise, as is well known, neglected the descriptive details.

Buffon moreover determined not to avail himself of his aid in the works he had projected on ornithology and mineralogy. Independently of this insult, Daubenton susr tained a loss of 12,000 francs yearly. He might indeed have complained, but it would necessarily have embroiled him with the intendant of the king’s garden, and forced him to resign the superintendance of the cabinet he had formed, and to which he was as much attached as to life; overlooking, therefore, this injurious treatment, he continued to pursue his former occupations. The regret which all naturalists testified when the first part of his Ornithology made its apptarance without being accompanied by those accurate descriptions and anatomical details which they estimated so highly, served, however, to console him. He would still have felt more chagrin if his attachment for the great man who neglected him had not yielded to his self-love when he beheld the first volumes, to which Gueiieau de Montbeliard did not contribute, filled with inaccuracies, and destitute of all those particulars which it was impossible for Butfbn to supply. All this was still more manifest in the supplements the productions of Buffon in his old age; and in which he carried his injustice so far as to employ a common draughtsman, for the part which Daubenton had so well executed in the former volumes. Hence many naturalists have endeavoured to supply this void; and, among others, the celebrated Pallas took Daubenton for a model in his Miscellanies and Zoological Gleanings, as well as in his History of Rodentia; works which must be considered as real supplements to Buffon; and, next to his large work, the best on quadrupeds. It is well known how successfully La Cepede, the illustrious continuator of Buffon, and who was also the friend and colleague of Daubenton, whose loss he equally bewails with ourselves, has united in his works on ichthyology and reptiles a rich and brilliant style with the most scrupulous accuracy of description; and how well he has supplied the province of his two predecessors. Daubenton so far forgot the injurious treatment he had received from Buffon, that he afterwards contributed to several parts of the natural history, although his name does not appear; and there exist proofs that when Buffbn composed his History of Miner-Is, he derived much assistance from the manuscript of his lecturts delivered in the French college. Their intimacy, notwithstanding the interruption from the circumstance before mentioned, was even fully re-established, and continued to be maintained to the death of Buffon. It was not in the power of Daubenton to furnish many Ihemoirs to the academy of sciences during the eighteen years in which the fifteen volumes in quarto of the “History of Quadrupeds” successively appeared; but he afterwards fully compensated for this, by supplying not only the academy, but aisothe medical and agricultural societies, and the national institute, with a. great number of papers, all of which contain, as well as the works he published separately, many interesting facts and original observations. His experiments on agriculture and rural oeconomy were, however, of more service to him afterwards than all the rest of his labours, on account of the reputation among the populace which they had procured him. In 1784 he published “Instructions for Shepherds and Proprietors of Flocks,” and was the means of introducing an improved breed of sheep into France. His experiments on this subject were begun about 1766, and the object of his constant pursuits, in which he was encouraged by successive administrations, and in which he eminently succeeded, was to demonstrate the bad effects of confining sheep in stables during the night, and the utility of allowing them to range at large; to attempt different means of improving their breed; to point out how to determine the different qualities of the wool; to d.scover the mechanism of rumination, and thence to deduce some useful conclusions respecting the temperament of wool -bearing animals, as well as with regard to the mode of rearing and feeding them; to disseminate the produce of his sheep-fold throughout every province; to distribute his rams to all the proprietors of flocks; to manufacture woollen-cloth from his own raw material, with the view of convincing the most prejudiced of its superiority; to form intelligent shepherds in order that they might propagate his method, and to render his instructions intelligible to all classes of agriculturists.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at St. Omer’s in 1566, and became canon, of Tournay, where he died Jan. 17, 1644. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and a good critic, but wrote in an affected and obscure style. Some of his works are still valued, although their rarity prevents their being generally known. Among these are, 1. “Antiqui novique Latii Orthographies,” Tournay, 1632, fol. Of this there is a pretended Paris edition of 1677, which is precisely the same, with a new title-page and date. 2. “Terra et aqua, seu terrae fiuctuantes,” Tournay, 1633, 4to; of this there are also copies of Paris, 1677, with only a new title. The small floating isles near St. Omer’s furnished the idea of this work, in which there are many curious observations on marine productions. He also translated into Latin, the “Orations of St. Basil of Seleucia,” with notes, 1604, 8vo; and published an edition of Quintus Calaber, 1614, 8vo, and some other works, theological and critical, which are enumerated in our authorities.

, another son of the celebrated printer, and himself a printer, was educated at Eton school, and in 1571 elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M. A. and became fellow, and being ordained, supplied the place of minister at Ryegate in Surrey, in the room of the martyrologist, Fox. He afterwards appears to have turned his thoughts to his father’s trade, as he was called on the livery of the stationers’ company in 1578. He carried on business in his father’s house in Aldersgate-street, and had an exclusive privilege jointly with him during their lives, and that of the longest liver, to print the Psalms of David in metre. The books he printed himself are dated from 1578 to 1581, after which his copies were printed by his assigns as far as 1597. When he died is not known. He wrote some verses, “Contra papistos incendiaries,” in Fox’s Martyrology, 1576, which Herbert informs us are omitted in the subsequent editions. He translated Fox’s “De Christo triumphante comoedia,” to which he wrote a preface, and two dedications; one in the edition of 1579, to Mr. William Kyllegrewe; the other in the edition of 1607, to William lord Howard, of Effingham. He wrote also a preface and conclusion to the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and a short Latin preface to P. Baro’s treatises “De fide, &c.” It was in this work that he first introduced a typographical reform in the distinct use of the letters j and i, v and u, which, however, did not generally take place until the following century.

, brother to the bishop of Ossory, was born at Saltonstall, in Yorkshire, in 1572. At the age of nineteen he was entered of Merton college in Oxford, and having continued there, and at St. Alban’s hall, until he was admitted doctor in medicine, he went and settled at York. In 1626, he published, at London, “Spadacrene Anglica, or the English Spaw Fountain,” being a brief treatise of the acid or tart fountain in the forest of Knaresborough, in Yorkshire. In a later edition, there are accounts of other mineral waters found in the forest. “Admiranda Chymica, Tractatulus, cum Figuris,” Frankfort, 1630, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted. Sam. Norton, Wood says, was esteemed half author of this book, there being in it some of his tracts; as “Catholicon physicorum,” “Mercurius redivivus,” &c. Deane is supposed to have died about the time the civil wars broke out, but in what year is not known.

, a name of great celebrity in the literary history of the fifteenth century, was born at Pavia in 1399. In his youth he was appointed secretary to Philip-Maria Visconti, and after the death of his master, while struggling for the liberties of the Milanese, Decembrio defended the same cause with ardour, while there was any prospect of success; and when all failed, he quitted Milan for Rome, where pope Nicholas V. made him apostolical secretary. He returned to Milan about twenty years afterwards, and died there in 1477. According to the inscription on his monument, he composed one hundred and twenty-seven works, but few of these appear to be known. The two principal are the lives of Philip-Maria Visconti, and Francis Sforza, both dukes of Milan. Muratori has inserted them in his Script. Rer. Ital. vol. XX. In the first he has imitated the style and manner of Suetonius with considerable success. The second is in hexameter verse, but his facts are more interesting than his poetry. His other printed works are treatises on different subjects; Latin and Italian poems, several translations, particularly of Appian and Quintus Curtius into Italian, &c. It is much to be regretted that his Letters, which are in several of the Italian libraries, have not been published, as they might throw great light on the literary and political history of his age.

Disturbed with these reports, he left England again in 1548, and went to the university of Louvain; where he distinguished himself so much, that he was visited by the duke of Mantua, by don Lewis de la Cerda, afterwards duke of Medina, and other persons of great rank. While he remained there, sir William Pickering, who was afterwards a great favourite with queen Elizabeth, was his pupil; and in this university it is probable, although not certain, that he had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him. July 1550 he went from thence to Paris, where, in the college of Uheims, he read lectures upon Euclid’s Elements with uncommon applause; and very great offers were made him, if he would accept of a professorship in that university. In 1551 he returned to England, was well received by sir John Cheke, introduced to secretary Cecil, and even to king Edward himself, from whom he received a pension of 100 crowns a year, which was in 1553 exchanged for a grant of the rectories of Upton upon Severn, and Long Lednam in Lincolnshire. In the reign of queen Mary, he was for some time very kindly treated; but afterwards came into great trouble, and even danger of his life. At the very entrance of it, Dee entered into a correspondence with several of the lady Elizabeth’s principal servants, while she was at Woodstock and at Milton; which being observed, and the nature of it not known, two informers charged him with practising against the queen’s life by inchantments. Upon this he was seized and confined; but being, after several trials, discharged of treason, he was turned over to bishop Bonner, to see if any heresy could be found in him. After a tedious persecution, August 19, 1555, he was, by an order of council, set at liberty; and thought his credit so little hurt by what had happened, that Jan. 15, 1556, he presented “A supplication to queen Mary, for the recovery and preservation of ancient writers and monuments.” The design was certainly good, and would have been attended with good consequences, if it had taken effect; its failure cannot be too deeply regretted, as there was then an opportunity of recovering many of the contents of the monastic libraries dispersed in Edward’s time. Dee also appears to have had both the zeal and knowledge for this undertaking. The original of his supplication, which has often been printed, is still extant in the Cotton library; and we learn from it, that Cicero’s famous work, “De Republica,” was once extant in this kingdom, and perished at Canterbury.

We come now to that period of his life, by which he has been most known, though for reasons which have justly rendered him least regarded. He was certainly a man of uncommon parts, learning, and application; and might have distinguished himself in the scientific world if he had been possessed of solid judgment; but he was very credulous, superstitious, extremely vain, and, we suspect, a little roguish; but we are told that it was his ambition to surpass all men in knowledge, which carried him at length to a desire of knowing beyond the bounds of human faculties. In short, he suffered himself to be deluded into an opinion, that by certain invocations an intercourse or communication with spirits might be obtained; from whence he promised himself an insight into the occult sciences. He found a young man, one Edward Kelly, a native of Worcestershire, who was already either rogue or fool enough for his purpose, and readily undertook to assist him, for which he was to pay him 50l. per annum. Dec. 2, 1581, they began their incantations; in consequence of which, Kelly was, by the inspection of a certain table, consecrated for that purpose with many superstitious ceremonies, enabled to acquaint Dee with what the spirits thought fit to shew and discover. These conferences were continued for about two years, and the subjects of them were committed to writing, but never published, though still preserved in Ashmole’s museum. In the mean time, there came over hither a Polish lord, one Albert Laski, palatine of Siradia, a man of great parts and learning; and, as a late writer observes, of large fortune too, or he would not have answered their purpose. This nobleman was introduced by the earl of Leicester to Dee, and became his constant visitant. Having: himself a bias to those superstitious arts, he was, after much intreaty, received by Dee into their company, and into a participation of their secrets. Within a short time, the palatine of Siradia, returning to his own country, prevailed with Dee and Kelly to accompany him, upon the assurance of an ample provision there; and accordingly they went all privately from Mortlake, in order to embark for Holland; from whence they travelled by land through Germany into Poland, where, Feb. 3, 1584, they arrived at the principal castle belonging to Albert Laski. When Laski had been sufficiently amused with their fanatical pretences to a conversation with spirits, and was probably satisfied that they were impostors, he contrived to send them to the emperor Rodolph II. who, being quickly disgusted with their impertinence, declined all farther interviews. Upon this Dee applied himself to Laski, to introduce him to Stephen king of Poland; which accordingly he did at Cracow, April 1585. But that prince soon detecting his delusions, and treating him with contempt, he returned to the emperor’s court at Prague; from whose dominions he was soon banished at the instigation of the pope’s nuncio, who gave the emperor to understand, how scandalous it appeared to the Christian world, that he should entertain two such magicians as Dee and Kelly. At this time, and while these confederates were reduced to the greatest distress, a young nobleman of great power and fortune in Bohemia, and one of their pupils, gave them shelter in the castle of Trebona; where they not only remained in safety, but lived in splendour, Kelly having in his possession, as is reported, that philosophical powder of projection, by which they were furnished with money very profusely. Some jealousies and heart-burnings afterwards happened between Dee and Kelly, that brought on at length an absolute rupture. Kelly, however, who was a younger man than Dee, seems to have acted a much wiser part; since it appears, from an entry in Dee’s diary, that he was so far intimidated as to deliver up to Kelly, Jan. 1589, the powder, about which it is said he had learned from the German chemists many secrets which he had not communicated to Dee.

Dr. Delany, on the 9tti of June 1743, married a second time. The lady with whom he formed this connexion was Mrs. Pendarves, the relict of Alexander Pen Janes, esq a very ingenious and excellent woman; of whom some account will be given in the next article. The doctor had lost his first wife December 6, 1741. March 13, 1744, our author preached a sermon before the society for promoting protestant working schools in Ireland. In May 1744, he was raised to the highest preferment which he ever attained, the deanry of Down, in the room of Dr. Thomas Fletcher, appointed to be bishop of Dro no re. In the same year, previously to this promotion, our author published a volume of sermons upon social duties, fifteen in number, to which in a second edition, 1747, were added five more, on the opposite vices. This is the most useful of Dr. Delany’s performances; the objects to which rt relates being of very important and general concern. Dr. Delany’s next publication was not till 174-8, and that was only a sixpenny pamphlet. It was entitled “An Essay towards evidencing the divine original of Tythes,” and had at first been drawn up, and probably preached as a sermon. The text, rather a singular one, was the tenth commandment, which forbids us to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s; and it required some ingenuity to deduce the divine original of tithes from that particular prohibition. After an interval of six years, Dr. Delany again appeared in the world as an author, in answer to the earl of Orrery’s “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift.” Many of Su ill’s zealous admirers were not a little displeased with the representations which the noble lord had given of him in various respects. Of this number was Dr. Delany, who determined therefore to do justice to the memory of his old friend; for which few were better qualified, having been in the habits of intimacy with the dean of St. Patrick’s, from his first coming over to Ireland, and long before lord Orrery could have known any thing concerning him. On the whole, it was thought that this production of the doctor’s enabled the public to form a far more clear estimation of the real character of the dean of St. Patrick’s, than any account of him which had hitherto been given to the world; yet perhaps the fairest estimate must be made by a comparison of both. However zealous Dr. Delany might be for the honour of his friend, he did not satisfy Deane Swift, esq. who, in his Essay upon the life, writings, and character of his relation, treated our author with extreme ill manners and gross abuse; to which he thought proper to give an answer, in a letter to Mr. Swift, published in 1755. In this letter the doctor justified himself; and he did it with so much temper and ingenuity, so much candour, and yet with so much spirit, that the polite gentleman, and the worthy divine, were apparent in every page of his little pamphlet. The year 1754 also produced another volume of sermons; the larger part of them are practical, and these are entitled to great commendation, particularly two discourses on the folly, iniquity, ad absurdity of duelling. During this part of Dr. Delany’s life, he was involved in a law-suit of great consequence, and which, from its commencement to its final termination, lasted more than nine years. It related to the personal estate of his first lady; and although a shade was cast on his character by the decision of the Irish court of chancery, his conduct was completely vindicated by that decree being reversed in the house of lords in England. But he was not so deeply engaged in the prosecution of his law-suit as entirely to forget his disposition to be often appearing in. the world as an author. In 1757 he began a periodical paper called “The Humanist,” whicli was carried on through 15 numbers, and then dropped. In 1761 Dr. Delany published a tract, entitled “An humble apology for Christian Orthodoxy,” and several sermons. It was in 1763, after an interval of nearly thirty years from the publication of his former volumes, that he gave to the world the third and last volume of his “Revelation examined with candour.” In the preface the doctor has indulged himself in some peevish remarks upon Reviewers of works of literature; but from complaints of this kind few writers have ever derived any material advantage. With regard to the volume itself, it has been thought to exhibit more numerous instances of the prevalence of imagination, over judgment than had occurred in the former part of the undertaking. In 1766 Dr. Delany published a sermon against transubstantiation; which was succeeded in the same year by his last publication, which was a volume containing 18 discourses. Dr. Delany departed this life at Bath, in May 1763, in the 83d year of his age. Though in general he was an inhabitant of Ireland, it appears from several circumstances, and especially from his writings, almost all of which were published in London, that he frequently came over to England, and occasionally resided there for a considerable time. Of his literary character an estimate may be formed from what has been already said. With regard to two of his principal works, the “Revelation examined with candour,” and the “Life of David,” they contain so many fanciful ^ul doubtful positions, that all the ability and learning i.,i., played in them will scarcely suffice to hand them down, with any eminent degree of reputation, to future ages. It is on his sermons, and particularly on those which relate to social duties, that will principally depend the perpetuity of his fame. With respect to his personal character, he appears to have been a gentleman of unquestionable piety and goodness, and of an uncommon warmth of heart. This warmth of heart was, however, accompanied with some inequality, impetuosity, and irritability of temper. Few excelled him in charity, generosity, and hospitality. His income, which for the last twenty years of his life was 3006J. per annum, sunk under the exercise of these virtues, and he left little behind him besides books, plate, and furniture. Of a literary diligence, protracted to above fourscore years, Dr. Delany has afforded a striking example; though it may possibly be thought, that if, wben his body and mind grew enfeebled, he had remembered the solve senescentem equum, it would hate been of no disadvantage to his reputation.

, the second wife of the preceding, and a lady of distinguished ingenuity and merit, was born at a small country house of her father’s at Coulton in Wiltshire, May, 14, 1700. She was the daughter of Bernard Granville, esq. afterward lord Lansdowne, a nobleraan whose abilities and virtues, whose character as a poet, whose friendship with Pope, Swift, and other eminent writers of the time, and whose general patronage of men eyf genius and literature, have often been recorded in biographical productions. As the child of such a family, sh^ could not fail of receiving the best education. It was at Long-Leat, the seat of the Weymouth family, which was occupied by lord Lansdowne during the minority of the heir of that family, that Miss Granville first saw Alexander Pendarves, esq. a gentleman of large property at Roscrow in Cornwall, and who immediately paid his addresses to her; which were so strenuously supported by her uncle, whom she had not the courage to deny, that she gave a reluctant consent to the match; and accordingly it took place in the compass of two or three weeks, she being then in the seventeenth year of her age. From a great disparity of years, and other causes, she was very unhappy during the time which this connexion lasted, but endeavoured to make the best of her situation. The retirement to which she was confined was wisely employed in the farther cultivation of a naturally vigorous understanding: and the good use she made of her leisure hours, was eminently evinced in the charms of her conversation, and in her letters to her friends. That quick feeling of the elegant and beautiful which constitutes taste, she possessed in an eminent degree, and was therefore peculiarly fitted for succeeding in the fine arts. At the period we are speaking of, she made a great proficiency in music, but painting, which afterwards she most loved, and in which she principally excelled, had not yet engaged her practical attention. in 1724 Mrs. Pendarves became a widow; upon which occasion she quitted Cornwall, and fixed her principal residence in London. For several years, between 1730 and 1736, she maintained a correspondence with Dr. Swift. In 1743, as we have seen in the former article, Mrs. Pendarves was married to Dr. Delany, with whom it appears that she had long been acquainted; and for whom he had many years entertained a very high esteem. She had been a widow nineteen years when this connexion, which was a very happy one, took place, and her husband is said to fcave regarded her almost to adoration. Upon his decease in ftiay 1768, she intended to fix herself at Bath, and was in quest of a house for that purpose. But the duchess dowager of Portland, hearing of her design, went down to the place; and, having in her earl v years formed an intimacy with Mrs. Delany, wished to have near her a lady from whom she had necessarily, for several years, been much separated, and whose heart and talents she knew would in the highest degree add to thejiappiness of her own life. Her <*race succeeded in her solicitalions, and Mrs. Delany now passed her time between London and Bulstrode. On the death of the duchess-dowager of Portland, his present majesty, who had frequently seen and honoured Mrs Delany with his notice at Bulstrode, assigned her for her summer residence the use of a house completely furnished, in St. Alhan’s-street, Windsor, adjoining to the entrance of the castle: and, that the having two houses on her hands might not produce any inconvenience with regard to the expence of her living, his majesty, as a farther mark of his royal favour, conferred on her a pension of three hundred pounds a year. On the 15th of April, 1788, after a short indisposition, she departed this life, at her house in St. James’s-place, having nearly completed the 88th year of her age. The circumstance that has principally entitled Mrs. Delany to a place in this work is her skill in painting, and in other ingenious arts, one of which was entirely her own. With respect to painting, she was late in her application to it. She did not learn to draw till she was more than thirty years of age, when she put herself under the instruction of Goupy, a fashionable master of that time, and much employed by Frederic prince of Wales. To oil-painting she did not take till she was past forty. So strong was her passion for this art, that she has frequently been known to employ herself in it, day after day, from six o'clock in the morning till dinner time, allowing only a short interval for breakfast. She was principally a copyist; but a very fine one. The only considerable original work of hers in oil was the Kaising of Lazarus, in the possession of her friend lady JBute. The number of pictures painted by her, considering how late it was in life before she applied to the art, was very great. Her own house was full of them; and others are among the chief ornaments of Calswich, Welsborn, and Ham, the respective residences of her nephews, Mr. Granville and Mr. Dewes, and of her niece Mrs. Port. Mrs. Delany, among her other accomplishments, excelled in embroidery and shell-work; and, in the course of her life, produced many elegant specimens of her skill in these respects. But, what is more remarkable, at the age of 74 she invented a new and beautiful mode of exercising her ingenuity. This was by the construction of a Flora, of a most singular kind, formed by applying coloured papers together, and which might, not improperly, be called a species of mosaic work. Being perfectly mistress of her scissars, the plant or flower which she purposed to imitate she cut out; that is, she cut out its various leaves and parts in such coloured Chinese paper as suited her subject; and, when she could not meet with a colour to correspond with the one she wanted, she dyed her own paper to answer her wishes. She used a black ground, as best calculated to throw out her flower; and not the least astonishing part of her art was, that though she never employed her pencil to trace out the form or shape of her plant, yet when she had applied all the p eces which composed it, it hung so loosely and gracefully, that every one was persuaded that it must previously have been drawn out, and repeatedly corrected by a most judicious hand, before it could have attained the ease and air of truth which, without any impeachment of the honour of this accomplished lady, might justly be called a forgery of nature’s works. The effect was superior to what painting could have produced; and so imposing was her art, that she would sometimes put a real leaf of a plant by the side of one of her own creation, which the eye could not detect, even when she herself pointed it out. Mrs. Delany continued in the prosecution of her design till the 83d year of her age, when the dimness of her sight obliged her to lay it aside. However, by her unwearied perseverance, she became authoress of far the completest Flora that ever was executed by the same hand. The number of plants finished bv her amounted to nine hundred and eighty. This invaluable Flora was bequeathed by her to her nephew Court Dewes, esq. and is now in the possession of Barnard Dewes, esq. of Welsborn in Warwickshire. The liberality of Mrs. Delany’s mind rendered her at all times ready to communicate her art. She frequently pursued her work in company; was desirous of shewing to her friends how easy it was to execute; and was often heard to lament that so few would attempt it. It required, however, great patience and great knowledge in botanical drawing. She began to write poetry at 80 years of age, and her verses shew at least a pious disposition. Her private character is thus given by her friend, Mr. Keate. “She had every virtue that could adorn the human heart, with a mind so pure, and so uncontaminated by the world, that it was matter of astonishment how she could have lived in its more splendid scenes without being tainted with one single atom of its folly or indiscretion. The strength of her understanding received, in the fullest degree, its polish, but its weakness never reached her. Her life was conducted by the sentiments of true piety; her way of thinking, on every occasion, was upright and just; her conversation was lively, pleasant, and instructive. She was warm, delicate, and sincere in her friendships; full of philanthropy and benevolence, and loved and respected by every person who had the happiness to know her. That sun-shine and serenity of mind which the good can only enjoy, and which had thrown so much attraction on her life, remained without a shadow to the last; not less bright in its setting, than in its meridian lustre. That form which in youth had claimed admiration, in age challenged respect. It presented a noble ruin, become venerable by the decay of time. Her faculties remained unimpaired to the last; and she quitted this mortal state to receive in a better world the crown of a well-spent life.”

, one of the French Encyclopaedists, was born at Portets, in the vicinity of Bonrdeanx, in January 1726; was at an early age admitted into the college of the Jesuits, and, when only fifteen years old, was invested with their order. He was a youth of much imagination and sensibility, and at the same time strongly addicted to mental melancholy; during which he almost uninterruptedly directed his thoughts to the two great extremes of futurity, heaven and hell, which distressed him with perpetual agitations of mind. Deleyre, however, did not long continue in this state of mind, but quitted the Jesuit society, and with this, we have no small reason to believe, every religious faith whatever. As he was of plebeian birth, he could have no expectations from the court; his only alternatives were philosophy and the law; and the latter did not exactly correspond, we are told by his eulogist, either with his sensibility or his independence of mind. Montesquieu was at this time the Miecenas of Guienne, and became the patron of Deleyre from a thorough conviction of his talents: he introduced him to Diderot, d'Alembert, J. J. Rousseau, and Duclos; and his destiny was fixed: he decided for philosophy, and became a writer in the Encyclopedic. In this new capacity his hardihood was not inferior to that of his colleagues; the famous, or rather infamous, article on fanaticism was soon known to have been of his production, and it was likely to have been essentially detrimental to him; for he had now fixed his attention upon matrimony, and had obtained the consent of a lady; but the priests of the parish in which the ceremony was to have been celebrated, refused to unite them, in consequence of their having heard that Deleyre was the author of this article. His patronage, however, was at this time increased, and he had found a warm and steady friend in the due de Nivernois, who interfered in the dispute, and Deleyre obtained the fair object of his wishes. The duke had before this solicited, and successfully, the appointment for him of librarian to the infant prince of Parma, who was at this period committed to the immediate care of Condillac. In this situation he continued for some considerable time; and although a dispute respecting the mode of educating their pupil at length separated him from this celebrated logician, he appears to have always entertained for him the highest degree of respect.

, an excellent painter and engraver, was the son of William Delft, and a near relation (grandson, according to Pilkington) of Michael Miravelt, and born at Delft in 1619. He drew and painted portraits with excellent taste; and having been instructed by Miravelt, acquired a similar mode of design and colouring, and successfully imitated him in the management of his pencil, so that he is said to have equalled Miravelt in force and delicacy. He is, however, more generally known as an engraver; and his best prints are highly finished: some of them are executed in a bold, powerful, open style, which produces a fine effect. Such was his portrait of Hugo Grotius, dated 1652; and others in a neat and much more finished manner, as we find, says Strutt, in the admirable portrait of Michael Miravelt, from a picture of Vandyke. It does not appear that he was ever in England; and yet he engraved several English portraits, as Charles I. of England, Henrietta Maria, his queen, George Villars, duke of Buckingham, &c. and, accor.lmg to lord Orf'ord, styled himself the king’s engraver He died in 1661.

Democritus has been commonly known under the appellation of the Laughing Philosopher; and it is gravely related by Seneca, that he never appeared in public, without expressing his contempt of the follies of mankind by laughter. But this account is wholly inconsistent with what has been related concerning his fondness for a life of gloomy solitude and profound contemplation; and with that strength and elevation of mind, which his philosophical researches must have required, and which are ascribed to him by the general voice of antiquity. Thus much, however, may be easily admitted, on the credit of yElian and Lucian, that a man so superior to the generality of his contemporaries, and whose lot it was to live among a race of men, the Abderites, who were stupid to a proverb, might frequently treat their follies with ridicule and contempt. Accordingly we find that, among his fellow-citizens, he obtained the appellation of yeAflwivof, or the derider.

, a celebrated mathematician, of French original, but who spent most of his life in England, was born at Vitri in Champagne May 26, 1667. His father was a surgeon, and spared no pains in his education, and sent him early to school, where he wrote a letter to his parents in 1673, a circumstance which filial affection made him often mention with great pleasure. For some time he was educated under a popish priest, but was afterwards sent to a protestant academy at Sedan, where his predilection for arithmetical calculations so frequently took the place of classical studies, that his master one day pettishly asked, what the “little rogue meant to do with those cyphers?” He afterwards studied at Saumur and Paris, at which last place he began his mathematics under Ozanam. At length the revocation of the edict of Nantz, in 1685, determined him, with many others, to take shelter in England; where he perfected his naathematical studies. A mediocrity of fortune obliged him to employ his talent in this way in giving lessons, and reading public lectures, for his better support: in the latter part of his life too, he chiefly subsisted by giving answers to questions in chances, play, annuities, &c. and it is said many of these responses were delivered at a coffee-, house in St. Martin’s-lane, where he spent much of his time. The “Principia Mathematica” of Newton, which chance is said to have thrown in his way, soon convinced Demoivre how little he had advanced in the science he professed. This induced him to redouble his application; which was attended by a considerable degree of success; and he soon became connected with, and celebrated among, the first-rate mathematicians. His eminence and abilities in this science opened him an entrance into the royal society of London, and into the academies of Berlin and Paris. By the former his merit was so well known and esteemed, that they judged him a fit person to decide the famous contest between Newton and Leibnitz, concerning the invention of Fluxions.

The collection of the academy of Paris contains no papers of this author, who died at London, Nov. 27, 1754, at eighty-seven years of age, soon after his admission into ic; an honour which he said he considered as equivalent to lettres de noblesse. But the Philosophical Transactions of London have several, and all of them interesting, viz. in the volumes 19, 20,22, 23, 25,27, 29, 30, 32, 40, 41, 43. His separate publications are: 1. “Miscellanea Analytica, de Seriebus & Quadraturis, &c.” 1730, 4to. But perhaps he has been mqre generally known by his 2. “Doctrine of Chances; or Method of calculating the Probabilities of Events at Play.” This work was first printed 1718, in 4to, and dedicated to sir Isaac Newton; it was reprinted in 1738, with great alterations and improvements; and a third edition was afterwards printed. 3. “'Annuities on Lives,” first printed 1724, in 8vo. In 1742 the inger njoqs Thomas Simpson (then only thirty-three years of age) published his “Doctrine of Annuities and, Reversions,” in which tie paid some handsome compliments to our author. Notwithstanding which, Demoivre presently brought out a second edition of his Annuities, in the preface to which be passed some harsh reflections upon son. To these the latter gave a handsome and effectual answer, 1743, in “An Appendix, containing some Remarks on a late book on the same subject, with answers to some personal and malignant misrepresentations in the preface thereof.” At the end of this answer, Mr. Simpson concludes, “Lastly, I appeal to all mankind, whether, in his treatment of me, he has not discovered an air of selfsufficiency, ill-nature, and inveteracy, unbecoming a gentleman.” Here it would seem the controversy dropped: Mr. Uemoivre published the third edition of his book in 1750, without any farther notice of Simpson, but omitted the offensive reflections that had been fn the preface.

, a French physician, but better known as an oculist, was born in 1702, and was the son of Anthony Demours, an apothecary at Marseilles, under whom he received the early part of his education, which was continued at Avignon, where he resided, until he had taken the degree of doctor, in 1728. He then removed to Paris, and was placed for two years under M. Du Verney, for the study of anatomy. On the death of Du Verney, he was associated with M. Chirac in the care of the cabinet of natural history, in the royal garden at Paris. Having bestowed niHch attention and many experiments on the structure of the eye, in 1741 he sent to the royal academy of sciences a memoir on the subject, in which he shews that the vitreous humour is of a cellular texture, and that the cells comii unicate with each other, circumstances which bad not been before observed. He now employed himself, almost exclusively, in attending to the diseases of the eye, and soon attracted so much notice as to be appointed oculist to the king. In 1767, he published “Retire q. M. Petit,” on the subject of a disease in the eyes, occurring in a patient who had been inoculated with the small-pox. As he had acquired a competent knowledge of the English language, he translated into French the Edinburgh medical essays, which he published at Paris, in eleven volumes, 12 mo, Baker’s Natural History of the Polypus, Hales’s account of a Ventilator, Ranby’s treatise of Gunshot Wounds, and several volumes of essays on medicine, and on natural history, taken frqm the Philosophical Transactions, which procured him to be elected one of the foreign members of the royal society. He had been before associated with the royal academy of sciences at Paris. Demours died June 26, 1795, aged ninety-three.

His works have been several times printed together in one volume, under the title of “Poems and translations, with the Sophy, a tragedy.” The sixth edition is that of 1719, and besides this collection, Wood mentions: 1. “A Panegyric on his excellency the lord general George Monk, commander in chief,” &c. printed at London in 1659, and generally ascribed to him, though his name is not to it, S. “A New Version t>f the Book of Psalms.” 3. A prologue to his Majesty at the first play presented at the Cockpit in Whitehall, being part of that noble entertainment which their majestes received on November 20, 16-0, from his grace the duke of Albemarle. 4. “The True Presbyterian without disguise: or, a character of a Presbyterian’s ways and actions,” Lond. 1680. Our author’s name is to tiiis poem; but it was then questioned by many, whether he was the author of it. In 1666 there were printed by stealth, in 8vo, certain poems, entitled “Directions to a Painter,” in four copies or parts, each dedicated to Charles II. They were very satirically written against several persons engaged in the Dutch war in 1665. At the end of them was a piece, entitled, “Clarendon’s House-warming,” and after that his epitaph; both containing bitter reflections on that excellent nobleman. Sir John Denham’s name is to these pieces; but they were generally thought to be written by the well-known Andrew Marvel: the printer, however, being discovered, was sentenced to stand in the pillory for the same.

Could it be known what they discretely blot."

, knt. one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber to king Henry VIII., was the second son of Thomas Denny, of Cheshunt, in the county of Hertford, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Mannock. He had his education in St. Paul’s school, London, under the celebrated grammarian Lilly; and afterwards in St. John’s college, Cambridge; in both which places he so improved himself, that he became an excellent scholar, as well as a person of great worth. His merit having made him known at court, he was constituted by Henry VIII. one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber, groom of the stole, and a privy counsellor; and likewise received the honour of knighthood from that prince; with whom being in great favour, he raised a considerable estate on the ruins of the dissolved monasteries. In 1537, Henry gave him the priory of Hertford, together with divers other lands and manors; and in 1539, Dec. 15, the office of steward of the manor of Bedwell and Little Berkhamstead, in Herts; besides which sir Anthony also obtained the manor of Buttenvick, in the parish of St. Peter in St. Alban’s, the manors of the rectory and of the nunnery, in the parish of Cheshunt; and of Great Amwell, all in the county of Hertford. In 1541, there was a large grant made to him by act of parliament, of several lands that had belonged to the abbey of St. Alban’s, lately dissolved; and not content with all this, he found means to procure a thirty-one years’ lease of the many large and rich demesnes that had been possessed by Waltham-abbey, in Essex; of which his lady purchased aftenvards the reversion. In 1544 the king gave him the advantageous wardship of Margaret, the only daughter and heir of Thomas lord Audley, deceased. On the 31st of August, 1546, he was commissioned, with John Gate and William Clerk, esquires, to sign all warrants in the king’s name. Though somewhat rapacious, he was liberal; in this reign he did eminent service to the great school of Sedberg in Yorkshire, belonging to the college wherein he had received his education; the building being fallen to decay, and the lands appropriated thereto sold and embezzled, he caused the school to be repaired, and not only recovered, but also settled the estate so firmly, as to prevent all future alienations. He was also a more faithful servant than his brother courtiers, for when Henry VIII. was on his death-bed, he had the courage to put him in mind of his approaching end, and desired him to raise his thoughts to heaven, to think of his past life, and to call on God for mercy through Jesus Christ. So great an opinion had that capricious monarch of him, that he appointed him one of the executors of his will, and one of the counsellors to his son and successor Edward VI. and hequeathed him a legacy of 300l. He did not live long after this; for he died in 1.550. By his wife Joan, daughter of sir Philip Champeruon, of Modbury, in Devonshire, a lady of great beauty and parts, he had six children; of whom, Henry, the eldest, was father of Edward Denny, knighted in 1589, summoned to parliament in 1605, and advanced Oct. 24, 1626, to the dignity of earl of Norwich. Of sir Anthony Denny’s personal character, one of his contemporaries informs us, that his whole time and cares were employed about religion, learning, and the care of the public, and has highly commended him for his prudence and humanity. He was the early friend and patron of Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. The learned Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, wrote an excellent epitaph for him some years before his decease; tfnd sir John Cheke, who had a great esteem for him, honoured his memory with an elegant heroic poem.

, a clergyman who is entitled to a place in this Dictionary, as having been a contributor to the first edition of it, was born at Sebergbam, in Cumberland, of an ancient family, in 1724, and was educated under the rev. Josiah Ralph, of whose poems he superintended a handsome edition published by subscription. From school he went to Queen’s-college, Oxford, when be took his master’s degree June 16, 1752. On leaving college, he became curate to the rev. Dr. Graham, of Netherby, at Arthuret, and Kirkandrews; and here he printed a local poem, entitled “Gariston,” which is now scarce a as he only circulated a few copies among his friends. In 1753, Dr. Graham removed him to be his curate at Ashted, in Surrey, in which living, upon the doctor’s resignation, Mr. Demon succeeded him. He died here June 27, 1777, leaving three sons and four daughters. As he had had no opportunity to make much provision for this family, the late lord Suffolk generously gave his widow the next presentation to the living, which bounty was so well managed by a judicious friend, as to secure a very comfortable annuity to her and her children. Mr. Denton was a man of unassuming, modest manners; serene and placid, rather than cheerful; and a facetious man, rather than a man of humour. In discharging the duties of his profession, he was exemplarily decent, and his parishioners loved him when living, and lamented him dead. Early in life he reformed, and published a very useful manual of devotions, entitled “Religions retirement for one day in every month,” from the original of Gother, a popish writer. This he undertook “to free from the peculiarities of the Romish church, and to fit it for the use of Protestants.” He is, however, better known by two well-written poems, “Immortality, or the Consolation of human life, a Monody,” printed separately in 4to, 1755, and afterwards reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection; and “The House of Superstition,” a vision, 1762, 4to, afterwards prefixed by Mr. Gilpin to his “Lives of the Reformers.” In both he has proved himself no unsuccessful imitator of the style of Spenser. He also compiled the supplemental volume to the first edition of the Biographical Dictionary, in which the lives are given with equal candour and accuracy.

D‘Kon (Chevalier de). This extraordinary person, who is styled in the register of St. Pancras, where he was buried, Charles Genevieve Louise Auguste Andre Timothee D’Eon de Beaumont, is now known to have been the son of a gentleman of an ancient and respectable family at Tonnerre in Burgundy, where he was born Oct. 2, 1728. Although the register of his baptism, which bears date Oct. 5, distinctly states the child to have been a male, some have conceived that the sex was originally doubtful, and that family reasons induced the parents, who had not long before the birth of the chevalier lost their then only son, to educate the infant as one of that sex to which nature eventually proved that he belonged. In the early part of his life, he was educated under his father’s roof, whence at the age of thirteen, he was removed to the Mazarin college at Paris. He had scarcely finished his studies, when the sudden death of his father, and of an uncle from whom the family had great expectations, left him doubly an orphan, and threw him on the world dependent on his own exertions for advancement. He was, however, at this period fortunate in obtaining the patronage of the prince de Conti, who had long known and esteemed his father, and by the prince’s means was introduced to Louis XV. who presented him with a cornetcy of dragoons. Soon after this b'Eon was placed in the onHce of mons. Bertier de Savigny, intendant of the generalit of Paris, where he gave great satisfaction to his superiors, by the industry and talent he displayed in the office, and gained considerable credit by one or two small publications on finance.

In 1755 he was employed under the chevalier Douglas, in transacting a negociation of the most delicate and important nature at the court of Petersburg!), by which, after many years suspension of all intercourse, a reconciliation was effected between the courts of France and Russia. After some years residence at Petersburg!], D‘Eon joined his regiment, then serving under marshal Broglio on the Rhine, and during the campaign of 1762, acted as aid-ducamp to that celebrated olKcer. When the duke de Nivernois came over to England, as ambassador, to negociate the peace of 1763, D’Eon appeared as his secretary; and so far procured the sanction of the government of England, that he was requested to carry over the ratiticat.on of the treaty between the British court and that of Versailles, in consequence of which the French king invested him with the order of St. Louis. He had also behaved, in the character of secretary, so much to the satisfaction of the duke, that that nobleman, upon his departure for France, in May 1763, procured D‘Eon to be appointed minister-pleriiputeutiary in his room. In October following, however, the count de Guerchy having arrived here as ambassador from the court of Versailles, the chevalier received orders, or rather was requested, to act as secretary or assistant to the new ambassador. This, we are told, mortified him to such a degree, that, asserting that the letter of recall, which accompanied it, was a forgery, he refused to deliver it; and by this step drew on himself the censure of his court. On this, either with a view of exculpating himself, or from a motive of revenge, he published a succinct account of all the negociations in which he had been engaged, exposed some secrets of the French court, and rather than spare. his enemies, revealed some things greatly to the prejudice of his best friends. Among other persons very freely treated in this publication was the count de Guerchy, for which D’Eon was prosecuted and convicted in the court of King’s Bench, in July 1764. It was but natural that this conduct should draw down the resentment of the court of France, and the chevalier either feared or affected to fear the greatest danger to his person. Reports were spread, very probahly by himself, that persons were sent over here to apprehend him secretly, and carry him to France. On this occasion he wrote four letters, complaining of these designs, as known to him by undoubted authority. The one he sent to lord chief justice Mansfield, the second to the earl of Bute, the third to earl Temple, and the fourth to Mr Pitt. Of these personages he requested to know, whether, as he had contracted no debt, and behaved himself in all things as a dutiful subject, he might not kill the first man who should attempt to arrest him, &c. In March 1764 he took a wiser step to provide for his safety, if there had been any cause for his fears, by indicting the count de Guerchy for a conspiracy against his life, but this came to nothing; and the chevalier, not having surrendered himself to the court of King’s-bench to receive judgment for the libel on the count de Guerchy, was, in June 1765, declared outlawed. The chevalier, however, still continued in England until the death of Louis XV.

About the year 1771, certain doubts respecting his sex, which had previously been started at Petersburgh, became the topic of conversation, and, as usual in this country, the subject of betting; and gambling policies ef assurance to a large amount were effected on his sex; and in 1775, more policies on the same question were effected. In July 1777, an action was brought on one of these before lord Mansfield. The plaintiff was one Hayes, a surgeon, and the defendant Jaques a broker, for the recovery of 700l.; Jacques having some time before received premiums of fifteen guineas per cent, for every one of which he stood engaged to return an hundred, whenever it should be proved that the chevalier was a woman. Two persons, Louis Le Goux, a surgeon, and de Morande, the editor of a French newspaper, positively swore that D'Eon was a woman. The defendant’s counsel pleaded that the plaintiff, at the time of laying the wager, was privy to the fact, and thence inferred that the wager was unfair. Lord Mansfield, however, held that the wager was fair, but expressed his abhorrence of the whole transaction. No attempt having been made to contradict the evidence of the chevalier’s being a woman, which is now known to be false, Hayes obtained a verdict with costs. But the matter was afterwards solemnly argued before lord Mansfield in the court of King’s-bench, and the defendant pleading a late act of parliament for non-payment, it was admitted to be binding, by which decision all the insurers in this shameful transaction were deprived of their expected gains. In the mean time, the chevalier, who was now universally regarded as a woman, was accused by his enemies as having been an accomplice in these gambling transactions, and a partaker of the plunder. In consequence of repeated attacks of this nature he left England in August 1777, having previously asserted in a newspaper his innocence of the fraud, and referred to a former notice, inserted by him in the papers in 1775, in which he had cautioned all persons concerned not to pay any sums due on the policies which had been effected on the subject of his sex, and declared that he would controvert the evidence exhibited on the above trial, if his master should give him leave to return to England. It is in vain now to inquire why he should delay for a moment disproving what a moment would have been sufficient to disprove.

He now came to London, and soon dissipated his money and other supplies which lord Moira generously contributed, in the same low vices he had practised in Ireland, until he was arrested, and sent to the Fleet prison. From this situation lord Moira released him, with a threat, however, tp withdraw his protection, unless he amended his conduct: but all admonition was in vain. Dermody could feel his disappointments for the moment, but there does not appear to have been a corner in his heart for repentance. His resources being now exhausted, he took shelter in a garret in Stratton-street, Westminster, where he represents himself as “stabbed by the murd'rous arts of men,” although he had found a kind friend in every man to whom he was known, and had mocked the liberality of every friend he found. His biographer, Mr. Raymond, relieved him on this occasion, and assisted him in the publication of a volume of poems. “The zeal,” says that gentleman) “of the few friends who were now acquainted with his distresses, soon procured him a number of advocates. His story became extensively known; and among the arbiters of wit, and the admirers of poetical compositions, his talents and situation were frequent subjects of discourse. The force of his genius was universally ac-r knowledged; and from many who interested themselves in his behalf, he reaped more solid advantages than praise and admiration. But neither poverty, experience, nor the contempt of the world, had yet taught him prudence: he had no sooner excited their compassion, and profited by their generosity, than he neglected their advice.” He thus went on from one scene of low depravity to another, until his constitution was undermined; and at length, wasted with disease, the consequence of habitual intemperance, he died at an obscure hovel near Sydenham, July 15, 1802, in the twenty-eighth year of his age.

When Channel row, in which he had lived for some years, was ordered to be taken down to make way for the new bridge at Westminster, Dr. Desaguliers removed to lodgings over the Great Piazza in Covent Garden, where he carried on his lectures till his death. He is said to have been repeatedly consulted by parliament, upon the design of building that bridge; in the execution of which, Mr. Charles Labelye, who had been many years his assistant, was appointed a supervisor. He likewise erected a ventilator, at the desire of parliament, in a room over the house of commons. In 1742 he published a “Dissertation on Electricity,” by which he gained the prize of the academy at Bourdeaux. “This prize,” Dr. Priestley observes, “was a medal of the value of 300 livres, proposed, at the request of monsieur Harpez de la Force, for the best essay on electricity; and shews how much this subject engaged the attention of philosophers at that time. The dissertation is well drawn up, and comprizes all that was known of the subject till that period.” Dr. Desaguliers, who is styled by Dr. Priestley “an indefatigable experimental philosopher,” died Feb. 29, 1744, at the Bedford coffee-honse, Covent Garden, where he had lodgings, and was buried March Cth, in the Savoy. He was the first who introduced the reading of lectures in experimental philosophy at the metropolis; and was a member of several foreign academies, and corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. His personal figure was not very promising; for he was thick and short, not well-shaped, his features irregular, and extremely nearsighted. In the former part of his life he lived very abstemiously; but in his latter years was censured for an indulgence in eating to excess, both in the quantity and quality of his diet. He translated into English, from the Latin, Gravesande’s “Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy.” This work was published by his son J. T. Desaguliers, in two volumes, 4to. He left two other sons: Alexander, who was bred to the church, and had a living in Norfolk, where he died in 1751; and another, named Thomas, who became colonel of the royal regiment of artillery, and equerry to his present majesty, and rose to the rank of major-general.

, a French physician, was born at Arsac, in Chalosse, in 1675, and died at Bourdeaux, in 1737, where he acquired great reputation as a practitioner, and was author of several useful practical works, which are still sought for, on the gout, and on the venereal disease, which latter he professed to cure without salivation. In. his “Dissertation sur la Pierre des reins et de la vessie,” 1736, 3 vols. 12mo, he is averse to cutting for the stone in the bladder; which he says may be dissolved by giving the patients the water of Bareges to drink, and by injecting it into their bladders, and although it is now known the waters do not dissolve the stone, they are still used for their power in appeasing pain. In the second volume the author treats of the management of persons bitten by rabid animals, and opposes, with propriety, opinions once very prevalent, that persons in hydrophobia attempt biting their attendants, and that they make a noise resembling the barking of a dog, which certainly never occur. He left behind him a manuscript on the epilepsy. The publication entitled “Nouvelles dccouvertes en medicine,” 1727, has been attributed to him without sufficient authority. Cailluu, a physician of Bourdeaux, published in 1800 a very interesting account of the life and writings of Desault, which we have not yet seen.

, a modern philosopher of high distinction, was born at La Haye in Tourain, France, April 1, 1596, of an ancient and noble family. Whilst yet a child, he discovered an eager curiosity to inquire into the nature and causes of things, which procured him the appellation of the young philosopher. At eight years of age he was committed to the care of Dinet, a learned Jesuit, under whom he made uncommon proficiency in learning. But an habit of close and deep reflection soon enabled him to discover defects in the books which he read, and in the instructions which he received, which led him to form the ambitious hope that he should, in some future time, carry science to greater perfection than it had ever yet reached. After spending five years in the diligent study of languages, and in reading the ancient poets, orators, and historians, he made himself well acquainted with the elements of mathematics, logic, and morals, as they had been hitherto taught. His earnest desire of attaining an accurate knowledge of every thing which became a subject of contemplation to his inquisitive mind, did not, however, in any of these branches of science meet with full satisfaction. Concerning logic, particularly, he complained, that after the most diligent examination he found the syllogistic forms, and almost every other precept of the art, more useful in enabling a man to communicate to others truths already known, or in qualifying him to discourse copiously upon subjects which he does not understand, than assisting him in the investigation of truths, of which he is ignorant. Hence he was led to frame for himself a brief system of rules or canons of reasoning, in which he followed the strict method of the geometricians, and he pursued the same plan with respect to morals. But after all his speculations, he was not able to attain the entire satisfaction which he so earnestly desired; and, at the close of eight years’ assiduous application in the Jesuits’ college at La Fleche, he returned to his parents, lamenting that he had derived no other benefit from his studies, than a fuller conviction that he, as yet, knew nothing with perfect clearness and certainty. Despairing of being able to discover truth in the paths of learning, he now bade adieu to books, and resolved henceforth to pursue no other knowledge than that which he could find ti'ithin himself, and in the great volume of nature.

Having employed a short time in these studies, Des Cartes spent about two years in Italy, conversing with eminent mathematicians and philosophers, and attending to various objects of inquiry in natural history. He then, returned into France; but his mind remaining in an un settled and sceptical state, he found it impossible to pursue any regular plan of life, till in 1629 he determined to withdraw from his numerous connexions and engagements in Paris, and retire into some foreign country, where he might remain unknown, and have full leisure to complete his great design of framing a new system of philosophy. The country he chose for this purpose was Holland; and he went thither with so much secrecy, that the place of his retirement was for some time known only to his intimate friend, Marsenne, at Paris. He at first resided near Amsterdam, but afterwards went into the more northern provinces, and visited Deventer and Lewarden; he at lasc fixed upon Egmond, in the province of Friesland, as the place of his more stated residence. In this retirement, Des Cartes employed himself in investigating a proof from reason, independent of revelation, of those fundamental points in religion, the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul. This he brought forward in his “Meditationes philosophies de pnma philosophia.” At the same time he pursued the study of optics, cultivated medicine, anatomy, and chemistry, and wrote an astronomical treatise on the system of the world; but hearing of the fate of Galileo, he did not publish it. His philosophical tenets were first introduced into the schools at Deventer in 1633, by Henry Rener, professor of philosophy, and an intimate friend of Gassendi. Not long afterwards, when he published a specimen of his philosophy in four treatises, the number of his admirers soon increased at Leyden, Utrecht, and Amsterdam: but some divines opposed his doctrines, from the dread of innovation, and even attempted to excite the civil magistrate against Des Cartes. In England, however, he was more successful, and sir Charles Cavendish, brother to the earl of Newcastle, gave him an invitation to settle in England. Charles I. also gave him reason to expect a liberal appointment; but the rebellion frustrated this design, and Des Cartes remained in Holland. In his native country, his doctrine was at first well received, but a strong party soon rose against it among the Jesuits. Bourden, one of the fraternity, attacked his dioptrics in the public schools, and a violent contest was long kept up between the Jesuits and Cartesians. In the course of the disputes which the Cartesian philosophy occasioned, Des Cartes himself appeared earnestly desirous to become the father of a sect, and discovered more jealousy and ambition than became a philosopher.

, a French writer, who might have been an able coadjutor, in the cause of infidelity, to the D'Alemberts, Diderots, and Voltaires of France, was born at Pondicherry in 1690. His father, who resided here, was a director of the French East India company, and died at St. Domingo in the office of commissary-general of the marine. He was the author of a work entitled “Remarques historiques, critiques, et satiriques d'un cosmopolite,” printed by his son at Nantes, although Cologne is on the title, 1731, 12mo. His son, the object of this article, became commissary-general of the marine at Rochefort and Brest, and a member of the royal academy of Berlin. These employments and honours he resigned in his latter days, and died at Paris in 1757. In 1713 he came to London, for what reason we have not been able to discover, where he was seized with the small pox. In that year he published in London his “Litteraturn Otium,” in which he has very successfully imitated Catullus. He had previously printed at Paris his “Reflexions sur les grands homines qui sont morts en plaisautant,” which was immediately translated by Boyer, and published at London under the title of “A Philological Essay, or Reflections on the death of Freethinkers, with the characters of the most eminent persons of both sexes, ancient and modern, that died pleasantly and unconcerned,” 1714, IL'mo. It would appear from an article in the Guardian, No. 39, that he had expressed some compunction during his sickness for having written this book; but on his recovery he took equal pains to prove that he was as unconcerned as ever. The work itself is sufficiently contemptible, and in the opinion even of his countrymen, some of his great men are very little men: and, what is of more importance, he confounds the impiety of Boletus and Vanini with the intrepidity and firmness of Thuanus and Montmorency, and others, whose heroism was founded on religion. At the conclusion he has some random thoughts on suicide, and the gallantry of it, and informs us of a curious fact, that at one time a poisonous draught was kept at Marseilles, at the public expence, ready for those who desired to rid themselves of life. All the absurdities and impiety in this work are said to have been refuted by the author himself, who on his death-bed, by a solemn act in writing, manifested his sincere repentance. Such is the report in an edition printed at Rochefort in 1758, but this is flatly contradicted by the editors of the-Dict. Hist, who assure us that he persevered in his infidelity to the last, which they prove by some despicable verses written by him when near his death. His other works were, 1. “Histoire critique de la Philosophic,” 4 vols. 12mo, the first three published at Amsterdam in 1737. In this, which is poor in respect of style, and not to be depended on in point of fact, he grossly misrepresents the opinions of the philosophers in order to accommodate them to his own. 2. “Kssai snr la Marine et le Commerce,” which was translated and published at London, under the title, “Essay on Maritime Power and Commerce,” 1743, and was rather more valued here than in France. 3. “Recueil de differents traites de physique et d'histoire naturelle,” 3 vols. 12mo, an useful collection. 4. “Histoire de Constance, minister de Siam,” 1755, 12mo. This missionary he represents as a mere adventurer, the victim of his ambition, contrary to the representation given by father Orleans, who, in the life of Constance, published in 1690, maintains that he was a pious zealot. Deslandes’ other works, less known, are “Pygmalion,” 12mo; “Fortune,” 12mo; “La Comtesse de Montserrat,” 12mo; all of the licentious kind.

, physician to the king of France, and corresponding member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, was a native of Vitre, a town in Bretagne, where he was born Sept. 28, 1704, and was the fifth of his family who had distinguished themselves in the medical art. After practising with great reputation for some years at Paris, he was appointed physician to the island of Domingo, where he died, after a residence of about ten years, in 1748. He left an interesting and curious work, “Histoire des Maladies de Saint Domingue,” which was printed in 1770, 3 vols. 12mo. Besides an account of the diseases common in Domingo, it contains descriptions of all the plants which the author found in the island. In this he has corrected several errors in the accounts left by Plumier and Barrere, and has added, where he could obtain them, the names by which they were known by the native Caribbees; also a pharmacopoeia, giving the qualities or virtues of the plants.

, a poet to whom much of the improvement of the French language is attributed, was born at Chartres in 1546, whence he went to Paris. Attaching himself there to a bishop who was going to Rome, he gained an opportunity of visiting that city, and acquiring a perfect knowledge of the Italian language. When he returned to France, he applied himself entirely to French poetry, and was one of the few poets who have enjoyed great affluence, which he owed in part to the great liberality of the princes by whom he was protected. Henry III. of France gave him 10,000 crowns, to enable him to publish his first works. Charles IX. presented him with 800 crowns of gold for his poem of Rodomont. The admiral de Joyeuse gave him an abbey for a sonnet. Besides which, he enjoyed benefices to the amount altogether of 10,000 crowns a year. Henry III. even honoured him with a place in his council, and consulted him on the most important affairs. It is said that he refused several bishoprics; but he loved solitude and retirement, which he sought as often as he could. He was very liberal to other men of letters, and formed a large library, to which he gave them the utmost freedom of access. Some, who were envious of his reputation, reproached him with having borrowed freely from the Italian poets, which he was far from denying; and when a book appeared upon the subject, entitled “Rencontre des Muses de France et d'ltalie,” he said, “If I had known the author’s design, I could have furnished him with many more instances than he has collected.” After the death of Henry III. he joined himself for a time to the party of the League, but afterwards repented, and laboured zealously to serve the interests of Henry IV. in Normandy, and succeeded in obtaining the friendship and esteem of that liberal monarch. He died in 1606. Desportes is acknowledged to have been one of the chief improvers of the French language. His works consist of sonnets, stanzas, elegies, songs, epigrams, imitations, and other poems; some of which were first published in 4to, by Robert Stephens, in 1573. A translation of the Psalms was one of his latest works, and one of the most feeble. A delightful simplicity is the characteristic of his poetry, which is therefore more perfect when applied to amorous and gallant, than to noble subjects. He often imitated and almost translated Tibullus, Ovid, and other classics. A few sacred poems are published in some editions of his Psalms, which have little more merit than the Psalms to which they are subjoined.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

, a learned Greek scholar of the sixteenth century, was born in the island of Corfou, of a catholic family. At the age of eight he was taken to Rome by John Lascaris, and placed with other eastern youths in the Greek college, which had been just established. Having made great progress in this language, cardinal Rodolphi gave him the care of his library, which office he held for fifteen years, and in that time he compiled an index to Eustathius’s commentary on Homer, for which pope Paul III. gave him a pension; and Paul IV. who continued this pension, made him corrector of the Greek Mss. in the Vatican. On the death of cardinal Rodolphi, Marc -Antony Colonna, who was afterwards cardinal, became scholar to Devarius for three years in the Greek language. He was afterwards patronized by the cardinal Farnese; and died in his service, about the end of the sixteenth century, in the seventieth year of his age. By order of pope Pius V. he translated the catechism of the council of Trent into Greek; but the work for which he is best known is entitled “De Particulis Graecae linguae liber particularis,” of which there have been many editions, the first published by his nephew, Peter Devarius, at Rome, in 1558, 4to, and reprinted at London, 1657, 12mo Amsterdam, 1700 and 1718, &c. &c.

, a celebrated man-midwife, was born at Deventer, in the province of Over-Yssel, in Holland, towards the end of the seventeenth century. Though skilled in every branch of medicine, and honoured with the dignity of doctor in that faculty, he was principally employed in surgery, and in the latter part of his life he almost entirely confined himself to the practice of midwifery, in which art he made considerable improvements. He acquired also no small share of fame by his various mechanical inventions for assisting in preventing and curing deformities of the body in young subjects. In that capacity he was repeatedly sent for to Denmark, whence he drew a considerable revenue. His knowledge of mechanics did not, however, prevent his observing that much mischief was done by the too frequent use of instruments in midwifery; and he introduced such improvements in the art, as gave him a decided preference over Mauriceau, his almost immediate precursor. Satisfied with the principles on which his practice was founded, he published in 1701, “Operationes Chirurgicse novum lumen exhibentes obstetricantibus,” Leyden, 4to, which had been published in 1696, in his native language. This was followed by a second part, in 1724, 4to, “Ulterius examen partuum difficilium, Lapis Lydius obstetricum, et de necessaria cadaverum incisione.” The two parts were published together, much improved, in 1733, but the work had already been translated and published in most of the countries in Europe. How long the author continued to live after the publication of this improved edition is not known.

, the first earl of Essex of this name and family, a general equally distinguished for his courage and conduct, and a nobleman not more illustrious by his titles than by his birth, was descended from a most ancient and noble farrr!“, being the son of sir Richard Devereux, knight, by Do 'thy, daughter of George earl of Huntingdon, and gra.idson of Walter viscount of Hereford, so created by king Edward the Sixth. He was born about 1540, at his grandfather’s castle in Carmarthenshire, and during his education applied himself to his studies with great diligence and success. He succeeded to the titles of viscount Hereford and lord Ferrers of Chartley, in the nineteenth year of his age, and being early distinguished for his modesty, learning, and loyalty, stood in higii favour with his sovereign, queen Elizabeth. In 1569, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in the north, under the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, he raised a considerable body of forces, which joining those belonging to the lord admiral and the earl of Lincoln, he was declared marshal of the army, and obliged the rebels to disperse. This so highly recommended him to the queen, that in 1572 she honoured him with the garter, and on the 4th of May, the same year, created him earl of Essex, as being descended by his great grandmother from the noble family of Bourchier, long before honoured with the same title. In the month of January following, he was one of the peers that sat in judgment upon the duke of Norfolk. At this time he was such a favourite with the queen, that some, who were for confining her good graces to themselves, endeavoured to remove him by encouraging an inclination he shewed to adventure both his person and fortune for her majesty’s service in Ireland. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, 1573, he embarked at Liverpool, accompanied by lord Darcy, lord Rich, and many other persons of distinction, together with a multitude of volunteers, who were incited by the hopes of preferment, and his lordship’s known reputation. His reception in Ireland was not very auspicious landing at Knockfergus on the 16th of September, he found the chiefs of the rebels inclined apparently to submit; but having gained time, they broke out again into open rebellion. Lord Rich was called away by his own affairs, and by degrees, most of those who went abroad with the earl, came home again upon a variety of pretences. In this situation Essex desired the queen to carry on the service in her own name, and by her own command, though he should be at one half of the expence. Afterwards he applied to the earls of Sussex and Leicester, and the lord Burleigh, to induce the queen to pay one hundred horse and six hundred foot; which, however, did not take effect; but the queen, perceiving the slight put upon him, and that the lord deputy had delayed sending him his commission, was inclined to recal him out of Ulster, if Leicester and others, who had promoted his removal, had not dissuaded her. The lord deputy, at last, in 1574, sent him his patent, but with positive orders to pursue the earl of Desmond one way, while himself pressed him another. The earl of Essex reluctantly obeyed, and either forced or persuaded the earl of Desmond to submission; and it is highly probable, would have performed more essential service, if he had not been thwarted. The same misfortune attended his subsequent attempts; and, excepting the zeal of his attendants, the affection of the English soldiers, and the esteem of the native Irish, he gained nothing by all his pains. Worn out at length with these fruitless fatigues, he, the next year, desired leave to conclude upon honourable terms an accommodation with Turlough Oneile, which was refused him. He then surrendered the government of Ulster into the lord deputy’s hands, believing the forces allowed him altogether insufficient for its defence; but the lord deputy obliged him to resume it, and to majrch against Turlough, Oneile, which he accordingly did; and his enterprize” being in a fair way of succeeding, he was surprized to receive instructions, which peremptorily required him to make peace. This likewise he concluded, without loss of honour, and then turned his arms against the Scots from the western islands, who had invaded and taken possession, of his country. These he quickly drove out, and, by the help of Norris, followed them into one of their islands; and was preparing to dispossess them of other posts, when he was required to give up his command, and afterwards to serve at the head of a small body of three hundred men, with no other title than their captain. All this he owed to Leicester; but, notwithstanding his chagrin, he continued to perform his duty, without any shew of resentment, out of respect to the queen’s service. In the spring of the succeeding year he came over to England, and did not hesitate to express his indignation against the all-powerful favourite, for the usage he had met xvith. But as it was the custom of that great man to debase his enemies by exalting them, so he procured an order for the earl of Essex’s return into Ireland, with the sounding title of earl -marshal of that kingdom, and with promises that he should be left more at liberty than in times past; but, upon his arrival at Ireland, he found his situation so little altered for the better, that he pined away with grief and sorrow, which at length proved fatal to him, and brought him to his end. There is nothing more certain, either from the public histories, or private memoirs and letters of that age, than the excellent character of this noble earl, as a brave soldier, a loyal subject, and a disinterested patriot; and in private life he was of a chearful temper, kind, affectionate, and beneficent to all who were about him. He was taken ill of a flux on the 21st of August, and in great pain and misery languished to the 22d of September, 1576, when he departed this life at Dublin, being scarcely thirty-five years old. There was a very strong report at the time, of his being poisoned; but for this there seems little foundation, yet it must have been suspected, as an inquiry was immediately made by authority, and sir Henry Sidney, then lord deputy of Ireland, wrote very fully upon this subject to the privy-council in England, and to one of the members of that council in particular. The corpse of the earl was speedily brought over to England, carried to the place of his nativity, Carmarthen, and buried there with great solemnity, and with most extraordinary i< monies of the unfeigned sorrow of all the country round about. A funeral sermon was preached on this occasion, Nov. 26, 1576, and printed at London 1577, 4to. He married Lettice, daughter to sir Frances Knolles, knight of the garter, who survived him many years, and whose speedy marriage after his death to the earl of Leicester, upon whom common fame threw the charge of hastening his death, perhaps might encourage that report. By this lady he had two sons, Robert and Walter, and two daughters, Penelope, first married to Robert lord Rich, and then to Charles Blount, earl of Devonshire; and Dorothy, who becoming the widow of sir Thomas Perrot, knight, espoused for her second husband Henry Percy earl of Northumberland.

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

, a French adventurer, of whose private life little is known, and whose public history is not of the most reputable kind, requires, however, some notice, as the author of various publications, and an agent in some political transactions which once were deemed of importance. He styled himself advocate in the parliament of Bourdeaux. The first notice of him occurs about 1763, when he had a concern in the quarrel between the count de Guerchy, ambassador extraordinary from the court of France, and the chevalier D‘Eon, (see D’EoN). About this time D‘Eon published a letter to the count de Guerchy, by which we learn that De Vergy solicited his (D’Eon’s) acquaintance, which he declined unless he* brought letters of recommendation, and that De Vergy, piqued at the refusal, boasted of being perfectly well known to the count de Guerchy, which proved to be a falsehood. This produced a quarrel between D‘Eon and De Vergy, and a pamphlet in answer to D’Eon’s letter, and another answer under the title of “Centre Note.” After the more celebrated quarrel between de Guerchy and D‘Eon, De Vergy published a parcel of letters from himself to the due de Cboiseul, in which he positively asserts that the count de Guerchy prevailed with him to come over to England to assassinate D’Eon. He even went farther, and before the grand jury of Middlesex, made oath to the same effect. Upon this deposition, the grand jury found a bill of intended murder against the count de Guerchy; which bill, however, never came to the petty jury. The king granted a noli prosequi in favour of De Guerchy, and the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute De Vergy, with the result of which order we are unacquainted; but it is certain that De Vergy, in his last will, confesses his concern in a plot against D'Eon, and intimates that he withdrew his assistance upon finding that it was intended to affect the chevalier’s life. After the above transaction, we find him in 1767, publishing “Lettre centre la Raison,” or, “A Letter against Reason, addressed to the chevalier D'Eon,” in which he repeats some of the hacknied doctrines of the French philosophical school, and professes himself a free-thinker. This was followed by a succession of novels, entitled “The Mistakes of the Heart;” “The Lovers” “Nature” “Henrietta;” “The Scotchman;” and “The Palinode,” written in remarkably good English, and with much knowledge of human nature; but scarcely one of them is free from the grossest indelicacies. He wrote also, in 1770, “A Defence of the duke of Cumberland,” a wretched catchpenny. De Vergy died Oct. 1, 1774, aged only forty-two, and remained unburied until March, his executor waiting for directions from his family. He had desired in his will that his relations would remove his body to Bourdeaux, but it was at last interred in St. Pancras church-yard.

, a painter of history and portrait, was born at Amsterdam in 1695, and acquired the principles of his art from Albert Spiers, a portrait painter. He afterwards became a disciple of Jaques Van Halen, an historical painter of considerable reputation; under whose instructions he made great improvement, particularly by copying some capital paintings of Rubens and Vandyke. In 1713, he obtained the first prize in the academy, for designing after a living model, and the first prize for painting history; and he became more known by sketching several of the ceilings in the Jesuits’ church at Antwerp, originally painted by Rubens and Vandyke, which had been much injured by lightning. He declined the painting of portraits, though much solicited to engage in this branch of his art, and chiefly restricted himself to the painting of ceilings and grand apartments, in which he excelled by an elegance of taste, and tolerable correctness of design. His most noted work was for the burgo masters of Amsterdam, in their great council-chamber; in which he chose for his subject Moses appointing the 70 elders, and which he executed in a manner highly honourable to him as an artist. Without ever having seen Rome, he acquired the style of the Italian masters, by studying after the finest designs of the best artists of that country, which he collected with great judgment and ex pence. The colouring of Dewit is extremely good, and his compositions are grand and pleasing; his pencil is free, and his touch abounds with spirit and brilliancy; and a better taste of design would have rendered him truly eminent. But his singular excellence consisted in his imitations of bas-relief in stone, wood, or plaster, which he painted both in oil and in fresco, so as to give them the appearance of real carvings. His sketches, though slight, are much admired for their freedom and spirit, and are purchased by persons of the best taste. This artist, who died at Amsterdam in 1754, etched, from his own designs, a set of six small plates, representing “groupes of boys,” which are executed in a very spirited style; and the “Virgin and Child.”

, a French naturalist and biographer, was born at Paris in the beginning of the last century. He was the son of a bookseller of Paris, and was educated in his native city, but a considerable time after this he spent in foreign countries, particularly in Italy, where he formed a taste for the fine arts. He became acquainted with men of science in various parts of Europe, and was elected in 1750 member of the royal society in London, and of the academy of sciences at Montpelier. He wrote some considerable articles, particularly those of gardening and hydrography, in the French Encyclopaedia; and in 1747 he published, in quarto, “La Theorie et la Pratique du Jardinage;” and in 1757, “Conchyliologie, ou Traite sur la nature des Coquillages,” 2 vols. 4to, reprinted 1757, and accounted his most valuable work. His arrangement is made from the external form of shells, according to which he classes them as univalve, bivalve, and multivalve; he then divides them again into shells of the sea, of fresh water, and of the lands. He also gave an account of the several genera of animals that inhabit shells. He published also “L'Orycthologie ou Traite des pierres, des mineraux, des metaux et autres Fossiles,” 1755, 4to. But the work by which he is best known and most valued by us, is what we have frequent occasion to quote, his “Abreg6 de la Vie de quelques Peintres celebres,” 3 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo, a work of great labour and taste, although not absolutely free from errors. He practised engraving sometimes himself. He died at Paris in 1766; and his son continued the biography began by the father by the addition of two volumes, containing the lives of architects and sculptors.

, one of the early martyrs to the protestant religion, was born at Cnenza, in Spain, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and studied theology at Paris, where, from reading the books of Luther and his disciples, he soon embraced his doctrines. This circumstance rendering it necessary to quit Paris, he went to Calvin at Geneva, with whom, and with Budeus and Crispinus, he studied for some time. He then went to Strasburgh, and became known to Bucer, who, perceiving his promising talents, obtained leave of the council of that town to take him with him to the conference at Ratisbon. Diaz was no sooner arrived there, than he found out Malvenda, whom he had known at Paris, who employed the strongest arguments he could muster to induce him to return into the bosom of the church; but Diaz persevered in his opinions. Soon after, having got\e to Nenbnrg, to attend the correcting of a book of Bucer’s which was then at press, he was surprised to see arrive at that place one of his brothers named Alfonsus, an advocate at the court of Rome, who, having heard of his apostacy, as he termed it, immediately set out in hopes to reclaim him, but was not more successful than Malvenda. Instead, however, of lamenting what he might term the obduracy of his brother, he laid a plan against his life; to execute which base purpose, he feigned to return home, and went as far as Augsburg; but the day following he returned, accom.­panied by a guide, and at break of day was again at Neuburg. His first business was to seek his brother accordingly he went straight to his lodgings with his companion, who was disguised as a courier, and waited at the foot of the staircase, while the accomplice went up to the apartment of Diaz, for whom he pretended he had letters to deliver from his brother. Dia/ being roused from sleep, the pretended messenger delivered lam the letters, and while he read them, made a fatal stroke at his head with an axe which he had concealed under his cloak, and fled with his instigator Alfonsus. The report of this murder, which happened March 27, 1546, excited great indignation at Augsburg and elsewhere; the assassins were vigorously pursued, were taken, and imprisoned atlnspruck; but the emperor Charles V. put a stop to the proceedings under pretext that he would take cognizance himself of the affair at the approaching diet. This did not, however, appease the conscience of Alfonsus, the fratricide, who put an end to the torments of reflection by hanging himself. A particular history of the whole transaction was published in Latin under the name of Claude Senarclaeus, 8vo, which is very scarce. Jt was addressed to Bucer, under the title “Historia vera de morte J. Diazii.” Diaz was the author of a “Summary of the Christian Religion,” of which a French translation was published at Lyons, 1562, 8vo.

, a celebrated physician and chemist, was son of William Dickinson, rector of Appleton in Berkshire, and born there in 1624. He acquired his classical learning at Eton, and from thence, in 1642, was sent to Merton-college in Oxford. Having regularly taken the degrees in arts, he entered on the study of medicine, and took both the degrees in that faculty. In 1655 he published his “Delphi Phcenicizantes, *kc.” a very learned piece, in which he attempts to prove that the Greeks borrowed the story of the Pythian Apollo, and all that rendered the oracle of Delphi famous, from the holy scriptures, and the book of Joshua in particular *. His work procured him much reputation both at home and abroad; and Sheldon (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) is said to have had so high a sense of its value, that he would have persuaded the author to have applied himself to divinity, and to have taken orders; but he was already fixed in his choice. To this treatise were added, 1. “Diatriba de Nore in Italiam adventu; ejusque nominibus ethnicis.” 2. “De origine Druidum.” 3. Oratiuncula pro philosophia liberanda,“which had been spoken, by him in the hall of Merton college, July 1653, and was the first tiling which made him known among the learned. 4.” /acharias Bogan Edmundo Dickinson;“a letter filled with citations from the most ancient authors in support of his opinions, and the highest commendations of his learning, industry, and judgment. The” Delphi Phoenicizantes,“&c. came out first at Oxford in 1655, 12mo, and was reprinted at Francfort, 1669, 8vo, and at Rotterdam in 1691, by Crenius, in the first volume of his” Fasciculus dissertation uo> Historico-critico-philologicarum," 12mo. Afterwards Dr. Dickinson applied himself to chemistry with much assiduity; and, about 1662, received a visit from Theodore Mundanus, an illustrious adept of France, who encouraged him mightily to proceed in the study of alchemy, and succeeded in persuading him of the possibility of the transmutation of metals, a credulity for which he probably paid first in his purse, and afterwards in his reputation. At length he left his college, and took a house in the High-street, Oxford, for the sake of following the business of his profession more conveniently. In. li>69 he married for the first time; but his wife dying in child- bed, and leaving him a daughter, he some time after married a second, who also died in a short time. His wives were both gentlewomen of good families.

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, the son of John Dickson, a merchant in Glasgow, was born about 1583, and educated at the university of his native city. After taking the degree of M. A. he was admitted regent, or professor of philosophy, an office which, at that time, somewhat after the manner of the foreign universities, was held only for a term of years (in this case, of eight years) after which these regents received ordination. Accordingly, in 1618, Mr. Dickson was ordained minister of the town of Irvine, which preferment he held about twenty-three years, and became a very popular preacher. Although always inclined to the presbyterian form of church-government, he had shewn no great reluctance to the episcopal forms until the passing of what are known, in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, by the name of the Perth articles; five articles, which enjoined kneeling at the sacrament; private adtninistratioa of it in extreme sickness; private baptism, if necessary; episcopal confirmation; and the observation of Epiphany, Christmas, &c. These, however harmless they may appear to an English reader, were matters not only of objection, but abhorrence to a great proportion of the Scotch clergy; and Mr. Dickson having expressed his dislike in strong terms, and probably in the pulpit, was suspended from his pastoral charge, and ordered to remove to Turriff, in the north of Scotland, within twenty days. After much interest, however, had been employed, for he had many friends among persons of rank, who respected his talents and piety, he was allowed in 1623 to return to Irvine. As during the progress of the rebellion in England, the power of the established church decayed also in Scotland, Dickson exerted himself with considerable effect in the restoration of the presbyterian form of church-government, and there being a reluctance to this change on the part of the learned divines of Aberdeen, he went thither in 1637, and held solemn disputations with Doctors Forbes, Barron, Sibbald, &c. of that city, which were afterwards published. In 1641 he was removed from Irvine to be professor of divinity in the university of Glasgow; and in 1643 he assisted in drawing up some of those formularies which are contained in the “Confession of Faith,” a book which is still subscribed by the clergy of Scotland. The “Directory for public worship,” and “The sum of saving knowledge,” were from his pen, assisted, in the former, by Henderson and Calderwood and in the latter, by Durham. Some years after, probably about 1645, he was invited to the elmir of professor of divinity at Edinburgh, which he held until the restoration, when he was ejected for refusing the oath of supremacy. He did not survive this long, dying in 1662. He was esteemed one of the ablest and most useful men of his time, in the promotion of the church of Scotland as now established, and his writings have been accounted standard books with those who adhere to her principles as originally laid down. His principal works are, I. “A Commentary on the Hebrews,” 8vo. 2. “On Matthew,” 4to. 3. “On the Psalms,” 1655, 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “On the Epistles,” Latin and English, folio and 4to. 5. “Therapeutica Sacra, or Cases of Conscience resolved,” Latin 4to, English 8vo. 6. “A treatise on the Promises,” Dublin, 1630, 12mo. Besides these he wrote some pieces of religious poetry for the common people, and left several Mss. As he had had a considerable hand in the “Confession of Faith,” he lectured, when professor of divinity, on that book, the heads of which lectures were afterwards published, as he had delivered them, in Latin, under the title “Prelectiones in Confessionem Fidei,” folio but they have been since translated and often reprinted, under the title of “Truth’s Victory over Error,” one of the most useful, and now, we believe, the only one of his works which continues still popular in Scotland. Prefixed is a life of the author by Woodrow, the ecclesiastical historian, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, of the academy of Berlin, an eminent French writer, was the son of a cutler, and was bora at Langres, in 1713. The Jesuits, with whom he went through a course of study, were desirous of having him in their order, and one of his uncles designing him for a canonry which he had in his gift, made him take the tonsure. But his father, seeing that he was not inclined to be either a Jesuit or a canon, sent him to Paris to prosegute his studies. He then placed him with a lawyer, to whose instructions young Diderot paid little attention, but employed himself in general literature, which not coinciding with the views of his father, he stopped the remittance of his pecuniary allowance, and seemed for some time to have abandoned him. The talents of the young man, however, supplied him with a maintenance, and gradually made him known. He had employed his mind on physics, geometry, metaphysics, ethics, belles-lettres, from the time he began to read with reflection, and although a bold and elevated imagination seemed to give him a turn for poetry, he neglected it for the more serious sciences. He settled at an early period at Paris, where the natural eloquence which animated his conversation procured him friends and patrons. What first gave him reputation among a certain class of readers, unfortunately for France, too numerous in that country, was a little collection of “Pensees philosophiques,” reprinted afterwards under the title of “Etrennes aux esprits-forts.” This book appeared in 1746, 12mo. The adepts of the new philosophy compared it, for perspicuity, elegance, and force of diction, to the “Pensees de Pascal.” But the aim of the two authors was widely different. Pascal employed his talents, and erudition, which was profound and various, in support of the truths of religion, which Diderot attacked by all the arts of an unprincipled sophist. The “Pensées philosophiques,” however, became a toiletbook. The author was thought to be always in the right, because he always dealt in assertions. Diderot was more usefully employed in 1746, in publishing a “Dictionnaire universelle de Medecine,” with Messrs. Eidous and Toussaint, in G vols. folio. Not that this compilation, says his biographer, is without its defects in many points of view, or that it contains no superficial and inaccurate articles; but it is not without examples of deep investigation; and the work was well received. A more recent account, however, informs us that this was merely a translation of Dr. James’s Medical Dictionary, published in this country in 1743; and that Diderot was next advised to translate Chambers’ s Dictionary; but instead of acting so inferior a part, he conceived the project of a more extensive undertaking, the “Dictionnaire Encyclopedique.” So great a monument not being to be raised by a single architect, D'Alembert, the friend of Diderot, shared with him the honours and the dangers of the enterprise, in which they were promised the assistance of several literati, and a variety of artists. Diderot took upon himself alone the description of arts and trades, one of the most important parts, and most acceptable to the public. To the particulars of the several processes of the workmen, he sometimes added reflections, speculations, and principles adapted to their elucidation. Independently of the part of arts and trades, this chief of the encyclopedists furnished in the different sciences a considerable number of articles that were wanting; but even his countrymen are inclined to wish that in a work of such a vast extent, and of such general use, he had learned to compress his matter, and had been less verbose, less of the dissertator, and less inclined to digressions. He has also been censured for employing needlessly a scientific language, and for having recourse to metaphysical doctrines, frequently unintelligible, which occasioned him to be called the Lycophron. of philosophy; for having introduced a number of definitions incapable of enlightening the ignorant, and which he seems to have invented for no other purpose than to have it thought that he had great ideas, while in fact, he had not the art of expressing perspicuously and simply the ideas of others. As to the body of the work, Diderot himself agreed that the edifice wanted an entire reparation; and when two booksellers intended to give a new edition of the Encyclopedic, he thus addressed them on the subject of the faults with which it abounds: “The imperfection of this work originated in a great variety of causes. We had not time to be very scrupulous in the choice of the coadjutors. Among some excellent persons, there were others weak, indifferent, and altogether bad. Hence that motley appearance of the work, where we see the rude attempt of a school-boy by the side of a piece from the hand of a master; and a piece of nonsense next neighbour to a sublime performance. Some working for no pay, soon lost their first fervour; others badly recompensed, served us accordingly. The Encyclopedic was a gulf into which all kinds of scribblers promiscuously threw their contributions: their pieces were ill-conceived, and worse digested; good, bad, contemptible, true, false, uncertain, and always incoherent and unequal; the references that belonged to the very parts assigned to a person, were never filled up by him. A refutation is often found where we should naturally expect a proof; and there was no exact correspondence between the letter-press and the plates. To remedy this defect, recourse was had to long explications. But how many unintelligible machines, for want of letters to denote the parts!” To this sincere confession Diderot added particular details on various parts; such as proved that there were in the Encyclopedic subjects to be not only re-touched, but to be composed afresh; and this was what a new company of literati and artists undertook, but have not yet completed. The first edition, however, which had been delivering to the public from 1751 to 1767, was soon sold off, because its defects were compensated in part by many well-executed articles, and because uncommon pains were taken to recommend it to the public.

The great objects which Diderot and his coadjutors had in view when they entered upon this work, are now universally known. It has been completely proved, that their intention was to sap the foundation of all religion; not directly or avowedly, for \mre-faced atheism would not then have been suffered in France. They had engaged a very worthy, though not very acute clergyman, to furnish the theological articles, and while he was supporting, by the best arguments which he could devise, the religion of his country, Diderot and D'Alembert were overturning those arguments under titles which properly allowed of no such disquisitions. This necessarily produced digressions: for the greatest genius on earth could not, when writing on the laws of motion, attack the mysteries of Christianity without wandering from his subject; but that the object of these digressions might not pass unnoticed by any class of readers, care was taken to refer to them from the articles where the question was discussed by the divine. That when employed in this way, Diderot seems to write obscurely, is indeed true; but the obscurity is not his. His atheism was so plain, that for the most part, D'Alembert or some other leader, had to retouch his articles, and throw a mist over them, to render their intention less obvious.

, an eminent French printer, who deserves a more satisfactory article than the French biographers have as yet enabled us to give him, was born at Paris in 1730, and was the son of a printer and bookseller, who provided him with an excellent classical education before he introduced him into business. Full of enthusiasm for the advancement of the art of printing, young Didot determined to rival those celebrated printers, Joachim Ibarra of Spain, and Baskerville of England, and lived to surpass both. He soon brought his press to a state of excellence unattained by any of his contemporaries; and extended his skill to every branch connected with it. Among the number of improvements perfected by his exertions, is the construction of mills for making fine paper, which he assisted not only by his zeal and activity, but by pecuniary contribution. He also invented a press by which the workman is enabled to print, equally and at once the whole extent of a sheet; and he was the inventor of many other machines and instruments now commonly used in printing offices, all which have powerfully contributed to the modern advancement of the typographical art. The elegant editions of the classics published by order of Louis XIV. for the education of the Dauphin, were the production of the Didots 1 press, as well as the collection of romances called the D'Artois, in 64 vols. 18mo; the Theatrical Selections by Corneille, the works of Racine, Telemachus, Tasso’s Jerusalem, two superb Bibles, and a multiplicity of other inestimable works, each of which, on its publication, seemed to make nearer approaches to perfection. Didot sedulously endeavoured to unite in his family every talent auxiliary to the printing art; one of his sons became a celebrated type-founder; and the voice of fame announces the superior rank which they both deservedly hold among the printers of the age. The fond father delighted to observe that he was excelled by his children; while they dutifully ascribed their success to the force of his instruction, and the benefit of his example. The life of JDidot was the life of honour; his abilities were universally known and respected; and the following anecdote will prove the goodness of his heart: in one of his journeys to the paper mills of Anonay, he met an artist who had introduced in France an improvement in the application of cylinders, &c. and believing that his ingenuity merited reward, exerted all his interest with government; but unfortunately, when he was on the point of succeeding, the artist died, leaving two girls in the helpless state of infancy. Didot took the orphans in his arms, proclaimed himself their father, and kept his word. At the age of seventy-three, Didot read over five times, and carefully corrected, before it was sent to the press, every sheet of the stereotype edition of Montague, printed by his sons. At four o'clock in the morning he was pursuing this fatiguing occupation. The correctness of the text will therefore render this work particularly valuable among the productions of the modern press. About eighteen months previous to his death, he projected an alphabetical index of every subject treated upon in Montague’s Essays. He had collected all his materials, at which he laboured unceasingly; and perhaps too strict an application to this favourite study accelerated the death of this eminent artist and benevolent man, which took place July 10, 1804. His business is still successfully carried on by his sons, Peter and Firmia Didot. The reputation of the elder Didot was much assisted by the labours of his brother, Peter Francis, who died in 1795, and to whom we owe the beautiful editions of Thomas a Kempis, fol. of Telemachus, 4to the “Tableau de l'empire Ottoman,” &c.

, of Alexandria, was an ecclesiastical writer of the fourth century, who supplied a very important defect by dint of genius and application. Jerome and Ruffinus assure us that though he lost his eyes at five years of age, when he had scarcely learned to read, yet he applied himself so earnestly to study, that he not only attained in a high degree grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, and the other arts, but even was able to comprehend some of the most difficult theorems in mathematics. He was particularly attached to the study of the Scriptures; and was selected as the most proper person to fill the chair in the famous divinity-school at Alexandria. His high reputation drew a great number of scholars to him; among the principal of whom were Jerome, Ruffinus, Palladius, and Isidorus. He read lectures with wonderful facility, answered upon the spot all questions and difficulties relating to the Holy Scriptures, and refuted the objections which were raised against the orthodox faith. He was the author of a great number of works of which Jerome has preserved the titles in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers; and of many more whose titles are not known. We have yet remaining a Latin translation of his book upon the Holy Spirit, to be found in the works of Jerome, who was the translator; and which is perhaps the best treatise the Christian world ever saw upon the subject. Whatever has been said since that time, in defence of the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, seems, in substance, to be foand in this book. His other works extant are, a treatise against the Manichees, in the original Greek, and “Enarrations upon the seven catholic epistles in Latin,” and in the Greek Chains are fragments of some of his commentaries. J. C. Wolff, of Hamburgh, published a large collection of notes and observations of Didymus upon the Acts of the Apostles, taken from a manuscript Greek chain, at Oxford. See Wolfii Anecdot. Graec. 1724. Didymus also wrote commentaries upon Origen’s books of Principles, which he defended very strenuously against all opposers. He was a great admirer of Origen, used to consider him as his master, and adopted many of his sentiments; on which account he was condemned by the fifth general council. He died in the year 395, aged eightyfive years.

, a Lutheran divine, was born June 30, 1647, at Stade in the duchy of Bremen, where his father was also a clergyman. He studied at Giessen, Jena, and Wirtemberg, at which last university he took his master’s degree. In 1672 he finished his course of study, and in 1675 was appointed rector of Stade. In 1683 he was raised to the dignity of superintendant of the duchies of Bremen and Ferden, and about that time was honoured with the degree of doctor of divinity by the university of Kiel. In 1712, the war obliging him to leave Stade, he went to Bremen; but after three years returned, and was re-instated in his office at Stade, where he died July 4, 1720. He wrote, 1. “De naturalismo cum aliorum, turn maxime Joannis Bodini, ex opere ejus manuscripto anecdoto, de abditis rerum subliinium arcanis, schediasnaa,” Leipsic, 1684, 12mo. This is a very able answer to the impious freedoms of Bodin (See Bodin). 2. “Specimen glossarii Latino-theodisci.” 3. “Dissertationes de sparsione florum.” 4. “De dissensu ecclesiae orientalis et Latinae circa purgatorium.” 5. “Enneacles animadversionum in diversa Joca annalium cardinalis Baronii,” &c. He wrote also various tracts in the German language, collected in a volume, Hamburgh, 1709, 4to. But he is, perhaps, better known as the publisher of an edition of the Stade Bible, which is a revision of Luther’s German Bible.

, another artist, known in this country, was born at the Hague, in 1655; but spent the greatest part of his life in England, to which he came in his seventeenth year, and where he gradually rose into considerable credit, having been well instructed by his father, who was a skilful painter of sea-pieces. His taste of landscape was formed almost entirely (as he often declared) by designing the lovely views in the western parts of England, and along the coasts. Some of his pictures have great clearness and transparence in the colouring, and a peculiar tenderness in the distances; they are truly fine in the skies, have an uncommon freedom in the clouds, and an agreeable harmony through the whole. But, as he was often obliged to paint for low prices, there is a great disproportion in his works. The narrowness of his circumstances depressed his talent, and rendered him inattentive to fame, being solely anxious to provide for his family. Had he been so happy as to receive a proper degree of encouragement, it is not improbable that he might have approached near to those of the first rank in his profession. The figures in his landscapes were frequently inserted by the younger Adrian Coloni, his brother-in-law. He began to engrave a set of prints, after views from his own designs, but the gout put an end to his life in 170-1, in the forty- ninth year of his age. Lord Orford, who has a portrait of him, thinks he was not much encouraged in England, except by Granville earl of Bath, for whom he drew several views and ruins in the West of England.

, an English gentleman, memorable for the share he had in the powder-plot, and his suffering on that account, was descended from an ancient family, and born some time in 1581. His father, Everard Digby, of Drystoke in Rutlandshire, esq. a person of great worth and learning, was educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and published several treatises, some on learned, others on curious subjects: as, 1. “Theoria analytica viam ad mouarchiam scientiarum demonstrans,” 1579, 4to. 2. “De duplici methodo libri duo, Rami methodum refutantes,” 1580, 8vo. 3. “De arte natandi, libri duo,” 1587. 4. “A dissuasive from taking away the goods and livings of the church,” 4to. His son, the subject of this article, was educated with great care, but unfortunately under the tuition of some popish priests, who gave him those impressions which his father, if he had lived, might probably have prevented; but he died when his son was only eleven years of age. He was introduced very early to the court of queen Elizabeth, where he was much noticed, and received several marks of her majesty’s favour. On the accession of king James, he went likewise to pay his duty, as others of his religion did; was very graciously received; and had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, being looked on as a man of a fair fortune, pregnant abilities, and a court-like behaviour. He married Mary, daughter and sole heiress of William Mulsho, esq. of Gothurst, in Buckinghamshire, with whom he had a great fortune, which, with his own estate, was settled upon the children of that marriage. One would have imagined that, considering his mild temper and happy situation in the world, this gentleman might have spent his days in honour and peace, without running the smallest hazard of meeting that disgraceful death, which has introduced his name into all our histories: but it happened far otherwise. He was drawn in by the artifices and persuasions of sir Thomas Tresham, a zealous papist, and probably also by those of the notorious Catesby, with whom he was intimate, to be privy to the gunpowder-plot; and though he was not a principal actor in this dreadful affair, or indeed an actor at all, yet he offered 1500l. towards defraying the expences of it; entertained Guy Fawkes, who was to have executed it, in his house; and was taken in open rebellion with other papists after the plot was detected and miscarried. The means by which sir Everard was persuaded to engage in this affair, according to his own account, were these: first, he was told that king James had broke his promises to the catholics; secondly, that severer laws against popery would be made in the next parliament, that husbands would be made obnoxious for their wives’ otte/iees and that it would be made a praemunire only to be a catholic; but the main point was, thirdly, that the restoring of the catholic religion was the duty of every member and that, in consideration of this, he was not to regard any favonjr* received from the crown, the tranquillity of his country, or the hazards that might be run in respect to his life, his family, or his fortune. Upon his commitment to the Tower, he persisted steadily in maintaining his own innocence as to the powder-plot, and refused to discover any who were concerned in it; but when he was brought to his trial at Westminster, Jan. 27, 1606, and indicted for being acquainted with and concealing the powder-treason, taking the double oath of secrecy and constancy, and acting openly with other traitors in rebellion, he pleaded guilty. After this, he endeavoured to extenuate his offence, by explaining the motives before mentioned; and then requested that, as he had been alone in the crime, he might alone bear the punishment, without extending it to his family; and that his debts might be paid, and himself beheaded. When sentence of death was passed, he seemed to be very much affected: for, making a low bow to those on the bench, he said, “If I could hear any of your lordships say you forgave me, I should go the more cheerfully to the gallows.” To this all the lords answered, “God forgive you, and we do.” He was, with other conspirators, upon the 30th of the same month, hanged, drawn, and quartered at the west end of St. Paul’s church in London, where he asked forgiveness of God, the king, the queen, the prince, and all the parliament; and protested, that if he had known this act at first to have been so foul a treason, he would not have concealed it to have gained a world, requiring the people to witness, that he died penitent and sorrowful for it. Wood mentions a most extraordinary circumstance at his death, as a thing generally Itnown, or rather generally reported; namely, that when the executioner plucked out his heart, and according to form held it up, saying, “Here is the heart of a traitor,” sir Everard made answer, “Thou lyest;” a story which will scarcely now obtain belief; yet it is told by Bacon in his “Historia vitae et mortis,” although he does not mention sir Everard’s name.

After a long stay in France, where he was highly caressed, he came over to England; and in 1639 was, with sir Walter Montague, employed by the queen to engage the papists to a liberal contribution to the king, which they effected; on which account some styled the forces then raised for his majesty, the popish army. Jan. 1640, the house of commons sent for sir Kenelm in order to know how far, and upon what grounds, he had acted in. this matter; which he opened to them very clearly, without having the least recourse to subterfuges or evasions. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, being at London, he was by the parliament committed prisoner to Winchesterhouse; but at length, in 1643, set at liberty, her majesty the queen dowager of France having condescended to write a letter, with her own hand, in his favour. His liberty was granted upon certain terms; and a very respectful letter written in answer to that of the queen. Hearne has preserved a copy of the letter, directed to the queen regent of France, in the language of that country; of which the following is a translation: “Madam, the two houses of parliament having been informed by the sieur de Gressy, of the desire your majesty has that we should set at liberty sir Kenelm Digby; we are commanded to make known to your majesty, that although the religion, the past behaviour, and the abilities of this gentleman, might give some umbrage of his practising to the prejudice of the constitutions of this realm; nevertheless, having so great a regard to the recommendation of your majesty, they have ordered him to be discharged, and have authorized us farther to assure your majesty, of their being always ready to testify to you their respects upon every occasion, as well as to advance whatever may regard the good correspondence between the two states. We remain your majesty’s most humble servants, &c.” In regard to the terms upon which this gentleman was set at liberty, they will sufficiently appear from the following paper, entirely written, as well as subscribed by his own hand: “Whereas, upon the mediation of her majesty the queen of France, it hath pleased both houses of parliament to permit me to go into that kingdom; in humble acknowledgement of their favour therein, and to preserve and confirm a good opinion of my zeal and honest intentions to the honour and service of my country, I do here, upon the faith of a Christian, and the word of a gentleman, protest and promise, that I will neither directly nor indirectly negociate, promote, consent unto or conceal, any practice or design prejudicial to the honour or safety of the parliament. And, in witness of my reality herein, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 3d day of August, 1643, Kenelm Digby.” Hovfever, before he quitted the kingdom, he was summoned by a committee of the house of commons, in order to give an account of any transactions he might be privy to between archbishop Laud and the court of Rome; and particularly as to an offer supposed to be made to that prelate from thence of a cardinal’s hat. Sir Kenelm assured the committee that he knew nothing of any such transactions; and that, in his judgment, the archbishop was what he seemed to be, a very sincere and learned protestant. During his confinement at Winchester-house, he was the author of two pieces at the least, which were afterwards made public; namely, 1. “Observations upon Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici,” 1643. 2. “Observations on the 22d stanza in the 9th canto of the 2d book of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” 1644, containing, says his biographer, “a very deep philosophical commentary upon these most mysterious verses.” His appearance in France was highly agreeable to many of the learned in that kingdom, who had a great opinion of his abilities, and were charmed with the spirit and freedom, of his conversation. It was probably about this time that, having read the writings of Descartes, he resolved to go to Holland on purpose to see him, and found him in his retirement at Egmond. There, after conversing with him. upon philosophical subjects some time, without making himself known, Descartes, who had read some of his works, told him, that “he did not doubt but he was the famous sir Kenelm Digby!” “And if you, sir,” replied the knight, “were not the illustrious M. Descartes, I should not have come here on purpose to see you.” Desmaizeaux, who has preserved this anecdote in his Life of St. Evremond, tells us also of a conversation which then followed between these great men, about lengthening out life to the period of the patriarchs, which we have already noticed in our account of Descartes. He is also said to have had many conferences afterwards with Descartes at Paris, where he spent the best part of the ensuing winter, and employed himself in digesting those philosophical treatises which he had been long meditating; and which he published in his own language, but with a licence or privilege from the French king the year following. Their titles are, J. “A Treatise of the nature of Bodies.” 2. “A Treatise declaring the operations and nature of Man’s Soul, out of which the immortality of reasonable Souls is evinced/' Both printed at Paris in 1644, and often reprinted at London. He published also, 3.” Institutionum peripateticarum libri quinque, curn appendice theologica de origine mundi," Paris, 1651: which piece, joined to the two former, translated into Latin by J. L. together with a preface in the same language by Thomas Albius, \hat is, Thomas White, was printed at London in 4to, 1C69.

, an English nobleman of great parts, was son of the preceding, and born at Madrid, in October, 1612. In 1626 he was entered of Magdalencollege, in Oxford, where he lived in great familiarity with the well-known Peter Heylin, and gave manifest proofs of those great endowments for which he was afterwards so distinguished. In 1636 he was created M. A. there, just after Charles 1. had left Oxford; where he had been spendidly entertained by the university, and particularly at St. John’s college, by Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In the beginning of the long parliament he was disaffected to the court, and appointed one of the committee to prepare a charge against the earl of Strafford, in 1640 but afterwards would not consent to the bill, “not only,” as he said, “because he was unsatisfied in the matter of law, but for that he was more unsatisfied in the matter of fact.” From that time he became a declared enemy to the parliament, and shewed his dislike of their proceedings in a warm speech against them, which he made at the passing' of the bill of attainder against the said earl, in April 1641. This speech was condemned to be burnt, and himself in June following, expelled the house of commons. In Jan. 1642, he went on a message from his majesty to Kingston-upon-Thames, to certain gentlemen there, with a coach and six horses. This they improved into a warlike appearance; and accordingly he was accused of high treason in parliament, upon pretence of his levying war at Kingston-upon-Thames. Clarendon mentions “this severe prosecution of a young nobleman of admirable parts and eminent hopes, in so implacable a manner, as a most pertinent instance of the tyranny and injustice of those times.” Finding what umbrage he had given to the parliament, and how odious they had made him to the people, he obtained leave, and a licence from his majesty, to transport himself into Holland; whence he wrote several letters to his friends, and one to the queen, which was carried by a perfidious confidant to the parliament, and opened. In a secret expedition afterwards to the king, he was taken by one of the parliament’s ships, and carried to Hull; but being in such a disguise that not his nearest relation could have known him, he brought himself off very dextrously by his artful management of the governor, sir John Hotham. In 1643 he was made one of the secretaries of state to the king, and high steward of the university of Oxford, in the room of William lord Say. In the latter end of 1645 he went into Ireland, and exposed himself to great hazards of his life, for the service of the king; from thence he passed over to Jersey, where the prince of Wales was, and after that into France, in order to transact some important matters with the queen and cardinal Mazarin. Upon the death of the king, he was exempted from pardon by the parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II. when he was restored to all he had lost, and made knight of the garter. He became very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in parliament, and distinguished himself by his enmity to Clarendon while chancellor. He died at Chelsea, March 20, 1676, after succeeding his father as earl of Bristol. Many of his speeches and letters are still extant, to he found in our historical collections and he wrote “Elvira,” a comedy, &c. There are also letters of his cousin sir Kenelm Digby, against popery, mentioned in our account of sir Kenelm yet afterwards he became a papist himself; which inconsistencies in his character have been neatly depicted by lord Orford. “He was,” says he, “a singular person, whose life was one contradiction. He wrote against popery, and embraced it; he was a zealous opposer of the court, and a sacrifice for it; was conscientiously converted in the midst of his prosecution of lord Strafford, and was most unconscientiously a prosecutor of lord Clarendon. With great parts he always hurt himself and his friends; with romantic bravery, he was always an unsuccessful commander. He spoke for the test act, though a Roman catholic, and addicted himself to astrology on the birth-day of true philosophy.”

He was a worthy good man, and, as Philipot says, “a great assertor of his country’s liberty in the worst of times, when the sluices of prerogative were opened, and the banks of the law were almost overwhelmed with the inundations of it.” He is now chiefly known as the author of several literary performances, He published, 1. “A Defence of Trade in a letter to sir Thomas Smith, knt. governor of the East India company,” 1615, 4to and after his death there was printed under his name, 2. “A Discourse concerning the Rights and Privilege’s of the Subject in a conference desired by the lords, and had by a committee of both houses April 3, 1628,” 1642, 4to. At this conference, it was, that sir Dudley made the speech above-mentioned which is probably the same given here. 3. He made several speeches upon other occasions, inserted in Raaimorth’s Collections, and “Ephemeris Parliamentarian.” 4. He collected the letters that passed between the lord Burleigh, sir Francis Waisingham, and others, about the intended marriages of queen Elizabeth with the duke of Anjou, in 1570, and with the duke of Alencon in 1581, which were published in 1655, under the title of “The Complete Ambassador, &c.” 1655. folio.

During the former years of Dillenius in England, his time appears to have been divided between the country residence of Mr, James Sherard, at Eltham, in Kent; the consul’s house in town; and his own lodgings, which in 1728 were in Barking-alley. At the latter end of 1727, Dillenius was so doubtful concerning what might be the state of his future circumstances, that he entertained 4 design of residing in Yorkshire. This scheme did not take effect; and on Aug. 12, 1728, Dr. William Sherard died, and by his will gave 3000l. to provide a salary for a professor of botany at Oxford, on condition that Dillenius should be chosen the first professor; and he bequeathed to the establishment his botanical library, his herbarium, and his pinax. The university of Oxford having waved the right of nomination, in consequence of Dr. Sherard’s benefaction, Dillenius now arrived at that situation which had probably been the chief object of his wishes, the asylum, against future disappointments, and the field of all that gratification which his taste and pursuits prompted him to desire, and qualified him to enjoy. He was placed likewise in the society of the learned, and at the fountain of every information which the stores of both ancient and modern erudition could display to an inquisitive mind. One of the principal employments of Dr. William Sherard was the compilation of a pinax, or collection of all the names which had been given by botanical writers to each plant. After the death of Sherard, our professor zealously fulfilled the will of his benefactor, in the care he took of his collection, which he greatly augmented. But he was not a little chagrined at the want of books, and the means of purchasing them. Another undertaking in which our author was engaged, was the “Hortus Elthamensis.” In this elegant and elaborate work, of which Linnæus says, “Est opus botanicum quo absolutius mundus non vidit,” 417 plants are described and figured with the most circumstantial accuracy. They are all drawn and etched by Dillenius’s own hand, and consist principally of such exotics as were then rare, or had but lately been introduced into England. The sale of this work, which was published in London, 1732, fol. did not by any means correspond with its merit. So limited was the attention at that time paid to botanical objects, that the “Hortus Elthamensis” found but few purchasers. Dillenius cut up a considerable number of copies, as papers to hold his Hortus Siccus; and in despair of selling the remainder, through the recommendation of his friend Gronovius, disposed of them, together with the plates, to a Dutch bookseller, who broke; so that our author lost the whole of the little profit he had expected to derive from the sale. April 3, 1735, he was admitted to the degree of M. D. in the university of Oxford. His former degree of the same kind had probably been taken at Giessen. In the summer of 1736 he had the honour of a visit at Oxford from the celebrated Linnæus, who returned with the highest opinion of his merit and from this period a correspondence was carried on between them. After the publication of the Hortus Elthamensis, Billenius pursued his “History of Mosses” with great application; in the prosecution of which he enjoyed every desirable assistance. There is the utmost reason to believe that Dillenius intended to have undertaken the funguses as well as the mosses; which design he appears to have had in contemplation not long after his settlement in this country. Dillenius is said to have been of a corpulent habit of body; which circumstance, united to his close application to study, might probably contribute to shorten his days. In the last week of March, 1747, he was seized with an apoplexy, and died on the 2d of April, in the sixtieth year of his age. Concerning Dillenius’s domestic character, habits, temper, and dispositions, there is but slender information. The account of his contemporaries was, that he was moderate, temperate, and gentle in all his conduct; that he was known to few who did not seek him and, as might he expected from the bent of his studies, and the close application he gave to them, that his habits were of the recluse kind. From the perusal of some of his letters it may he collected that he was naturally endowed with a placid disposition, improved by a philosophical calmness of mind, which secured him in a considerable degree from the effects of the evils incident to life. In one of these he expresses himself as follows: “For my little time, 1 have met with as man*-* adversities and misfortunes as any body; which, by the help of exercise, amusement, and reading some of the stoic philosophers, I have overcome; and am resolved that nothing shall afflict me more. Many things here, as well as at my home, that have happened to me, would cut down almost any body. But two days ago I had a letter, acquainting me with a very near relation’s death, whom I was obliged to assist with money in his calamities, in order to set him up again in business and now this is all gone, and there is something more for me to pay, which is not a little for me; but it does not at all affect me. I rather thank God that it is not worse. This is only one, and I have had harder strokes than this and there lie still some upon me.” His drawings, dried plants, printed books, and manuscripts, &c. were left by our author to Dr. Seidel, his executor by whom they were sold to Dr. Sibthorpe, his ingenious and learned successor in the botanical professorship. They have been frequently studied by succeeding botanists, as may be found recorded in the works of Lightfoot, Dickson, Turner, Smith, and others; the present amiable professor, Dr. George Williams, being happy at all times to render them useful, and to forward the views of the truly excellent founder.

To him the wit of Greece and Rome was known,

, a diligent schoolmaster, was many years settled in Wapping, and is known by an useful “Spelling Book,” where, in imitation of his predecessors, he has favoured the public with a print of himself. He wrote besides, “The young Book-keeper’s Assistant,” 8vo. “The Schoolmaster’s Assistant,” 12mo; and 3. “Miscellaneous Arithmetic,” 12mo, all of them manytimes printed. He died Jan. 17, 1780. To this brief notice, from the last edition of this Dictionary, perhaps of little importance, we may add, that there was, about fifty or sixty years ago, a W. H. Dilworth, M. A. the author of many abridged Lives and Histories, price one shilling each, “adorned with cuts,” such as “The Life of Alexander Pope, esq. with the Secret History of Himself and the Noble Lords his patrons;” “The Life of Dean Swift, with a thousand agreeable incidents,” &c. &c. He appears to have been the legitimate successor of Robert Burton, and probably, like him, may one day be elevated from the hawker’s stall to the collector’s library.

, canon of the chapter of St. Bennet at Paris, and member of the academy of the Arcades at Rome, was born of a reputable family at Amiens, Nov. 1, 1715, and died at Paris April 23, 1786. After exercising the ministerial functions in the place of his nativity, he repaired to the capital to engage in literary pursuits. M. Joly le Fleuri, at that time avocat-génral, gave him his esteem, his confidence, and his patronage. He was first employed on the “Journal Chretien,” under the abbe Joannetj and the zeal with which he attacked certain authors, and especially M. de SaintFoix, involved him in some unpleasant controversy. He had represented this latter as an infidel seeking every occasion for mixing pestilential notions in whatever he wrote. SaintFoix took up the affair with warmth, and brought an action against both him and abbe Joannet, which terminated in a sort of reparation made him by the two journalists, in their periodical publication. After this the abbe Dinouart began to write on his own account, and in October 1760, set up his “Journal Ecclesiastique,” or, Library of ecclesiastical knowledge, which he continued till his death. He established a very extensive correspondence with the provincial clergy, who consulted him on the difficulties of their ministration. This correspondence contributed greatly to the recommendation of his journal, which contained instructions in all matters of church discipline, morality, and ecclesiastical history. The editor indeed made no scruple of drawing almost all his materials from well-known books, without altering a word; he inserted, for example, in his journal, all the ecclesiastical part of Hardion’s Universal History; but it was useful to the inferior provincial clergy, who were deficient in libraries, and not sorry to have their loss in some shape made up by the periodical compilation of abbe Dinouart. Other critics censured him for giving an incoherent assortment of articles; for advertising, for instance, in the same leaf, “Balm of Genevieve,” and “Sermons to be sold” for the use of young orators who would not take the trouble to compose them; imitating in this a quack of our own nation, who used to advertise sermons, marmalade, and rules for carving. Dinouart, however, bears a reputable personal character. He was naturally of a kind disposition and a sensible heart. The great vivacity of his temper, which hurried him sometimes into transient extravagancies, which he was the first to condemn in himself, prompted also his activity to oblige, for which he never let any opportunities escape him. He generally wrote in a loose, negligent, and incorrect manner, both in verse and prose, and even aspired to be thought a French and Latin poet; but still the usefulness of the greater part of his works recommended them. Among them, we find, 1. “Embriologie sacre'e, traduite du Latin de Cangiamila,” 12mo. 2. “Hymnes Latines.” 3. “Manuel des pasteurs,” 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “La llhetorique du predicateur, ou Traite de l'eloquence du corps,” 12mo. 5. A new edition of the “Abrege” chronologique de Phistoire ecclesiastique de Pabbe Macquer,“Paris, 1768, 3 vols. 3vo. 6.” Anecdotes ecclesjastiques," ibid. 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, in which he was assisted by the abbd Jaubert.

or Dion Cassius, an ancient historian, known also by the surnames of Cocceius or Cocceianus, was born at Nicsea, a city of Bithyuia, and flourished in the third century. His father Aproniatius, a man of consular dignity, was governor of Dalmatia, and some time after proconsul of Cilicia, under the emperors Trajan and Adrian. Dio was with his father in Cilicia; and from thence went to Rome, where he distinguished himself by public pleadings. From the reign of Commodus he was a senator of Rome; was made prtetor of the city under Pertinax; and raised at length to the consulship, which he held twice, and exercised the second time, jointly with the emperor Alexander Severus. He had passed through several great employments under the preceding emperors. Macrinus had made him governor of Pergamus and Smyrna; he commanded some time in Africa; and afterwards had the administration of Austria and Hungary, then called Pannonia, committed to him. He undertook the task of writing history, as he informs us himself, because he was admonished and commanded to do it by a vision from heaven; and he tells us also, that he spent ten years in collecting materials for it, and twelve more in composing it. His history began from the building of Rome, and proceeded to the reign of Alexander Severus. It was divided into So books, or eight decades; many of which are not now extant. The first 34 books are lost, with part of the 35th. The 25 following are preserved intire; but instead of the last 20, of which nothing more than fragments remain, we have only the epitome, which Xiphtliuus, a monk of Coustantinople, has given of them. Photius observes, that he wrote his Roman history, as others had also done, not from the foundation of Rome only, but from the descent of Æneas into Italy; which he continued to the year of Home 982, and of Christ 228, when, as we have observed, he was consul a second time with the emperor Alexander Severus. What we now have of it, begins with the expedition of Lucullus against Mithridates king of Pontus, about the year of Rome 684, and ends with the death of the emperor Claudius about the year 806.

Dio obtained leave of the emperor Severus to retire to Nicaea, where he spent the latter part of his life. He is supposed to have been about seventy years old when he died; although the year of his death is not certainly known. His History was first printed at Paris, 1548, fol. by Robert Stephens, with only the Greek; but has been reprinted since with a Latin translation by Leunclavius, Hanov. 1592, fol. The best edition, however, is that of Reimarus, Hamburgh, 1750, 2 vols. fol. which was begun by Fabricius. Photius ranks the style of Dio Cassius amongst the most elevated. Dio seems, he says, to have imitated Thucyclicles, whom he follows, especially in his narratives and orations; but he has this advantage over him, that he cannot be reproached with obscurity. Besides his History, Suidas ascribes to him some other compositions; as, 1. “The Life of the Philosopher Arrianus.” 2. “The Actions of Trajan” and 3. certain “Itineraries.” Raphael Volaterranus makes him also the author of three books, entitled “De Principe,” and some small treatises of morality. His History, as abridged by Xiphilinus, was translated into English by Manning, and published at London, 1704, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a very eminent divine, descended of a noble family of Lucca, was born June 6, 1576; but of his early years we have no information. When, however, he was only nineteen years of age, we find him appointed professor of Hebrew at Geneva. In 1619 the church of Geneva sent him to the synod of Dort, with his colleague Theodore Tronchin. Diodati gained so much reputation in this synod, that he was chosen, with five other divines, to prepare the Belgic confession of faith. He was esteemed an excellent divine, and a good preacher. His death happened at Geneva, Oct. 3, 1649, in his seventy-third year, and was considered as a public loss. He has rendered himself noticed by some works which he published, but particularly by his translation of the whole Bible into Italian, the first edition of which he published, with notes, in 1607, at Geneva, and reprinted in 16 n. The New Testament was printed separately at Geneva in 1608, and at Amsterdam and Haerlem in 1665. M. Simon observes, that his method is rather that of a divine and a preacher, than of a critic, by which he means only, that his work is more of a practical than a critical kind. He translated the Bible also into French, but not being so intimate with that language, he is not thought to have succeeded so well as in the Italian. This translation was printed in folio, at Geneva, in 1664. He was also the first who translated into French father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” and many have esteemed this a more faithful translation than de la Houssaye’s, although less elegant in language. He also is said to have translated sir Edwin Sandys’ book on the “State of Religion in the West.” But the work by which he is best known in this country is his Annotations on the Bible, translated into English, of which the third and best edition was published in 1651, fol. He is said to have begun writing these annotations in 1606, at which time it was expected that Venice would have shaken off the popish yoke, a measure to which he was favourable; and he went on improving them in his editions of the Italian and French translations. This work was at one time time very popular in England, and many of the notes of the Bible, called the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” were taken from Diodati literally. Diodati was at onetime in England, as we learn from the life of bishop Bedell, whom he was desirous to become acquainted with, and introduced him to Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham. From Morrice’s “State Letters of the right hon. the earl of Orrery,” we learn that when invited to preach at Venice, he was obliged to equip himself in a trooper’s habit, a scarlet cloak with a sword, and in that garb he mounted the pulpit; but was obliged to escape again to Geneva, from the wrath of a Venetian nobleman, whose mistress, affected by one of Diqdati'a sermons, had refused to continue her connection with her keeper. The celebrated Milton, also, contracted a friendship for Diodati, when on his travels; and some of his Latin elegies are addressed to Charles Diodati, the nepheiv of the divine. This diaries was one of Milton’s most intimate friends, and was the son of Theodore Diodati, who, although originally of Lucca, as well as his brother, married an English lady, and his son in every respect became an Englishman. He was also an excellent scholar, and being educated to his father’s profession, practised physic in Cheshire. He was at St. Paul’s school, with Milton, and afterwards, in 1621, entered of Trinity-college, Oxford. He died in 1638.

, an eminent French surgeon and writer, was born at Paris, and became surgeon in ordinary to Maria Teresa of Austria, queen of France, and to the dauphinesses and the royal family. These honours were bestowed in consequence of the fame which he acquired as lecturer in surgery and anatomy in the royal gardens at Paris, an office founded by Louis XIV. He retained this and his other offices with increasing reputation, until his death, Dec. 11, 1718. His first publication was “Histoire anatomique d'une matrice extraordinaire,” 1683. In 1690, he published “Anatomic de l'homme suivant la circulation du sang, et les nouvelles decouvertes,” 8vo, an useful epitome, containing all that was then known on the subject. It was well received, frequently reprinted, and was translated in 1718, into the Tartar language, by order of Cam-hi, the emperor of China, for the benefit of his subjects. His next work, which first appeared in 1707, was “Cours d'Operations de Chirurgie demontree, au Jardin Royal de Paris,” 8vo. This has been reprinted still more frequently than the former work, and has been translated into nearly all the modern languages. Heister gave an edition of it in Latin, with notes, and it still retains a certain degree of credit. In 1709, he gave “Dissertation sur la mort subite, avec l‘histoire d’une fille cataleptique,” 12mo; and in 1718, “Traite general des Accouchmens,” 8vo. This also has been translated into most modern languages, though it contains little more than an abridgment of the practice of Mauriceau, and is now almost entirely unnoticed.

, an eminent physician of Anaxarba, since called Ceesarea, in Cilicia, flourished in the reign of Nero, in the first century, and composed five books of the Materia Medica. Fabricius is certain, that he composed these books before Pliny wrote his Natural History, although he supposes Pliny might reach the age of Dioscorides. Pliny has indeed made no mention of him, and yet relates many things of a very similar nature; which circumstances Fabricius imputes to their both having collected their materials from the same store-house, and to Pliny’s not having seen the books of Dioscorides. This physician tells us, in the preface of his first book, that he had consulted all who had written upon the Materia Medica before him; that to the information he had received from others, he had joined great application of his own; that he had travelled over many countries, for the sake of confirming by observation what he had learned from books; that he had corrected many errors of others, added many new things of his own, and digested the whole into a regular order. Salmasius considers all this as so much boasting, and treats Dioscorides as merely a laborious compiler, or pillager of others; but Galen has pronounced these books of Dioscorides to be the best that had been written upon the subject, and it is evident that in the early stages of botanical science he was looked up to with a reverence which is no longer paid. His object being solely the Materia Medica, he discusses each subject specifically, and in a separate chapter, dividing the whole into five books; in which, as far as any order takes place, they arrange into aromatic, alimentary, and medicinal plants. His descriptions are chiefly taken from colour, size, mode of growing, comparison of the leaves and roots, with other plants well known, and therefore left undescribed. In general they are short, and frequently insufficient to determine the species; and hence arise the endless and irreconcileable contentions among his commentators. In this manner, however, he has described near 700 plants; to which he subjoins the virtues and uses; and to him all posterity have appealed as decisive on the subject.

This wretched man was married so early as April 1751, even before he was in orders, or had any certain means of supporting himself; but his wife, “though largely endowed with personal attractions, was certainly deficient in those of birth and fortune.” She survived to the year 1784. Dr. Dodd exhibits the most awful instance known in our days of the miserable consequences of indulging habits of gaiety and expence in a profession to which the world looks for a more edifying example. His life, by his own confession, was for many years fearfully erroneous. But the most remarkable part of his history was the uncommon interest excited in the public mind, and the numerous petitions presented to the throne in his favour. Even the talents of Dr. Johnson were engaged to give a fair colouring to his case, and to combine with public sympathy a high opinion of the talents of which the world was about to be deprived. For this purpose the pen of that eminent writer was employed in writing those papers and documents which, to be any thing, ought to have been written by Dodd himself, but which, being immediately known to be Johnson’s, could only be considered as a part of that literary quackery which Dodd had so often practised. Dr. Johnson appears indeed in this instance to have been more swayed by popular judgment, than he would perhaps have been willing to allow. The cry was, the honour of the clergy; but if the honour of the clergy was tarnished, it was by Dodd’s crime, and not his punishment; for his life had been so long a disgrace to his cloth, that he had deprived himself of the sympathy which attaches to the first deviation from rectitude, and few criminals could have had less claim to such a display of popular feeling.

Lord Melcombe has some literary claims. Two of his Memorials to the court of Spain may be seen in the Historical Register for 1716, p. 205 207, &c. He was concerned in writing the “Remembrancer,” an anti-ministerial paper, published in 1744; and was the avowed Author of “Occasional observations on a double- titled paper about the clear produceof the Civil List Revenue, from Midsummer 1727 to Midsummer 1761.” A pamphlet on the “Expedition to Rochefort” has also been ascribed to him. His poetical efforts, some of which have been admired, were, “An Epistle to sir Robert Walpole, written on his birth-day, Aug. 26,” printed in Dodsley’s Collection, and afterwards, as we have mentioned, addressed, mutatis mutandis, to lord Bute; “An Epistle from John More, apothecary in Abchurch lane, to lord Carteret, upon the treaty of Worms;” “Verses in his eating-room at Hammersmith;” “Verses to Mrs. Stubbs;” “Verses written a little before his death to Dr. Young;” some “Love Verses,” and other poetry unpublished, and most of which, it is said, is too indelicate for publication; “An Elegy on the Death of queen Caroline” is printed in Coxe’s Life of Walpole. But he will long be best known by his celebrated “Diary,” published in 1784 by Henry Penruddock Wyndham, esq. On a publication so generally read, our remarks may be spared. The public owe much to the editor for thus “unveiling the mysterious intrigues of a court, and for exposing the latent causes of opposition.” The whole proves, that while this publication reflects “some degree of honour on lord Melcombe’s abilities, it shows his political conduct to have been wholly directed by the base motives of avarice, vanity, and selfishness.”

, an eminent dissenting divine, great-grand-nephew to the preceding, was the son of the nonconformist rector of Shepperton in Middlesex, and was born in London, June 26th, 1702. At his birth he was so weakly that he was regarded as dead; but by attention and care he recovered some degree of strength. His constitution, however, was always feeble, and probably rendered more so by the assiduity with which he prosecuted his studies and public services. To his pious parents he was indebted for early instruction in religion, and for those salutary impressions which were never erased from his mind. His classical education commenced in London, but being left an orphan in his thirteenth year, he was removed to a private school at St. Alban’s, where he had the happiness of commencing an acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Clark, the dissenting minister of the place; and having lost his whole patrimony after his father’s death, the protection of this friend enabled him to pursue the course of his studies. In 1715 he left St. Alban’s, and retired to the house of his sister, the wife of Mr. John Nettleton, a dissenting minister at Ongar, in Essex, and while deliberating on the course of life which he should pursue, he received offers of encouragement and support from the duchess of Bedford, if he chose to be educated in one of the universities for the church of England; but could not conscientiously comply with the terms of conformity. Others advised him to devote himself to the profession of the law; but before he had finally determined, he received a letter from Mr. Clark, with generous offers of assistance, if he chose the ministry among the dissenters. These offers he thankfully accepted; and after continuing for some months at St. Alban’s in the house of his benefactor, he was placed, in October 1719, under the tuition of the reverend John Jennings, who kept an academy for the education of nonconformist ministers at Kibworth in Leicestershire. Here he paid particular attention to classical literature, and cultivated an acquaintance with the Greek writers, and also with the best authors of his own country. In 1722, having obtained an ample testimonial from a committee of ministers, by whom he was examined, he became a preacher at Kibworth, which he preferred, because it was an obscure village, and the congregation was small, so that he could pursue his studies with little interruption. During his residence at this place, from June 1723 to October 1725, he is said to have excelled as a preacher. At first he paid particular attention to his compositions, and thus acquired a habit of delivering his sentiments usually with judgment, and always with ease and freedom of language, when he was afterwards, by a multiplicity of engagements, reduced to the necessity of extempore speaking. In 1725, he removed to Market-Harborough, to enjoy the conversation and advice of Mr. Some, the pastor of the congregation in that place and after the year 1727, when he was chosen assistant to Mr. Some, he preached alternately at Kibworth and MarketHarborough. He received several invitations from congregations much more numerous than these; but he determined to adhere to the plan, which he had adopted, of pursuing his schemes of improvement in a more private residence. When he left the academy, his tutor, Mr. Jennings, not long before his death, which happened in 1723, advised him to keep in view the improvement of the course of lectures on which he had attended; and this advice he assiduously regarded during his retirement at Kibworth. Mr. Jennings foresaw, that, in case of his own death, Mr. Doddridge was the most likely of any of his pupils to complete the schemes which he had formed, and to undertake the conduct of a theological academy. Mr. Doddridge’s qualifications for the office of tutor were generally known and approved, in consequence of a plan for conducting the preparatory studies of young persons intended for the ministry, which he had drawn up at the desire of a friend, whose death prevented his carrying it into effect. This plan was shewn to Dr. Watts, who had then no personal acquaintance with the author; but he was so much pleased with it, that he concurred with others in the opinion, that the person who had drawn it up was best qualified for executing it. Accordingly he was unanimously solicited to undertake the arduous office; and after some hesitation, and with a very great degree of diffidence, he consented to undertake it. Availing himself of all the information and assistance which he could obtain from conversation and correspondence with his numerous friends, he opened his academy at Midsummer, in 1729, at Market- Harborongh. Having continued in this situation for a few months, he was invited by a congregation at Northampton; and he removed thither in December 1729; and in March of the following year, he was ordained according to the mode usually practised among dissenters. In this place he engaged, in a very high degree, the love and attachment of his congregation; and he observes, in his last will, “that he had spent the most delightful hours of his life in assisting the devotions of as seuious, as grateful, and as deserving a people, as perhaps any minister had ever the happiness to serve.”

, an English poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, in 1703. His father is said to have kept the tree-school at Mansfield, a situation in which it is natural to suppose he could have bestowed some education on his children, yet it is not easy to reconcile this with the servile track of life into which they were obliged to enter. He is described as a little deformed man, who, after having a large family by his first wife, married at the age of seventy-five a young girl of only seventeen years, by whom he had a child. Of his sons, A Ivory lived many years, and died in the service of the late sir George Saville; Isaac was for some time gardener to Mr. Allen, of Prior-park, and afterwards to lord Weymouth, at Long-leat. In these two families he spent fifty-two years of his life; and has the credit of being the projector of some of the beautiful plantations at both those seats. He retired from Long-leat at the age of seventy-eight, and died about three years after. There was a third, John, whose name with that of Alvory, and of the father, is among the subscribers to our poet’s first publication. James, who was twenty-two years younger than Robert, will come to be mentioned hereafter; when he was taken into partnership. How he passed the preceding part of his time is not known. Of Robert, nothing is now remembered in his native town, but a traditional story, that he was put apprentice to a stocking-weaver of that place, and that, being almost starved, he ran away, and was hired by a lady as her footman: this lady, it is added, observing that he employed his leisure hours in reading, gave him every encouragement; and soon after he wrote an entertainment, which was shewn to Pope and others. Part of this story is probable, but too much of his history is crowded into it. His first service was not that of a lady, nor was the entertainment (The Toy-shop) his first production.

His next attempt was more successful than the publication or' his poems, and, considering the disadvantages of a life of servitude, more extraordinary; he wrote a dramatic piece, entitled “The Toy-shop,” the style of which discovers an improvement which to those who had just read “The Muse in Livery,” must have appeared wonderful. This the author determined to submit to Pope in manuscript. He tells us he had a great regard for that poet, before he had the honour of being known to him, and “it was a great mortification to him that he used to think himself too inconsiderable ever to merit his notice or esteem,. However, some time after I had wrote the Toy-shop, hoping there was something in it which might recommend me to him in a moral capacity, at least, though not in a poetical one, I sent it to him, and desired his opinion of it; expressing some doubt, that though I designed it for the stage, yet, unless its novelty would recommend it, I was afraid it would not bear a public representation, and therefore had not offered it to the actors.”

Pope accordingly recommended it to Mr. Rich, and ever after bestowed his “favour and acquaintance” on the author. The hint of this excellent satire, for it scarcely deserves the name of drama, was taken from Randolph’s “M use’s Looking-glass.” It was acted at Covent-garden theatre in 1735, and met with great success; but was yet more popular, when printed, being indeed much better calculated for the closet than the stage. There is an ease and elegance in the style which raise our opinion of Dodsfey’s natural talents; and so many circumstances of public and private absurdities are brought together, as to afford decisive proof that he had a mind far above his situation, and that with habits of attentive observation of life and manners, he cherished the justest moral feelings. Such was his situation, however, that for some time he was supposed to be only the nominal author of the “Toy-shop;” but when he asserted his claim, he became more noticed, and the theatre more easily accessible to his future dramatic attempts. The profits of his volume of poems, and the Toy-shop, enabled him to set up in business, and with much judgment he chose that of a bookseller, which liis friends might promote, and which might afford him leisure and opportunity to cultivate his talents. At what time he quitted service is not known, but he commenced the bookselling trade at a shop in Pall Mall, in 1735, and by Pope’s friendly interest, and his own humble and prudent behaviour, soon drew into his little premises such a society of men of genius, taste, and rank, as have seldom met. Many of these he afterwards had the honour to unite together in more than one scheme of literary partnership.

It would be unnecessary to say much on the merit of a piece which is so well known. During its early popularity, it occasioned many imitations, the principal of which were, “The Second part of the Œconomy of Human Life;” “The Œconomy of Female Life” “The Œconomy of the Sexes” and “The Œconomy of a Winter’s Day,” an humourous burlesque. Dodsley’s “Œconomy,” however, outlived these temporary efforts, and continued to be praised and read as the production of lord Chesterfield. The real author, although he might secretly appropriate this praise to himself, was perhaps not very well pleased to find that he seldom was suspected to have deserved it. His next production appears to have occupied his thoughts and leisure hours for a considerable time. This was a poem, intended to be comprized in three books, treating of agriculture, commerce, and arts. Of these, by way of experiment, he published the first, under the general titld of “Public Virtue,” in 1754; but it did not meet with such encouragement as to induce him to complete his design. It is written in blank verse, to which his ear was not very well attuned; but with many imperfections, this poem has likewise many beauties. He appears to have contemplated rural scenery with the eye of a poet. In the didactic part, he fails as others have failed before him, who wished to convey mechanical instruction with solemn pomp, and would invoke the heroic muse to tell what an unlettered farmer knows better. To console himself for the cool reception of this work, he told Dr. Johnson that “Public Virtue was not a subject to interest the age.”

About this time, he established, in conjunction with Moore, a periodical paper, entitled “The World,” a name which Dodsley is allowed to have suggested after the other partners had perplexed themselves in vain for a proper one. Lord Lyttelton, although no contributor himself, used his influence with his friends for that purpose, and Dodsley procured papers from many of his friends and customers. One paper only, No. 32, is acknowledged to come from his own pen. By undertaking to pay Moore a stipulated sum for each paper, whether contributed by that writer, or sent by volunteers, J)odsley secured to himself the copyright, and was amply repaid not only by its sale in. single numbers, but by the many editions printed in volumes. When it was concluded in 1756, he obtained permission of the principal writers to insert their names, which gave it an additional interest with the public. A few chose, at that time, to remain concealed, who have since been discovered, and some are yet unknown. Chesterfield and Horace Walpole were known at the time of publication.

, an English barrister, was the son of the Rev. John Dodson, M. A. a dissenting minister of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, and of Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Mr. Foster, an attorney-at-law of the same place. He was born at Marlborough on the 20th or 21st Sept. 1732, and educated partly under the care of his father, and partly at the grammar-school of that town; and under the direction of his maternal uncle, sir Michael Foster, he was brought up to the profession of the law. After being admitted of the Middle Temple, London, August 31, 1754, he practised many years with considerable reputation, as a special pleader. His natural modesty and cliffiJence discouraged him from attending the courts, and therefore he did not proceed to be called to the bar till July 4, 1783. This measure contributed, as was intended, more to the diminution than to the increase of professional business. He was appointed one of the commissioners of bankrupts in 1770, during the chancellorship of lord Camden, and was continued in that situation till the time of his death. On December 31, 1778, Mr. Dodson married miss Elizabeth Hawkes, his cousin-german, and eldest daughter of Mr. Hawkes, of Marlborough. He enjoyed a life of uninterrupted good health, and indeed little alteration was observeable in his strength or general habits till nearly the last year of his life. It was not till the month of October 1799, that he began more sensibly to feel the effect of disease; and, after a confinement to his room of about a fortnight, he died of a dropsy in his chest, at his house in Boswell-court, Carey-street, London, on the 13th of November of that year; and was buried in Bunhillfields the 21st of the same month. Mr. Dodson’s legal knowledge and discrimination were deservedly estimated by those to whom he was known, and who had occasion to confer with him upon questions of law. He was deliberate in forming his opinion, and diffident in delivering it, but always clear in the principles and reasons on which it was founded. His general acquaintance with the laws, and veneration for the constitution of his country, evinced his extensive acquaintance with the principles of jurisprudence, and his regard for the permanence of the liberties of Britain. In 1762, Mr. Justice Foster published his book, entitled, “A Report of some proceedings on the commission for the trial of the Rebels in the year 1746, in the county of Surrey; and of other crown cases; to which are added, Discourses upon a few branches of the Crown Law.” This work will be to him, said Mr. Dodson, “monumeutum aere perennius.” The impression being large, and a pirated edition being made in Ireland, a new edition, was not soon wanted in England; but in 1776 Mr. Dodson published a second edition with some improvements, and with remarks in his preface on some objections made by Mr. Barrington in his “Observations on the more ancient Statutes.” In 1792 he published a third edition, with an appendix, containing three new cases, which the author had intended to insert in the first edition, and had caused to be transcribed for that purpose. In 1795 Mr. Dobson drew up a life of his truly learned and venerable uncle sir Michael Faster, which was to have formed a part of the sixth volume of the new edition of the Biographia Britannica. It has since been printed separately in 1811, 8vo. But the public are in possession of more ample documents of Mr. Dodson’s deep research and critical judgment in biblical literature, than in legal disquisitions. He had very attentively and dispassionately examined th evidences of revelation, and was firmly convinced of the truth of its pretensions. He was zealous for the true and rational interpretation of its scriptures, because he was strongly persuaded of the great influence such interpretation would have on its reception in the world, and on the consequent happiness of mankind. But having a turn for biblical criticism, and having embraced the principles of the Unitarians, he published many papers in a work entitled “Commentaries and Essays,” written by the members of a small “Society for promoting the knowledge of the Scriptures.” Mr. Dodson was a very early member of this society, not only communicating some papers of his own, but conducting through the press some of the contributions of others. In 1790 he laid before the public, as the result of many years’ study, “New translation of Isaiah, with notes supplementary to those of Dr. Lowth, late bishop of London, and containing remarks on many parts of his Translation and Notes, by a Layman.” In this he has taken more freedoms than can be justified by the principles of sound criticism; which drew forth an able answer from the pen of Dr. Sturges, in “Short remarks on a new Translation of Isaiah,” 8vo. To this Mr. Dodson replied, with urbanity and candour, in “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Sturges, &c.” 8vo, 179 1.

, was born at Shottesbrooke, in Berkshire, June 17, 1709, and was educated at Trinity college, Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, on the 8th of June, 1732. In the course of his life, he obtained several considerable preferments. He was rector of Shottesbrooke, and vicar of Bucklesbury and of White-Waltham. Dr. Sherlock, when bishop of Salisbury, gave him a prebendal stall in that cathedral, and he afterwards became a canon of the same church. Bishop Thomas promoted him to the archdeaconry of Berks. The principal works by which he was distinguished, were, “A Free Answer to Dr. Middleton’s Free Enquiry,” published in 1749; and “A full and final Reply to Mr. Toll’s Defence of Dr. Middleton,” which appeared in 1751. Both these works were written with temper, as well as with learning. Our author was judged to have performed such good service to the cause of religion by his answer to Dr. Middleton, that the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, in full convocation on Feb. 23, 1749-50. He published also, “Two Sermons on the eternity of future punishment, in answer to Whiston with a Preface,” Oxford, 1743; “Visitation Sermon on the desireableness of the Christian Faith, published at the request of bishop Sherlock,” Oxford, 1741 “Two Sermons on a rational faith,” Oxford, 1745 “Sermon on the practical influence of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” Oxford, 1715; “Dissertation on Jepthah’s Vow, occasioned by Romaine’s Sermon on that subject,” London, 1745; “Practical Discourses (14) on moral subjects, vol.1.” London, 1748. A Dedication to his patron Arthur Vanittart, esq. of Shottesbrooke, precedes a masterly preface of considerable length, stating the great duties of morality, c. “Vol. II. London, 1749, containing 14 more;” and preceded by a Dedication to bishop Sherlock, whose “unsolicited testimony of favour” to him laid him “under personal obligations. Such a testimony from such a patron, and the obliging manner of conferring it, added much to the value of the favour itself.” “Assize Sermon on Human Laws,” Oxford, 1750; “Sermon on St. Paul’s Wish,” Oxford, 1752; “Two Sermons on Superstition,” Oxford, 1754; “Assize Sermon on the equal and impartial discharge of Justice,” Oxford, 1756 “Letter to the Author of Considerations on the Act to prevent Clandestine Marriages; with a Postscript occasioned by Stebbing’s Enquiry into the annulling Causes,” &c. London, 1755. This Letter *' by a Country Clergyman“was known, at the time, as Dr. DodwelPs;” Two Sermons on the Doctrine of the Divine Visitation by Earthquakes,“Oxford, 1756;” Assize Sermon on the False Witness, Oxford, 1758; “Sermon at the Meeting of the Charity Schools,” London, 1758; “Two Sermons on a particular Providence,” Oxford, 1760 “Sermon before the Sons of the Clergy,” London, 1760; “Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Berks,” London, 1764-; “Sermon at the Consecration of Bishop Moss, in 1766,” London, 1767; “The Sick Man’s Companion; or the Clergyman’s Assistant in visiting the Sick; with a Dissertation on Prayer,” London, 1767; “The Prayer, on laying the foundation stone of the Salisbury infirmary, subjoined to dean Greene’s Infirmary Sermon,” Salisbury, 1767; “Infirmary Sermon,” Salisbury, 1768. In 1302, the eldest son of our author permitted the “Three Charges on the Athanasian Creed,” in consequence of the request of some Oxford friends, to see the light. They were accordingly printed at the university press; and contributed, as the author expresses himself in his second page, “to obviate all real mistakes, to silence all wilful misrepresentations, to remove prejudices, to confirm the faith of others, and to vindicate our own sincerity in the profession of it” and it was considered by him as “not unseasonable or unuseful to review and justify that which is called the Athanasian Creed not, we well know, as composed by him whose name it bears, but as explaining the doctrine which he so strenuously maintained.”

As an author, not much remains to testify his abilities. It is said by Wood, that he was not very careful to print his sermons, though they much deserved publication: and, in fact, only three are known to be extant. 1. “A Sermon preached before the king at Whitehall, on Good Friday, March 24, 1664.” The text from John xix. part of ver. 19. 2. “A Sermon on Psal. liv. ver. 6 and 7,” on a day of thanksgiving for a naval victory; namely, June 20, 1665. 3. Another on a similar occasion in 1666, the text from Psal. xviii. 1, 2, 3. Both these were also preached before the king. They are all printed in quarto.

The wife of archbishop Dolben (by whom he had three children, Gilbert and John, and a daughter Catharine, who died an infant), survived him till 1706, when she died at Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in her eightieth year. His eldest son, Gilbert, who furnished Dryden with the various editions of Virgil, when about to translate that poet, was afterwards created a baronet by queen Anne, and for many years represented the city of Peterborough in parliament. He was appointed a justice of the common pleas in Ireland by William III. and held that office for twenty years. He died in 1722. The probity and worth of the present representatives of this family are well known.

After residing for some time at Lyons, Dolet came to Paris in October 1534, and published some new works; and was about to have returned to Lyons in 1536, but was obliged to abscond for a time, having killed a person who had attacked him. He then came to Paris, and presented himself to Francis L who received him graciously, and granted him a pardon, by which he was enabled to return to Lyons. All these incidents he has introduced in his poems. It appears to have been on his return to Lyons at this time that he commenced the business of printer, and the first work which came from his press in 1538, was the four books of his Latin poems. He also married about the same time, and had a son, Claude, born to him in 1539. whose birth he celebrates in a Latin poem printed the same year. From some parts of his poems in his “Second Enfer,” it would appear that the imprisonment we have mentioned, was not all he suffered, and that he was imprisoned twice at Lyons, and once at Paris, before that final imprisonment which ended in his death. For all these we are unable to account; his being confined at Paris appears to have been for his religious opinions, but after fifteen months he was released by the interest of Peter Castellanus, or Du Chatel, then bishop of Tulles. He was not, however, long at large, being arrested at Lyons, Jan. 1, 1544, from which he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in Piemont, when he wrote the nine epistles which form his “Deuxieme Enfer.” We are not told whether he ever returned to Lyons publicly, but only that he was again apprehended in 1545, and condemned to be burnt as a heretic, or rather as an atheist, which sentence was executed at Paris, Aug. 3, 1516. On this occasion it is said by some that he made profession of the catholic faith by invoking the saints but others doubt this fact. Whether pursuant to his sentence, or as a remission of the most horrible part of it, we know not, but he was first strangled, and then burnt. Authors diii'er much as to the real cause of his death; some attributing it to the frequent attacks he had made on the superstitions and licentious lives of the ecclesiastics; others to his being a heretic, or Lutheran; and others to his impiety, or atheism. Jortin, in his Life of Erasmus, and in his “Tracts,” contends for the latter, and seems disinclined to do justice to Dolec in any respect. Dolet certainly had the art of making enemies; he was presumptuous, indiscreet, and violent in his resentments, but we have no direct proof of the cause for which he suffered. On one occasion a solemn censure was pronounced against him by the assembly of divines at Paris, for having inserted the following words in a translation of Plato VAxiochus, from the Latin version into I'Yench “Apres la mort tu tie seras rien clu tout,” and this is said to have produced his condemnation but, barbarous as the times then were, we should be inclined to doubt whether the persecutors would have condemned a man of acknowledged learning and genius for a single expression, and that merely a translation. On the other hand, we know not how to admit Dolet among the protestant martyrs, as Calvin, and others who lived at the time, and must have known his character, represent him as a man of no religion. Dolet contributed not a little to the restoration of classical literature in France, and particularly to the reformation of the Latin style, to which he, had applied most of his attention. He appears to have known little of Greek literature but through the medium of translations, and his own Latin style is by some thought very laboured, and composed of expressions and half sentences, a sort of cento, borrowed from his favourite Cicero and otber authors. He wrote much, considering that his life was short, and much of it spent in vexatious removals and in active employments. His works are: l.“S. Doleti orationes diue in Tholosam; ejusdem epistolarum hbri duo; ejusdem canninum libri duo; ad eundem epistolarum amicorum liber,” 8vo, without date, but most probably in 1534, when he had been driven from Toulouse and was at Lyons, as mentioned above. 2. “Dialogus de imitutione Ciceroniana, adversus Desiderium Erasmum pro Christophoro Longolio,” Lyons, 1535, 4to. This was an attack on Erasmus in defence of Longolius, in which he had been partly anticipated by Scaliger in his “O ratio pro Cicerone contra Erasmum.” 3. “Commentariorum linguce Latinse tomi duo,” Lyons, 1536 and 1588, fol. This is a kind of Latin dictionary, in the manner of a common-place book, and evidently a work of great labour. He began it in his sixteenth year. An abridgment of it was published at Basil in 1537, 8vo. 4. “De re navali liber ad Lazarum Bayfium,” Lyons, 1537, 4to, and inserted by Gronovius in vol. XL of his Greek antiquities. 5. “S. Doleti Galli Aurelii Carminum libri quatuor,” printed by himself at Lyons, 1538, 4to. Dolet’s Latin verses have been too much undervalued by Jortin and others. 6. “Genethliacon Claudii Doleti, Stephani Doleti nlii; liber vitae communi in primis utilis et necessarius; autore patre, Lugduni, apud eundem Doletum,” 1539, 4to. A French translation was printed by the author in the same year. 7. “Formulas Latinarum locutionum illustriorum in tres partes divisae,” Lyons, 1539, folio, and with additions by Sturmius and Susannasus, Strasburgh, 1596, 4to. 8. “Francisci Valesii, Gallorum regis, fata, ubi rein omnem celebriorem a Gallis gestam noscas, ab anno 1513 ad annum 1539,” Lyons, 1539, 4to. This which is in Latin verse, was translated by the author into French prose, and printed in 1540, 4to, 1543, 8vo, and Paris, 1546, 8vo. 9. “Observationes in Terentii Andriam et Eunuchum,” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 10. “La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en une autre de la ponctuation Francoise, &c.” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 11. “Liber de imitatione Ciceroniana adversus Floridum Sabinum Responsio ad convitia ejusdem Sabini; Epigrammata in eundem,” Lyons, 1540, 4to. Dolet was unfortunately not content with arguing with his antagonists, but more frequently exasperated them by his sarcastic attacks. 12. “Libri tres de legato, de immunitate legatorum, et de Joannis Langiachi Lemovicensis episcopi Legationibus,” Lyons, 1541, 4to. 13. “Les epitres et evangiles des cinquante-deux dimanches, &,c. avec brieve exposition,” Lyons, 1541, 8vo. 14. A translation of Erasmus’s “Miles Christianus,” Lyons, 1542, 16mo. 15, “Claudii Cotersei Turonensis de jure et privilegiismilitum libri tres, et de officio imperatoris liber unus,” Lyons, 1539, folio. 16. “On Confession,” translated from Erasmus, ibid. 1542, 16mo. 17. “Discotirs contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorise et constitue” au service d'un prince, peut conserver sa felicite eternelle et temporelle, &c.“Lyons, 1542, 8vo. 18.” Exhortation, a la lecture des saintes lettres,“ibid. 1542, 16rno. 19.” La paraphrase de Jean Campensis sur les psalmes de David, &c. faite Frangoise,“ibid. 1542. 20.” Bref discours de la republique Fran^oise, desirant la lecture des livres de la sainte ecriture lui etre loisible en sa langue vulgaire,“in verse, Lyons, 1544, 16mo. 21. A translation of Plato’s Axiochus and Hipparchus, Lyons, 1544, I6mo. This was addressed to Francis I. in a prose epistle, in which the author promises a translation of all the works of Plato, accuses his country of ingratitude, and supplicates the king to permit him to return to Lyons, being now imprisoned. 22.” Second Enfer d'Etienne Dolet,“in French verse, Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This consists of nine poetical letters addressed to Francis I. the duke of Orleans, the duchess d'Estampes, the queen of Navarre, the cardinal Lorraine, cardinal Tournon, the parliament of Paris, the judges of Lyons, and his friends. The whole is a defence of the conduct for which he was imprisoned at Lyons in the beginning of 1544. He had written a first” Enfer," consisting of memorials respecting his imprisonment at Paris, and was about to have published it when he was arrested at Lyons, but it never appeared. Besides these, he published translations into French of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions and his Familiar Epistles, which went through several editions. Almost all Dolet’s works are scarce, owing to

In the beginning of 1761, Mr. Dollond was elected F. R. S. and appointed optician to his majesty, but did not live to enjoy these honours long; for on Nov. 30, in the same year, as he was reading a new publication of M. Clairaut, on the theory of the moon, and on which he had been intently engaged for several hours, he was seized with apoplexy, which rendered him immediately speechless, and occasioned his death in a few hours afterwards. His family, at his death, consisted of three daughters and two sons, Peter and John, who, possessing their father’s abilities, carried on the optical business in partnership, until the death of John, when it was continued, and still flourishes, under the management of Mr. Peter Dollond, well known as an able philosopher and artist, and Mr. George Huggins, his nephew, who, upon the king’s permission, has taken the name of Dollond.

Having sent off his second collection to Europe, Dombey returned to Huanuco, in the end of December 1780, where he had shortly after the mortification of hearing that his first collection had been taken by the English, and redeemed at Lisbon, by the Spanish government, consequently that the antiquities were now detained in Spain, and that duplicates only of the. dried plants and seeds had been forwarded to Paris. Dombey in the mean while, leaving his more recent acquisitions in safety at Lima, undertook a journey to Chili, and although his journey was necessarily attended with vast expence, his character was now so well known, that he readily met with assistance. He arrived at La Conception in the beginning of 1782, where, the town being afflicted with a pestilential fever, he devoted himself to the exercise of his medical skill, assisting the poor with advice, food, and medicine. This example having the effect to restore the public courage, the grateful people wished to retain him, with a handsome stipend, as their physician; and the bishop of La Conception endeavoured to promote his union with a young lady of great beauty and riches, on whom his merit had made impressions as honourable to herself as to him; but neither of these temptations prevailed. Having added greatly to his collection of drawings, shells, and minerals, as welt as of plants, and having discovered a new and most valuable mine of quicksilver, and another of gold, he revisited Lima, to take his passage for Europe. A journey of 100 leagues among the Cordilleras, made at his own expence, had much impaired his finances and his health, but he refused the repayment which the country offered him, saying, that “though he was devoted to the service of Spain, it was for his own sovereign, who had sent him, to pay his expences.” In Chili he discovered the majestic tree, of the tribe of Pines, 150 feet high, now named after him, Dombeya, of which the Norfolk-island pine is another species. While he still remained at Lima, the labours of arranging and packing his collections of natural history, added to the fatigues he had already undergone, and the petty jealousies and contradictions he experienced from some of the Spaniards in power, preyed upon his health and spirits; and under the idea that he might possibly never reach Europe, he wrote to his friend Thouin, to take the necessary precautions for the safety of his treasures on their arrival in a Spanish port. He survived, however, to undergo far greater distresses than he had yet known. After narrowly escaping shipwreck at Cape Horn, and being obliged to wait at the Brasils till his ship could be refitted, which last circumstance indeed was favourable to his scientific pursuits and acquisitions, he reached Cadiz on the 22d of February, 1785; but, instead of the reception he expected and deserved, he was not only tormented with the most pettifogging and dishonest behaviour concerning the property of his collections, but those collections were exposed, without discrimination or precaution, to the rude and useless scrutiny of the barbarians at the custom-house, so as to be rendered useless, in a great measure, even to those who meant to plunder them. The whole were thrown afterwards into damp warehouses, where their true owner was forbidden to enter. Here they lay for the plants to rot, and the inestimable collections of seeds to lose their powers of vegetation, till certain forms were gone through, which forms, as it afterwards appeared, tended chiefly to the rendering their plunder useless to others, rather than valuable to their own nation. In the first place, as much of these treasures had suffered by this ill-treatment, Dombey was required to repair the injury from his own allotment, or from that of his master, the king of France. With this he could not of himself comply; but an order was, for some political reason, procured from the French court, and he was obliged to submit. He could never, however, obtain that the seeds should be committed to the earth so as to be of use; and hence the gardens of Europe have been enriched with scarcely half a score of his botanical discoveries, among which are the magnificent Datura arborea, the beautiful Salvia formosa, and the fragrant Verbena triphylla, or, as it ought to have been called, citrea. This last will be a “monumentum sere perennins” with those who shall ever know his history. What had been given him for his own use hy the vice-roy of the Brasils, underwent the same treatment as the rest. Finally, he was required to fix a price upon the sad remains of his collections, which, as a great part was French national property, it was obvious he could not do. He remained at Cadiz, without money and without friends. His only hope was that he might hereafter publish his discoveries, so as to secure some benefit to the world and some honour to himself. But this last consolation was denied him. Anxious to revisit his native land, he would have compounded for his liberty with the loss of all but his manuscripts; but he was not allowed to depart until his persecutors had copied all those manuscripts, and bound him by a written promise never to publish any thing till the return of his travelling companions. In the mean while, those very companions were detained by authority in Peru; and in after-times the original botanical descriptions of Dombey have, many of them, appeared verbatim, without acknowledgment, in the pompous Flora of Peru and Chili, which thence derives a great part of its value. Thus chagrined and oppressed, the unhappy Dombey sunk into despair, till, no longer useful or formidable to his oppressors, he was allowed to return, with such parts of his collections as they condescended to leave him, to Paris.

There our countryman Dr. Smith knew him in 1786; no longer the handsome lively votary of pleasure, nor even the ardent enthusiastic cultivator of science, but presenting the sallow, silent, melancholy aspect of depression and disappointment. He chiefly associated with his faithful friends, Le Monnier and Thouin, and in their society botanical converse still retained its charms. To the contents of his own collection, which, however injured and diminished, was still a very interesting one, he paid little attention. Bound by his promise, his high sense of honour would not let him make the proper use of it, but at length he was induced to part with it to M. de Buffon, who nobly exerted himself so as to procure from government a pension of 6000 livres for Dombey, and 60,000 livres to pay his debts. The herbarium was confided to M. L'Heritier, with orders to publish its contents. This was no sooner known at Madrid, than interest was made by that court to defeat the measure, and the court of Versailles was not in a condition to dispute even so unjust and politically unimportant a requisition from that quarter. Buffon had orders to withdraw the herharium, but L'Heritier on the first alarm had taken it over to London, and Dr. Smith with his lamented friend Broussonet, and his draughtsman Redoute", were alone entrusted with the secret. Happy and safe in a land of liberty and science, L‘Heritier remained about fifteen months devoted to the prosecution of his object, chiefly under the hospitable roof of ’.is friend sir Joseph Banks.

The Communion of St. Jerom, and the Adam and Eve, are too well known to need a description; and they are universally allowed to be capital works, especially in the expression. In the Palazzo della Torre, at Naples, there is a picture of Domenichino, representing a dead Christ, on the Knees of the Virgin, attended by Mary Magdalen and others. The composition of this picture is very good, and the design simple and true; the head of the Magdalen is full of expression, the character excellent, and the colouring tolerable; but in other respects, the penciling is dry, and there is more of coldness than of harmony in the tints. But in the church of St. Agnes, at Bologna, is an altar piece which is considered as one of the most accomplished performances of this master, and shews the taste, judgment, and genius of this great artist in a true light. The subject is, the Martyrdom of St. Agnes; and the design is extremely correct, without any thing of manner. The head of the saint hath an expression of grief, mixed with hope, that is wonderfully noble and he hath given her a beautiful character. There are three female figures grouped on the right, which are lovely, with an uncommon elegance in their forms, admirably designed, and with a tone of colour that is beautiful. Their dress, and particularly the attire of their heads, is ingenious and simple; one of this master’s excellences consisting in that part of contrivance: in short, it is finely composed, and unusually well penciled; though the general tone of the colouring partakes a little of the greenish cast, and the shadows are rather too dark, yet that darkness may probably have been occasioned or increased by time. Such is the opinion of Pilkington, but it is time now to attend to that of more authorized criticism. “Expression,” says Mr. Fuseli, " which hud languished after the demise of RafTaello, seemed to revive in Domenidiino; but his sensibility was not supported by equal comprehension, elevation of mind, or dignity of motive. His sentiments want propriety, he is a mannerist in feeling, and tacks the imagery of Theocritus to the subjects of Homer. A detail of petty, though amiable conceptions is rather calculated to diminish than inforce the energy of a pathetic whole. A lovely child taking refuge in the lip or bosom of a lovely mother, is an idea of nature, and pleasing in a lowly, pastoral, or domestic subject; but perpetually recurring, becomes common-place, and amid the terrors of martyrdom, is a shred sewed to a purple robe. In touching the characteristic circle that surrounds the Ananias of Raffaello, you touch the electric chain, a genuine spark insensibly darts from the last as from the first, penetrates mul subdues. At the martyrdom of St. Agnes, by Domenichino, you saunter amid the adventitious mob of a lane, where the silly chat of neighbour gossips announces a topic as silly, till you find with indignation, that instead of a broken pot, or a petty theft, you are witness to a scene for which heaven opens and angels descend.

St. Dominic had spent ten years in preaching in Languedoc, when, in 1215, he founded the celebrated order of preaching friars, or Dominicans, as they were afterwards called. The same year it was approved of by Innocent III. and confirmed in 1216, by a bull of Honorius III. under the title of St. Augustin; to which Dominic added several austere precepts and observances, obliging the brethren to tuke a vow of absolute poverty, and to abandon entirely all their revenues and possessions; and they were called preaching friars, because public instruction was the main end of their institution. The first convent was founded at Tholouse by the bishop thereof, and Simon de Montfort. Two years afterwards they had another at Paris, near the bishop’s house and iome time after, viz. in 1218, a third in the rue St Jaques, St. James’s- street, whence the denomination of Jacobins. Just before his death, Dominic sent Gilbert de Fresney, with twelve of the brethren, into England, where they founded their first monastery at Oxford, in 1221, and soon after another at London. In 1276, the mayor and aldermen of the city of London gave them two whole streets by the river Thames, where they erected a very commodious convent, whence that place is still called Black Friars, from the name by which the Dominican? were called in England. St. Dominic, at first, only took the habit of the regular canons, that is, a black cassock, and rochet; but this he quited in 1219, for that which they now wear, which, it is pretended, was shewn by the blessed Virgin herself to the beatiiied Renaud d'Orleans. This order is diffused throughout the whole known world. It has forty-five provinces under the general, who resides at Rome; and twelve particular congregations, or reforms, governed by vicars-general. They reckon three popes of this order, above sixty cardinals, several patriarchs, a hundred and fifty archbishops, and about eight hundred bishops; beside masters of the sacred palace, whose office has been constantly discharged by a religious of this order, ever since St. Dominic, who held it under Honorius III. in 1218. The Dominicans are also inquisitors in many places. Of all the monastic orders, none enjoyed a higher degree of power and authority than the Dominican friars, whose credit was great and their influence universal. Nor will this appear surprising, when we consider that they filled very eminent stations in the church, presided every where over the terrible tribunal of the inquisition, and had the care of souls, with the function of confessors in all the courts of Europe, which circumstance, in those times of ignorance and superstition, manifestly tended to put most of the European princes in their power. But the measures they used, in order to maintain and extend their authority, were so perfidious and cruel, that their influence began tq decline towards the beginning of the sixteenth century. The tragic story of Jetzer, conducted at Bern in 1501), for determining the uninteresting dispute between them and the Franciscans, relating to the immaculate conception, will reflect indelible infamy on this order. They were indeed perpetually employed in stigmatizing with the opprobrious name of heresy numbers of learned and pious men; in encroaching upon the rights and properties of others, to augment their possessions; and in laying the most iniquitous snares and stratagems for the destruction of their adversaries. They were the principal counsellors, by whose instigation and advice LeoX. was determined to the public condemnation of Luther. The papal see never had more active and useful abettors than this order and that of the Jesuits. The dogmata of the Dominicans are usually opposite to those of the Franciscans. They concurred with the Jesuits in maintaining, that the sacraments have in themselves an instrumental and official powe". by virtue of which they work in the soul (independently of its previous preparation or propensities) a disposition to receive the divine grace; and this is what is commonly called the opus operatum of the sacraments. Thus, according to their doctrine, neither knowledge, wisdom, humility, faith, nor devotion, are necessary to the efficacy of the sacraments, whose victorious energy nothing but a mortal sin can resist.

, bishop of Carthage, has likewise the credit of having given the name to the sect of Donatists, founded it is said, by the former, but which took its name from this Donatus, as being the more considerable man of the two. He maintained, that though the three persons in the trinity were of the same substance, yet the son was inferior to the father, and the holy ghost to the son. He began to be known about the year 329, and greatly confirmed his faction by his character and writings. He was a man of great parts and learning; but of greater pride. He did not spare even the emperors themselves; for when Paulus and Macarius were sent by Constans with presents to the churches of Africa, and with alms to relieve the poor, he received them in the most reproachful manner, rejected their presents with scorn, and asked in a kind of fury, “What had the emperor to do with the church?” He was banished from Carthage about the year 356, according to Jerom, and died in exile: though authors are not agreed as to the precise time either of his banishment or of his death. The emperors were obliged to issue many severe edicts to restrain the fury and intemperance of this very factious sect. The Donatists had a great number of bishops and laity of their party; some of whom distinguished themselves by committing outrages upon those who differed from them. They had a maxim which they firmly maintained upon all occasions, “That the church was every where sunk and extinguished, excepting in the small remainder amongst themselves in Africa.” They also affirmed baptism in other churches to be null, and of no effect; while other churches allowed it to be valid in theirs; from which they inferred, that it was the safer to join that community where baptism was acknowledged by both parties to be valid, than that where it was allowed to be so only by one.

In his seventeenth year, he repaired to London, and was admitted into Lincoln’s-inn, with an intention to study law, but what progress he made we are not told, except that he continued to give proofs of accumulated knowledge in general science. Upon his father’s death, which happened before he could have been regularly admitted into the society of Lincoln’s-inn, he retired upon the fortune which his father left to him, and had nearly dissipated the whole before he made choice of any plan of life. At this time, however, he was so, young and so submissive as to be under the guardianship of his mother and friends, who provided him with tutors in the mathematics, and such other branches of knowledge as formed the accomplishments of that age; and his love of learning, which was ardent and discursive, greatly facilitated their labours, and furnished his mind with such intellectual stores as gained him considerable distinction. It is not improbable, also, that his poetical attempts contributed to make him more known.

From the dates of some of Donne’s letters, it appears that he was at Paris with sir Robert Drury in 1612, and one is dated from the Spa in the same year, but at what time he returned is not certain. After his return, however, his friends became more seriously anxious to fix him in some honourable and lucrative employment at court. Before this period he had become known to king James, and was one of those learned persons with whom that sovereign delighted to converse at his table. On one of those occasions, about 1610, the conversation turned on a question respecting the obligation on Roman Catholics to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and Donne appeared to so much advantage in the dispute, that his majesty requested he would commit his sentiments to writing, and bring them to him. Donne readily complied, and presented the king with the treatise, published in that year, under the title of “Pseudo-Martyr.” This obtained him much reputation, and the university of Oxford conferred on him the degree of M. A. which he had previouslyreceived from Cambridge. The “Pseudo-Martyr,” contains very strong arguments against the pope’s supremacy, and has been highly praised by his biographers. Warburton, however, speaks of it in less favourable terms. It must be confessed that the author has not availed himself of the writings of the judicious Hooker, and that in this, as well as in all his prose writings, are many of those farfetched conceits, which, however agreeable to the taste of the age, have placed him at the head of a class of Very indifferent poets.

About four years after he received the deanery of St. Paul’s, and when he had arrived at his fifty-fourth year, his constitution, naturally feeble, was attacked by a disorder which had every appearance of being fatal. In this extremity he gave another proof of that tenderness of conscience, so transcendently superior to all modern notions of honour, which had always marked his character. When there was little hope of his life, he was required to renew some prebendal leases, the fines for which were very considerable, and might have enriched his family. But this he peremptorily refused, considering such a measure, in his situation, as a species of sacrilege. “I dare not,” he added, “now upon my sick bed, when Almighty God hath made me useless to the service of the church, make any advantages out of it.” This illness, however, he survived about five years, when his tendency to a consumption again returned, and terminated his life on the 31st day of March, 1631. He was buried in St. Paul’s, where a monument was erected to his memory. His figure may yet be seen in the vaults of St. Faith’s under St. Paul’s. It stands erect in a window, without its niche, and deprived of the urn in which the feet were placed. His picture was drawn sometime before his death, when he dressed himself in his winding-sheet, and the figure in St. Faith’s was carved from this painting by Nicholas Stone. The fragments of his tomb are on the other side of the church. Walton mentions many other paintings of him executed at different periods of his life, which are not now known.

, a painter and engraver, was born at St. Quentin, in France, in 1617, and manifesting an early inclination for the arts, was placed under Simon Vonet, a painter at that time of great reputation, whose daughter he married, and whose manner as a painter he copied, but is better known as an engraver. He performed his plates chiefly with the point, in a bold, powerful style: the lights are broad and massy, especially upon the figures. But the marking of the folds of the draperies, and the shadows upon the outlines of the flesh, are frequently so extravagantly dark, as to produce a harsh, disagreeable effect, and sometimes to destroy the harmony of the engraving entirely. Although he understood the human figure, and in some instances it was correctly drawn; yet by following the manner of Vouet, instead of the simple forms of nature, his outlines were affected, and the extremities of his figures too much neglected. This artist was made professor of the royal academy of painting at Paris, where he died in 1665, aged forty- eight. His works are said by abbe Marolles to have consisted of 105 prints. Amongst these were, “the Adoration of the Magi,” the “Nativity of Christ,” “Venus at her toilet,” “Venus, Hope, and Love, plucking the feathers from the wings of Time,” “Mercury and ther Graces,” and “the Rape of Europa,” all from pictures of Vouet. He also engraved from Le Seur, Sarasin, and other masters.

, an eminent engraver, the brother of the preceding, was born in France in 1G57. His father dying when he was very young, he was brought up to the study of the law, which he pursued till about thirty years of age: when being examined, in order to being admitted to plead, the judge, finding him very deaf, advised him to relinquish a profession to which one of his senses was so ill adapted. He took the advice, and shut himself up for a year to practise drawing, for which he had probably better talents than for the law, sinee he could sufficiently ground himself in the former in a twelvemonth. Repairing to Rome, and receiving instructions from his brother Lewis, he followed painting for some years, and having acquired great freedom of hand, he was advised to try etching. Being of a flexile disposition, or uncommonly observant of advice, he accordingly turned to etching, and practised that for some more years; but happening to look into the works of Audran, he found he had been in a wrong method, and took up Audran’s manner, which he pursued for ten years. He was now about fifty years of age, had done many plates, and lastly the gallery of Cupid and Psyche, after Raphael, when a new difficulty struck him. Not having learned the handling and ri-rht use of the graver, he despaired of attaining the harmony and perfection at whicn he aimed, and at once abandoning engraving, he returned to his pencil a word from a friend, says lord Orford, would have thrown him back to the law. However, after two months, he was persuaded to apply to the graver; and receiving some hints from one that used to engrave the writing under his plates, he conquered that difficulty too, and began the seven planets from Raphael. Mercury, his first, succeeded so well, that he engraved four large pictures with oval tops, and from thence proceeded to Raphael’s “Transfiguration,” which raised his reputation above all the masters of that time. At Rome he became known to several Englishmen of rank, who persuaded him to come to England and engrave the Cartoons, then at Hampton Court. He arrived in June 1711, but did not begin his drawings till Easter following, the intervening time being spent in raising a fund for his work. At first it was proposed that the plates should be engraved at the queen’s expence, and to be given as presents tothe nobility, foreign princes, and ministers. Lord-treasurer Oxford was much his friend but Dorigny demanding 4000l. or 5000l. put a stop to that plan; yet the queen gave him an apartment at Hampton Court, with necessary perquisites. The work, however, was undertaken by subscription , at four guineas a set, and Dorigny sent for Dupuis and Dubosc from Paris to assist him; but from some disagreement that occurred, they left him before the work was half completed. In 1719 he presented two complete sets to king George I. and a set a-piece to the prince and princess; for which the king gave him 100 guineas, and the prince a gold medal. The duke of Devonshire, who had assisted him, procured for him, in 1720, the honour of knighthood. His eyes afterwards failing him, he returned to Paris, where, in 1725, he was made a member of the royal academy of painting, and died in 1746, aged eighty-nine.

While he was professor at Magdeburg, at which time strictures and objections against the short commentaries on the scriptures of Nicholas de Lyra, were published by Paul de Burgos, Doringk undertook their defence and farther illustration. The different pieces which he wrote on these subjects were collected together, and inserted in an edition comprehending the works of both those authors, published in Paris, in six volumes folio, in 1590. This work was well received, and went through several editions. To Doringk some have ascribed the “Miroir Historial,” commonly known by the name of “The Chronicle of Nuremberg,” and therefore considered him as the forerunner of the illustrious Luther, the Chronicle being written with spirit and energy against the vices of the cardinals, the bishops, and the popes, and also against jubilees and indulgences. But there is more reason to think that the Nuremberg Chronicle was the work of another hand, as Marchand has detailed at considerable length. It appears that a Chronicle which Doringk partly composed, may have given rise to this supposition. It is entitled “Chronica brevis et utilis ex speculo historiali Vincentii et aliorum, Eusebii, Hieronymi, &c. et alioruin historicorum, collecta, et continuata a Matthia Doringk, usque ad annum 1494.” This remains in ms. in the library of the university of Leipsic, but the date at least must be wrong, if Marchand’s conjecture as to the period of Doringk’s death be just. He is said to have compiled also a continuation of the Chronicle of Theodore Engelhusius from 1420 to 1498, which is printed in the collection of German historians by Mencken. In this Doringk confessedly takes those liberties with the characters of the popes and cardinals, which are to be found in the Nuremberg Chronicle, and such a coincidence may have strengthened the supposition that he was the author of the latter. The reader will find all that can be advanced on the subject in our first authority.

, a physician, orator, and poet, born at Zigenrick in Voiglitland, died in 1631, in an advanced age, counsellor and physician to the princes of Brieg and Lignitz. He is the author of several works, which have been called learned fooleries. The most known of them are, 1. “Amplritheatrum sapientiae Socraticie,” Hanover, 1619, 2 vols. fol. 2. “Homo diabolus hocest: Auctorum veterum et recentiorum de calumnias natura et remediis, sua lingua editorum, sylloge” Frankfort, 1618, 4to 3. “De increment dominationis Turcicae,” &c.

In the same year (1750) he was presented by lord Bath to the vicarage of High Ercal, in Shropshire, and vacated Eaton Constantine. He only occasionally resided on his livings, and at the desire of lord Bath, took a house in a street contiguous to Bath-house, London, where he passed the winter months. In the summer he generally accompanied lord Bath in his excursions to Tunbridge, Cheltenham, Shrewsbury, and Bath, and in his visits to the duke of Cleveland, lord Lyttelton, &c. In Sept. 1752, he married miss Dorothy Pershouse, sister of Richard Pershouse, of Reynolds-hall, near Walsall, in Staffordshire; and within three months became a widower. In the spring of 1754, he published “The Criterion, or Miracles examined, &c.” in the form of a letter to an anonymous correspondent, since known to have been Dr. Adam Smith, with whom he probably became acquainted at Baliol-college, where Smith studied for some time. This was designed as a refutation of the specious objections of Hume and others to the reality of the miracles recorded in the New Testament. Hume had maintained that there was as good evidence for the miracles said to have taken place among the ancient heathens, and in later times, in the church of Rome, as there was for those recorded by the evangelists, and said to have been performed by the power of Christ. Mr. Douglas, who had shewn himself an acute judge of the value of evidence, pointed out the distinction between the pretended and true miracles, to the honour of the Christian religion. Dr. Leland, in his “View of Deisiical Writers,” has made very honourable mention of this work.

In the Easter term of this year he took his doctor’s degree, and was presented by lord Bath to the perpetual curacy of Kenley, in Shropshire. In 1759, he published “The Conduct of a late noble commander candidly considered,” as good a defence as the case would admit, of lord George Sackville. It was suggested solely by the attack so unfairly made on him by Ruff head, before it could possibly be known whether he deserved censure. No person was privy to Dr. Douglas’s being the author of this Defence, except his bookseller, Andrew Millar, to whom he made a present of the copy. In the same mouth he wrote and published, “A Letter to two great men on the approach of peace,” a pamphlet which excited great attention, and was generally attributed to lord Bath. In 1760 he wrote the preface to the translation of Hooke’s “Negociations in Scotland.” He was this year appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1761 he published his “Seasonable Hints from an honest man,” as an exposition of lord Bath’s sentiments. In November 1762, he was, through the interest of lord Bath, made canon of Windsor. In December of that year, on the day on which the preliminaries of peace were to be taken into consideration in parliament, he wrote a paper called “The Sentiments of a Frenchman,” which was printed on a sheet, pasted on the walls in every part of London, and distributed among the members of parliament, as they entered the house.

In 1763 he superintended the publication of “Henry Earl of Clarendon’s Diary and Letters,” and wrote the preface which is prefixed to these papers. In June of this year, he accompanied lord Bath to Spa, where he became acquainted with the hereditary prince of Brunswick (the late duke), from whom he received marked and particular attention, and with whom he was afterwards in correspondence. It is known that within a few years there existed a series of letters written by him during his stay at Spa, and also a book containing copies of all the letters which he had written to, and received from, the prince of Brunswick, on the state of parties, and the characters of their leaders in this country, and on the policy and effect of its continental connexions; but as these have not been found among his papers, there is reason to apprehend, that they may have been destroyed, in consideration of some of the persons being still alive, whose characters, conduct, and principles, were the topics of that correspondence.

This learned prelate enjoyed a very high share of reputation during a very long life. He was, if not one of the most profound, one of the most general scholars in the kingdom, and the range of his information was most extensive. Nor was he more an enlightened scholar, than a warm friend to men of learning and genius; in private life, he was amiable, communicative, and interesting in his conversation and correspondence. As a divine, if he took no distinguished part in the controversies of the times, he evinced by his “Criterion,” his detection of Lauder, and his controversy with Bower, what a formidable antagonist he could have proved, and what an unanswerable assertor of truth. His character likewise stood high for fidelity and a conscientious discharge of the public duties of his station., and when not employed in the pulpit, for always countenancing public worship by his presence. His punctuality in this last respect is still remembered by the congregations of St. Faith’s and St. Paul’s. In a word, as his talents recommended him in early life to patronage, so he soon demonstrated that he wanted only to be better known to be thought deserving of the highest preferments.

, better known by the name of Bernard of Bibiena, an eminent cardinal, was born of a reputable family at Bibiena in 1470, and was sent at nine years of age to pursue his studies at Florence. His family connexions introduced him into the house of the Medici, and such was the assiduity with which he availed himself of the opportunities of instruction there afforded him, that at the age of seventeen, he had attained a great facility of Latin composition, and was soon afterwards selected by Lorenzo de Medici, as one of his private secretaries. He was also the principal director of the studies of John de Medici, afterwards Leo X. and when the honours of the church were bestowed on his pupil, the principal care of his pecuniary concerns was intrusted to Dovizi; in the execution of which he rendered his patron such important services, and conducted himself with so much vigilance and integrity, that some have not hesitated to ascribe to him, in a considerable degree, the future eminence of his pupil, who, when made pope, gave his tutor a cardinal’s cap. He also employed himself in several negociations. He sent him as legate to the army raised against the duke of Urbino; and also to the emperor Maximilian. In 1518 he was sent as legate to France to persuade the king to join in the crusade against the Turks, in which he would have succeeded, had not the pope discouraged the enterprize by his unreasonable distrust and caballing against France. Bibiena remonstrated against this conduct with great freedom in his letters to Rome, which is supposed to have hastened his death in Nov. 1520. Some have asserted that he was poisoned by the order or contrivance of Leo X. which is positively denied by the historian of that pontiff, as utterly destitute of proof.

Besides the performances already mentioned, he made an English translation of Herodotus, which was never published. He wrote a comedy called “The Sham- Lawyer, or the Lucky Extravagant” which was acted at the theatre royal in 1697. It is chiefly borrowed from two of Fletcher’s plays, namely, “The Spanish Curate,” and “Wit without Money.” He was the editor of Historia Anglo-Scotica, 1703, 8vo, which was burnt by the hands of the hangman at Edinburgh: in the dedication he says, that, “upon a diligent revisal, in order, if possible, to discover the name of the author, and the age of his writing, he found, that it was written in, or at least not finished till, the time of king Charles I.” But he says nothing more ol? the ms. nor how it came into his hands. But whatever merit there might be in his political writings, or however they might distinguish him in his life-time, he is chiefly known now by his medical works: by his new “System of Anatomy” particularly, which was finished a little before his decease, and published in 1707, with a preface by W. Wagstaffe, M. D. reader of anatomy at Surgeons’-hall. Dr. Wagstaffe tells us, that Drake “eminently excelled in giving the rationale of tilings, and inquiring into the nature and causes of phsenomena. He does not,” says he, “behave himself like a mere describer of the parts, but like an unprejudiced inquirer into nature, and an absolute master of his profession. And if Dr. Lower has been so much and so deservedly esteemed for his solution of the systole of the heart, Dr. Drake, by accounting for the diastole, ought certainly to be allowed his share of reputation, and to be admitted as a partner of his glory.” A second edition of this work was published in 1717, in 2 vols. 8vo; and an appendix in 1728, 8vo, which is usually bound np with the second volume. The plates, which are very numerous, are accurately drawn, and well engraved. Some of them are taken from Swammerdam. Dr. Drake added notes to the English translation of Le Clerc’s “History of Physic,” printed in 1699, tfvo; and there is also, in the Philosophical Transactions, a discourse of his concerning some influence of respiration on the motion of the heart hitherto unobserved. The “Memorial of the Church of England,” &c. was reprinted in 8vo, in 1711 to which is added, an introductory preface, containing the life and death of the author; from which this present account is chiefly drawn.

, an eminent classical editor, was born at Utrecht, Jan. 1, 1684, where, and at Leyden, he was educated. In 171-6 he was appointed professor of rhetoric and history at Utrecht, an office which he filled with great reputation. The first publication which evinced his talents appeared in 1704, while a student under Barman, entitled “Dissertatio Philologico-Historica de prrefecto urbis,” of which a new edition was printed at Francfort in 1752; and three years after, in 1707, he published another dissertation on taking his degree of doctor of laws, “De officio prsefectorum Prsetorio,” Utrecht, 4to. He died at Utrecht in 1748. As an editor he is principally known by his edition of “Silius Italicus,” 1717, 4to, a very valuable work, not only containing every thing worthy of perusal in the preceding editions, but enriched with the notes and emendations of Heinsius, and excerpta from an Oxford ms. and one belonging to Puteanus and by his “Livy,” printed at Amsterdam, 1738, 7 vols. 4to, superior to all which went before it, although not immaculate, and the commentaries, it is generally allowed, are tediously prolix.

, philosopher and alchymist, who was born in 1572, at Aicmaer, in Holland, and died at London, in 1634 at the age of sixty-two, possessed a singular aptitude in the invention of machines; although we cannot give credit to all that is related of the sagacity of this philosopher. We are told that he made certain machines which produced rain, hail, and lightning, as naturally as if these effects proceeded from the sky. By other machines he produced a degree of cold equal to that of winter; of which he made an experiment, as it is pretended, in Westminster-hall, at the instance of the king of England; and that the cold was so great as to be insupportable. He constructed a glass, which attracted the light of a candle placed at the other end of the hall, and which gave light sufficient for reading by it with great ease. Drebel has left some philosophical works; the principal of which is entitled: “De natura elementorum,” Hamburgh, 1621, 8vo. It is also pretended that he was the first who invented the art of dying scarlet; the secret of which he imparted to his daughter; and Cuffler, who married her, practised the art at Leyden. Some authors give to Drebel the honour of the invention of the telescope. It is generally thought that he invented the two useful instruments, the microscope and the thermometer, the former of which was for some time only known in Germany. It appeared for the first time in 1621, and Fontana unjustly ascribed to himself the invention about thirty years afterwards.

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

, a learned German, was born at Erlbrt, the capital of Thuringia, in 1536. The first academical lectures which he heard, were those of Luther and Melancthon, at Wittemberg; but the air of that country not agreeing with his constitution, he was obliged to return to Erfort, where he studied Greek. When he had taken the degree of M. A. in 1559, he read lectures in rhetoric at home; and afterwards taught polite literature and the Greek tongue, in the college of Erfort. Having thus passed sixteen years in his own country, he was invited to Jena, to supply the place of Lipsius, as professor of history and eloquence. He pronounced his inaugural oration in 1574, which was afterwards printed with other of his orations. Some time after, he went to Meissen, to be head of the college there; where having continued six years, he obtained, in 1581, the professorship of polite learning in the university of Leipsic; and a particular pension was settled on him to continue the *' History of Saxony." Upon his coming to Leipsic, he found warm disputes among the doctors. Some endeavoured to introduce the subtleties of Ramus, rejecting the doctrine of Aristotle, while others opposed it; aad some were desirous of advancing towards Calvinism, while others would suffer no innovations in Lutheranism. Dresserus desired to avoid both extremes; and because the dispute concerning the novelties of Ramus greatly disturbed the philosophical community, he was very solicitous to keep clear of it. But the electoral commissary diverted him from this pacific design; and it happened to him, as it happens to many persons who engage late in disputes of this kind, that they are more zealous than the first promoters of them. Ilamism now appeared to Dresserus a horrible monster; and he became the most zealous opposer of it that ever was known in that country.

There is one poem added to the edition of his works in the “English Poets” of a very different kind. It is entitled “Polemo-Middinia,” or the battle of the dunghill, a rare example of burlesque, and the first macaronic poem by a native of Great Britain. A copy of it was published by bishop Gibson, when a young man, at Oxford in 1691, 4to, with Latin notes, but the text, probably from Mr. Gibson’s being unacquainted with the Scotch language, is less correct than that of any copy that has fallen in the way of his late editor, who has therefore preferred the elegant edition printed by Messrs. Foulis of Glasgow in 1768. The humour of this piece is so remote from the characteristics of his polished mind and serious muse, that it may be regarded as a very singular curiosity. It appears to be the fragment of a larger poem which the author wrote for the amusement of his friends, but was not anxious to preserve. Mr. Gilchrist conjectures that it was written when Drummond was on a visit to his brother-in-law at Scotstarvet, and that it alludes to some rustic flispute well known at the time.

, an English mariner, and a native of Leicestershire, merits some notice as the author of the most authentic account ever given of Madagascar, which was first published in 1729, reprinted in 1743, and more recently, in 1808. Drury was shipwrecked in the Degrave East Indiaman, on the south side of that island, in 1702, being then a boy, and lived there as a slave fifteen years. After his return to England, he had among those who knew him, the character of a plain honest man, without any appearance of fraud or imposture. The truth of his narrative, as far as it goes, was confirmed by its exact agreement with the journal kept by Mr. John Benbow (eldest son of the brave but unfortunate admiral), who, being second-mate of the Degrave, was also shipwrecked, and narrowly escaped being massacred by the natives, with the captain and the rest of the crew, Drury and three other boys only excepted. Mr. Benbow’s journal was accidentally burnt in 1714, in a fire near Aldgate; but several of his friends who had seen it, recollected the particulars, and its correspondence with Dairy’s. (See Benbow). Indeed the authenticity of Drury’s narrative seems to be amply confirmed, and his facts have been accordingly adopted by the compilers of geography. There is all that simplicity and verbiage which may be expected in the narratives of the illiterate, but none of the artifices of fiction. After his return from his captivity, he went to Loughborough, to his sister and other relations. It is said that he had the place of a porter at the India-house, and that his father left him 200l. and the reversion of a house at Stoke Newington. A friend of the late Mr. Duncombe, who was living in 1769, knew him well, and used frequently to call upon him at his house in Lincoln’s-inn fields, which were not then inclosed, and had often seen Drury throw a javelin there, and hit a small mark at a surprizing distance; but other particulars of his life are not known.

Dr. Johnson conceived, that no description of Dryden’s person had been transmitted to us but, on the contrary, there are few English poets, of whose external appearance more particulars have been recorded. We have not indeed any original whole-length portrait of him, such as that very curious delineation of Pope, with which we have been lately gratified, whence a more perfect notion of that poet’s external appearance may be obtained than from all the friendly drawings of Richardson; yet from various descriptions of Dryden’s person that have come down to us, a very adequate idea of it may be formed. He was certainly a short, fat, florid man, “corpore quadrato,” as lord Hailes some years ago observed to Mr. Malone, “a description which ^neas Sylvius applied to James the First of Scotland” The same gentleman remarked, that that at one time he wore his hair in large quantity, and that it inclined to gray, even before his misfortunes; a circumstance which, he said, he had learned from a portrait of Dry den, painted by Kneller, formerly in the possession of the late Mr. James West. But perhaps his lordship here is not quite accurate. By “before his misfortunes” was meant before the Revolution; but the portrait in question was probably painted at a later period. From other documents, however, it appears that he became gray before he was deprived of the laurel. In Riley’s portrait, painted in 1683, he wears a very large wig: so also in that by Closterman, done at a late period. By Tom Brown he is always called “little Bayes,” and by Rochester, when he quarrelled with, and wished to depreciate him, he was nick-named “poet Squab.” The earliest portrait of Dryden hitherto discovered is that in the picture gallery, Oxford, but the painter is not known. It is engraved in Mr. Malone’s Life.

Pope had a high opinion of Dryden. His verses upon his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day are too well known to need transcribing. In a letter to Wycherley, he says, “It was certainly a great satisfaction to me, to see and converse with a man, whom in his writings I had so long known with pleasure; but it was a very high addition to it, to hear you at our very first meeting doing justice to your dead friend Mr. Dryden. I was not so happy as to know him: Frrgtlium tantum vidi. Had I been born early enough, I must have known and loved him; for I have been assured, not only by yourself, but by Mr. Congreve and sir William Trumball, that his personal qualities were as amiable as his poetical, notwithstanding the many libellous misrepresentations of them; against which, the former of these gentlemen has told me he will one day vindicate him.” But what Congreve and Pope have said of Dryden, is rather in the way of panegyric, than an exact character of him. Others have spoken of him more moderately, and yet have probably done him no injustice. Thus Felton observes, th^.t “he at once gave the best rules, and broke them in spite of his own knowledge, and the Rehearsal. His prefaces are many of them admirable upon dramatic writings: he had some peculiar notions, which he maintains with great address; but his judgment in disputed points is of less weight and value, because the inconstancy of his temper did run into his thoughts, and mixed with the conduct of his writings, as well as his life.” Voltaire styles him “a writer whose genius was too exuberant, and not accompanied with judgment enough; and tells us, that if he had writ only a tenth part of the works he left behind him, his character would have been conspicuous in every part; but his groat fault is, his having endeavoured to be universal.” Dryden has made no scruple to disparage himself, where he thought he had not excelled. Thus, in his dedication of his Aurengzebe to the earl of Mulgrave, speaking of his writing for the stage, “I never thought myself,” says he, “very fit for an employment where many of my predecessors have excelled me in all kinds; and some of my contemporaries, even in my own partial judgment, have outdone me in comedy. Some little hopes I have yet remaining (and those too, considering my abilities, may be vain), that I may make the world some part of amends for many ill plays, by an heroic poem,” of which, however, he did not execute any part. Upon the whole, Mr. Malone appears to have examined and delineated his character as a man, with most truth and precision; and as a poet it is impossible to refer to any thing equal to that masterly criticism given by Dr. Johnson in his life of our poet.

His works, which procured him a very high reputation in France, were published inxhe following order: 1. “Histoire des quatre Gordiens, prouvee et illustree par les medailles,” Paris, 1695, 12mo, in which he proves, contrary to the common opinion, that there was a fourth Gordianus, the son of the younger Gordianus of Africa; but this produced two answers, in which his opinion was attacked. 2. “Animadversiones ad Nicolai Bergerii librog de publicis et militaribus imperii Romani viis,” Utrecht and Leyden, 1699. 3. “Les interets de PAngleterre, mal entendiis dans la guerre presente,” Amst. 1704, of which there have been several editions, but it appears to have been better relished in France than in England; it consists of many melancholy prophecies respecting England, one of which only, the separation of the American colonies from the mother country, which he hints at, has been fulfilled. 4. “Histoire de la ligue de Cambrai, faite Tan 1508, centre la republique de Venise,” Paris, 1709, 2 vols. 12mo, and reprinted in 1728. 5. “Reflections critiques sur la Poesie et la Peinture,” Paris, 1719, 2 vols. 12mo, and often reprinted in 3 vols, and translated into English. This work, on which the abbe“Dubos’s reputation now principally rests, contains many useful remarks, in a style peculiarly agreeable, but his taste has been frequently attacked, and his enthusiasm for the arts doubted. Voltaire gave him the praise of having seen, heard, and reflected upon the fine arts, and he must be allowed to be upon some topics an elegant writer, and an ingenious reasoner; but, with regard to the subject of music, both his prejudices and his ignorance are visible. He not only determines, says Dr. Burney, that the French and Fleming* cultivated music before the Italians; but, wholly unacquainted with the compositions of other parts of Europe, asserted that there was no music equal to that of Lulli, only known and admired in France. And where, adds the doctor, will he be believed, except in that kingdom, when he says that foreigners allow his countrymen to understand time and measure better than the Italians? He never loses an opportunity of availing himself of the favourable opinions of foreigners in behalf of French music, against that of other parts of Europe. Not only Guicciardini, but Addison, Gravina, and Vossius, all equally unacquainted with the theory, practice, or history of the art, and alike deprived of candour by the support of some favourite opinion or hypothesis, are pressed into the service of his country. If when D'Alembert wrote his Eulogy, he could say that Dubos was one of those men of letters who had more merit than fame, the converse of the proposition is now nearer the truth, and yet the merit of having produced a very agreeable book may be allowed him; and a book, a great deal of which will contribute to form a just taste on those subjects with which he is really acquainted. 6.” Histoire critique de l'etablissment de la monarchic Franoise dans les Gaules," Paris, 1734, 3 vols. 4to. Profiting by some criticisms on this work from the pen of M. Hoffman, professor of history at Wittemberg, he left for publication a corrected edition, which appeared in 1743, 2 vols. 4to. Besides these, he published a translation in French prose, of part of Addison’s Cato, and some discourses held in the French academy.

The doctor’s first publication, though without his name, was “A Tour through Normandy, described in a letter to a friend,” 1754, 4to. This tour through part of his native country was undertaken, in company with Dr. Bever, in the summer of 1752; and his account of it, considerably enlarged, was re-published under the title of “Anglo-Norman Antiquities considered, in a Tour through part of Normandy, by Dr. Ducarel, illustrated with 27 copperplates, 1767,” fol. inscribed to Dr. Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, then president of the Society of Antiquaries. His lordship had first remarked, 1742, the difference between the mode of architecture used by the Normans in their buildings, and that practised by the contemporary Saxons in England; and the doctor’s observations, actually made on the spot ten years afterward, confirmed the rules then laid down. This ancient dependance of the English crown, with the many memorials in it by the English, was a favourite object of his contemplation. Its coinage was his next research; and he published “A series of above 200 Anglo-Gallic or Norman and Aquitaine Coins of the ancient kings of England, exhibited in sixteen copper-plates, and illustrated in twelve letters, addressed to the Society of Antiquaries of London, and several of its members; to which is added, a map of the ancient dominions of the Icings of England and France, with some adjacent countries, 1757,” 4to. His portrait, engraved by Perry, from a painting by A. Soldi, 1746, was first prefixed to this work, which was the result of his acquaintance with i\l. de Boze, keeper of the French king’s medals, and secretary of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. (See Boze). In this undertaking- the doctor found himself seconded by sir Charles Frederick, who engraved all the Aquitaine coins in his possession, in 36 quarto plates, but without any description or letter-press, and intended only for private use, being little known before their circulation on his decease.

The doctor gave a ms abstract of the large history of the Benedictine abbey of Bee in Normandy, drawn up by Dom John Bourget (see Bourget), monk of that house, and F. A. S. of London, to Mr. Nichols, who printed it in 1771', 8vo, with an appendix of original deeds; and who likewise printed, in the same year, in two volumes, 8vo. “Some account of the Alien Priories, and of such lands as they are known to have possessed in England and Wales,” collected by John Warburton, esq. Somerset herald, and Dr. Ducarel (who did not, however, at the time, permit his name to be mentioned); and considerably augmented by Mr. Gough and some other learned friends of the publisher; to which was prefixed, a general description of the seven Norman cathedrals, with very neat prints of them, The very useful and excellent “Collection of Royal and Noble Wills,” from the conqueror to Henry VII. printed by Mr. Nichols in 1780, was given to the world in consequence of the suggestions of Dr. Ducarel; from whose stores the far greater part of the materials was purchased by the printer at a very considerable price.

, was a Greek historian, concerning the life of whom it is only known that he was employed inseveral negotiations. He wrote a history, which is still extant, of the Grecian empire, from the reign of the elder Andronicus, to the fall of that empire. Ducas is preferred to Chalcondylas, though he writes in a barbarous style, because he relates facts not to be found elsewhere, and was an attentive witness of what passed. His work was printed at the Louvre, in 1649, folio, under the care of Ismael Bouillaud, who accompanied it with a Latin version and learned notes. The president Cousin translated it afterwards into French, and it concludes the 8th volume of his History of Constantinople, printed at Paris, in 1672 and 1674, 4to; and reprinted in Holland, 16S5, 12mo.

, a learned dissenting minister, was born in Ireland 1697. He had his early education under the direction of an uncle his preparatory studies were greatly assisted by the well-known Mr. Abernethy and he finished his course of study at the universitv or Glasgow which, in- testimony of his merit, conferred en him the degree of D.D. He resided for ten or eleven years at Cambridge, as the pastor of a small congregation there; where he enjoyed the advantage of books, and of learned conversation, which he improved with the greatest diligence. On Mr. Abernethy’s removal from Antrim, he succeeded him in that place; and on the death of that gentleman, was chosen to be minister to the protestant dissenting congregation of Wood-street, Dublin, in which situation he continued to his death, which happened in 1761.

, born at Paris, Oct. 29, 1668, was the son of a gentleman of the bedchamber to the French king. His father took great pains in his education; but left him scarcely any property, and he soon had recourse to his pen as the means of gaining a subsistence. The marchioness de Maintenon, having seen some of his essays, made choice of him to furnish her pupils at St. Cyr with sacred sonnets, and recommended him so strongly to Pontchartrain, the secretary of state, that the minister, taking the poet for some considerable personage, went and made him a visit. Duche, seeing a secretary of state enter his doors, thought he was going to be sent to the Bastille^; but he was soon relieved from his fright by the civilities of the minister. Duche had as much gentleness in his disposition as charms in his wit, and never indulged in any strokes of satire. Rousseau and he were the delight of the companies they frequented; but the impression made by Duche, though less striking at first, was most lasting. He was also admired for the talent of declamation, which he possessed in no common degree. The academy of inscriptions and belles lettres were pleased to admit him of their body; but he died in the prime of life, Dec. 14, 1704. Duche presented the French theatre with three tragedies, Jonathan, Absalom, and Deborah, of which the second, containing several pathetic scenes, still keeps its ground on the stage; and also wrote some ballets, tragedies, &c. for the opera. Of these last, his “Iphigenia” is his best performance and in the opinion of his countrymen, has many of the excellencies of the Grecian tragedies. There is likewise by this author a collection of edifying stories, which used to be read at St. Cyr with no less edification than pleasure, but which has sometimes been confounded with the pious and moral stories of the abbé de Choisi. The two works are indeed written in the same design, that of disengaging youth from frivolous reading but the collection of the poet is less known than that of the abbé yet is not inferior to it, either in elevation of sentiment, in truth of character, or even in elegance of style. His hymns and his sacred canticles were also sung at St. Cyr.

By these attempts, one after another, he became known to the clergymen in the neighbourhood; who, upon examining him, found that he had a great deal of merit, made him some presents, and encouraged him to go on. At length some of his essays falling into the hands of a lady of quality who attended on queen Caroline, he became known to her majesty, who took him under her protection, and settled on him a yearly pension, supposed to be of 30l.; it was such a one at least as was sufficient to maintain him independently of labour. This Duck very gratefully acknowledges in the dedication of his poems to the queen “Your majesty,” says he, “has indeed the same right to them, as you have to the fruits of a tree, which you have transplanted out of a barren soil into a fertile and beautiful garden. It was your generosity which brought me out of obscurity, and still condescends to protect me; like the Supreme Being, who continual‘.;,’ supports the meanest creature which his goodness has produced.” Swift, who might, one would think, easily have overlooked such an object as Duck, but whose spleen prompted him to be satirical on any occasion or none, was so piqued at this generosity in the queen, while we suppose he thought himself and his own friends neglected, that he wrote the following quibbling epigram, as he calls it, “on Stephen Duck, the thresher and favourite poet:”

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

To give some colour to these marks of royal indulgence, the queen proposed him as a suitor to Mary queen of Scots; promising to that princess all the advantages she could expect or desire, either for herself or her subjects, in case she consented to the match. The sincerity of this was suspected at the time, when the deepest politicians believed that, if the queen of Scotland had complied, it would have served only to countenance the preferring him to his sovereign’s bed. The queen of Scots rejected the proposal in a manner that, some have thought, proved as fatal to her as it had done to his own lady, who was supposed to be sacrificed to his ambition of marrying a queen. The death of this unfortunate person happened September 8, 1560, at a very unlucky juncture for his reputation; because the world at that time conceived it might be much for his conveniency to be without a wife, this island having then two queens, young, and without husbands. The manner too of this poor lady’s death, which, Camden says, was by a fall from a high place, filled the world with the rumour of a lamentable tragedy . In Sept. 1564, the queen created him baron of Denbigh,­and, the day after, earl of Leicester, with great pomp and ceremony; and, before the close of the year, he was made chancellor of Oxford, as he had been some time before high-steward of Cambridge. His great influence in the court of England was not only known at home, but abroad, which induced the French king, Charles IX. to send him the order of St. Michael, then the most honourable in France; and he was installed with great solemnity in 1565. About 1572 it is supposed that the earl married Douglas, baroness dowager of Sheffield: which, however, was managed with such privacy, that it did not come to the queen’s ears, though a great deal of secret history was published, even in those days, concerning the adventures of this unfortunate lady, whom, though the earl had actually married her, and there were legal proofs of it, yet he never would own as his wife. The earl, in order to stifle this affair, proposed every thing he could think of to lady Douglas Sheffield, to make her desist from her pretensions but, finding her obstinate, and resolved not to comply with his proposals, he attempted to take her off by poison “For it is certain,” says Dugdale, “that she had some ill potions given her, so that, with the loss of her hair and nails, she hardly escaped death.” It is, however, beyond all doubt, that the earl had by her a son (sir Robert Dudley, of whom we shall speak hereafter, and to whom, by the name of his Base Son, he left the bulk of his fortune), and also a daughter.

In 1576 happened the death of Walter, earl of Essex, which drew upon lord Leicester many suspicions, after his marriage with the countess of Essex took place, which, however, was not until two years after. In 1578, when the duke of Anjou pressed the match that had been proposed between himself and the queen, his agent, believing lord Leicester to be the greatest bar to the duke’s pretensions, informed the queen of his marriage with lady Essex; upon which her majesty was so enraged, that, as Camden relates, she commanded him not to stir from the castle of Greenwich, and would have committed him to the Tower, if she had not been dissuaded from it by the earl of Sussex. Lord Leicester being now in the very height of power and influence, many attempts were made upon his character, in order to take him down: and in 1584 came out a most virulent book against him, commonly called “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” the purpose of which was to shew, that the English constitution was subverted, and a new form imperceptibly introduced, to which no name could be so properly given, as that of a “Leicestrian Commonwealth.” In proof of this, the earl was represented as an atheist in point of religion, a secret traitor to the queen, an oppressor of her people 1 an inveterate enemy to the nobility, a complete monster with regard to ambition, cruelty, and Just; and not only so, but as having thrown all offices of trust into the hands of his creatures, and usurped all the power of the kingdom. The queen, however, did not fail to countenance and protect her favourite; and to remove as much as possible the impression this performance made upon the vulgar, caused letters to be issued from the privycouncil, in which all the facts contained therein were declared to he absolutely false, not only to the knowledge of those who signed them, but also of the queen herself. Nevertheless, this book was universally read, and the contents of it generally received for true: and the great secrecy with which it was written, printed, and published, induced a suspicion, that some very able heads were concerned either in drawing it up, or at least in furnishing the materials. It is not well known what the original title of it was, but supposed to be “A Dialogue between a scholar, a gentleman, and a lawyer;” though it was afterwards called “Leicester’s Commonwealth.” It has been several times reprinted, particularly in 1600, 8vo; in 1631, 8vo, the running-title being “A letter of state to a scholar of Cambridge;” in 1641, 4to, and 8vo, with the addition of “Leicester’s Ghost;” and again in 1706, 8vo, under the title of “Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley earl of Leicester,” with a preface by Dr. Drake, (see Drake) who pretended it to be printed from an old manuscript. The design of reprinting it in 1641, was, to give a bad impression of the government of Charles I.; and the same was supposed to be the design of Dr. Drake in his publication. In Dec. 1585, lord Leicester embarked for the protestant Low Countries, whither he arrived in quality of governor. At this time the affairs of those countries were in a perplexed situation; and the States thought that nothing could contribute so much to their recovery, as prevailing upon queen Elizabeth to send over some person of great distinction, whom they might set at the head of their concerns civil and military: which proposition, says Camden, so much flattered the ambition of this potent earl, that he willingly consented to pass the seas upon this occasion, as being well assured of most ample powers. Before his departure, the queen admonished him to have a special regard to her honour, and to attempt nothing inconsistent with the great employment to which he was advanced: yet, she was so displeased with some proceedings of his and the States, that the year after she sent over very severe letters to them, which drew explanations from the former, and deep submissions from the latter. The purport of the queen’s letter was, to reprimand the States “for having conferred the absolute government of the confederate provinces upon Leicester, her subject, though she had refused it herself;” and Leicester, for having presumed to take it upon him. He returned to England Nov. 1585; and, notwithstanding what was past, was well received by the queen. What contributed to make her majesty forget his offence in the Low Countries, was the pleasure of having him near her, at a time when she very much wanted his counsel: for now the affair of Mary queen of Scots was upon the carpet, and the point was, how to have her taken off with the least discredit to the queen. The earl according to report, which we could wish to be able to contradict, thought it best to have her poisoned; but that scheme was not found practicable, so that they were obliged to have recourse to violence. The earl set out for the Low Countries in June 1587; but, great discontents arising on all sides, he was recalled in November. Camden relates, that on his return, finding an accusation preparing against him for mal-administration there, and that he w^as summoned to appear before the council, he privately implored the queen’s protection, and besought her “not to receive him with disgrace upon his return, whom at his first departure she had sent out with honour; nor bring down alive to the grave, whom her former goodness had raised from the dust.” Which expressions of humility and sorrow wrought so far upon her, that he was admitted into her former grace and favour.

, was a divine and a poet, the effusions of whose muse have been honoured with a place in Dr. Johnson’s collection, but of whose early history little is known, nor do we know who his parents were, or where he was born. His grammatical education he received under the famous Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, into wnich he was admitted in 1670, and from which he was elected in 1675, to Trinity- college, Cambridge. In 1673 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1682. He became likewise a fellow of the college, and it is related that he was for some time tutor to the duke of Richmond. Having entered into holy orders, he was presented to the rectory of Blaby, in Leicestershire, in 1687-8, made a prebendary of Gloucester, and in 1688 chosen a procior in convocation for that church, and was chaplain to queen Anne. In 1710 he was presented by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, to the wealthy living of Witney, in Oxfordshire, which, however, he enjoyed but a few months; for, on the 10th of February, 1710-11, having returned from an entertainment, he was found dead the next morning. When Mr. Duke left the university, being conscious of his powers, he enlisted himself among the wits of the age. He was in particular the familiar friend of Otway, and was engaged, among other popular names, in the translations of Ovid and Juvenal. From his writings he appears not to have been ill-qualified for poetical composition. “In his Review,” says Dr. Johnson, “though unfinished, are some vigorous lines. His poems are not below mediocrity; nor have I found in them much to be praised.” With the wit, Mr. Duke seems to have shared the dissoluteness of the times for some of his compositions are such as he must have reviewed with detestation in his later days. This was especially the case with regard to two of his poems; the translation of one of the elegies of Ovid, and the first of the three songs. “Perhaps,” observes Dr. Johnson, “like >ome other foolish young men, he rather talked than lived viciously, in an age when he that would be thought a wit was afraid to say his prayers; and whatever might have been bad in the first part of his life was surely condemned and reformed by his better judgment;” and this, it is hoped, was the case.

, baron of Carlscroon, historiographer to the emperor, who was forced to fly to Holland on account of religion, after having served without much benefit in France, is known by several writings, although we know little of his personal history. The chief of them are 1. “Des Memoires Politiques, pour servir a Pintelhgence de la paix de Ilyswic,” Hague, 1699, 4 vols. 12mo, the authorities of which are comprised also in 4 vols. 1705, 12mo. This instructive and interesting performance contains an abstract of every thing of moment that passed from the peace of Minister to the end of the year 1676. 2. “Voyages en France, en Italie, en Aiiemagne, aMalte, et en Turkic,” 1699, 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Corps univers^lle diplomatique du droit des gens;” containing the treaties of alliance, of peace, and of commerce, from the peace of Munster to 1709, Amsterdam, 1726, 8 vols. folio. This work is not exempt from fanlts, but neither is it without utility. With the addition of the treaties made before the Christian n>ra, published by Barbeyrac, Rousset, and Saint-Priest, and those of Munster and Osnaburg, they together form a collection of 19 volumes in folio. 4. “Hist, militaire du prince Eugene de Savoie, du prince et due de Marlborough, &c.” Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols, folio. 5. “Lettres Historiques,” from January 1652 to 1710. Another person, of less ability than Dumont, has continued them. 6. Other collections, tolerably numerous. This author wrote in a languid and incorrect manner; but there is a great deal of industrious inquiry in all he has left us. He died about the year 1726, in an advanced age.

, an ingenious poetical and miscellaneous writer, youngest son of John Buncombe, esq. of Stocks, in the parish of Ahibury, Hertfordshire, and Hannah his wife, was born at his father’s house in Hatton-garden, London, Jan. 9, 1689-90, and owed his Christian name to the revolution principles of his father and family. On the same principles, his father in 1693 put his life into the tontine, or annuities increasing by survivorship, subscribing 100l. on it, for which \Ql. per annum was paid immediately, and from which, in the course of his long life, our author received some thousands. He was educated in two private seminaries, viz. at Cheney, in Bucks, and afterwards at Pinner, near Harrow-on-the- Hill, Middlesex, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Goodwin. In December 1706, Mr. Buncombe was entered as a clerk in the navy-office, and was advanced to a higher salary in January 1707-8. So early as 1715, we find a translation by him of the twenty-ninth ode of the first book of Horace, in the collection commonly known by the name of “The Wit’s Horace.” About this time, being acquainted with Mr. Jabefc Hughes, Mr. Buncombe was introduced to his brother John, author of the “Siege of Damascus,” and also to his sister (afterwards Mrs. Buncombe), who was a woman of excellent sense and temper. Our author’s translation of the Carmen Seculare of Horace was printed in folio in 1721, and was collected in 1731, in Concanen’s Miscellany, entitled “The Flower-piece.” This was followed in 1722, by a translation of the tragedy of “Athaliah” by Racine, which was published by subscription, and has gone through three editions. Having contracted an intimacy at the Navy-office with Mr. Henry Needier, a gentleman endued with a like taste, our author, by supplying him with proper books, enabled him to gratify his ardent thirst for knowledge; and, on his early death in 1718, hastened by his intense application, discharged the debt of friendship by collecting and publishing his “Original Poems, Translations, Essays, and Letters,” in 1724, one vol. 8vo, of which there have been also three editions. On Becember 3, 1725, Mr. Buncombe quitted his place at the Navy-office, and spent the remainder of a long and happy life, among his friends and his books, in literary 7 leisure;­Having a share in the “Whitehall Evening Post,” several of his fugitive pieces appeared occasionally in that paper; in particular, a translation of Buchanan’s “Verses on Valentine’s Day;” “Verses to Euryalus (Mr. John Carleton) on his coming of age;” “The Choice of Hercules,” fr.,;u Xenophon, (for which there was such a demand, that the paper was in a few days ont of print); and a “Defence of some passages in Paradise Lost,” from the hyper-criticism of M. de Voltaire. About the same time, numberless errors in a new edition of Chillingworth were pointed out by him, and translations of the “Letters between Archbishop Fenelon and M. de la Motte,” since republished in the appendix to archbishop Herring’s Letters, and of the “Adventures of Melesickton,” and other fables from Fenelon, were published in the London Journal. In the lottery of 1725, a ticket which Mr. Duncombe had in partnership with miss Elizabeth Hughes, sister of John Hughes, esq. author of “The Siege of Damascus,” was drawn a pnze of 1000l. a circumstance which probably hastened his m image with that amiable lady, which took place Sept 1, 1726, on which he removed to her mother’s house in Red-lion-street, Holborn.

In the summer of 1732, Mr. Buncombe’s tragedy of “Lucius Junius Brutus” was read and approved by“the author’s friend, Mr. Mills senior, and by him introduced to the theatrical triumvirate, Booth, Gibber, and Wilks, who also approved it, and promised it should be performed. Booth regretted he could not act in it; and Wilks undertook the part of Titus; unfortunately he died in September following; and the revolt of the players, with the confusion that ensued, prevented its being brought on the stage till two years after, when Mr. Duncombe, unadvisedly, consented to Mr. Fleetwood’s proposal of bringing it on at Drury-lane in November, when the town was empty, the parliament not sitting, and Farinelli, the singer, highly popular at the Hay-market. The consequence was natural and obvious.” The quavering Italian eunuch (to use our author’s own words) proved too powerful for the rigid Roman consul.“Yet it was acted six nights with applause, and repeated in February following, and at the same time was printed in 8vo, with a dedication to lord chief justice Hardwicke. A second edition, in 12mo, with a translation of M. de Voltaire’s” Essay on Tragedy“prefixed, was published in 1747. In April 1735, Mr. Duncombe published, by subscription, in two volumes 12rno, the” Poems,“&c. of his deceased brother-in-law, John Hughes, esq. which were received by his friends and the public with the esteem due to Hughes’s merit. In January, 1735-6, our author’s domestic happiness received a severe shock by the death of his wife, which happened at Spring Grove, in Middlesex, the seat of his first cousin, Mrs. Ofley. In 1737 he collected and published, in one volume 8vo, the” Miscellanies in verse and prose“of Mr. Jabez Hughes, for the benefit of his widow, but the dedication (in her name) to the duchess of Bedford, was drawn up by the rev. Mr. Copping, dean of Clogher. In 1743, on the death of his learned friend, Mr. Samuel Say, a dissenting minister in Westminster, Mr. Duncombe undertook, for the benefit of his widow and daughter, to revise and prepare for the press some of his poems, and two prose essays, which were accordingly published in one volume 4to, in 1745. In 1744, the” Siege of Damascus,“and some other moral plays, having been acted by several persons of distinction for their amusement, Mr. Duncombe was induced to publish” An Oration on the usefulness of Dramatic Interludes in the education of youth,“translated from the Latin of M. Werenfels, by whom it was spoken before the masters and scholars of the university of Basil. On the breaking-out of the rebellion in 1745, our author endeavoured to second his honoured friend, the archbishop of York, by reprinting” A Sermon“(now known to have been written by Dr. Arbuthnot), supposed to be” preached to the people at the Mercat- cross of Edinburgh, on the subject of the union in 1706,“and to the sermon prefixed a preface, without his name, setting forth the advantages which have accrued to the kingdom of Scotland by its union with England. About the same time he also printed, with a preface, a tract, entitled,” The complicated Guilt of the Rebellion,“which had been written by Mr. Hughes in 1716, but was then suppressed, as the insurrection it related to was soon after quelled: this tract was judged by Mr. Duncombe to be equally applicable to the transactions of 1740. In the summer of 1749, being with his relation, Mr. Brooke, at York, Mr. Duncombe was accidentally instrumental to the detection of Archibald Bower, by transmitting to archbishop Herring an account of that adventurer’s escape from the inquisition, taken by memory from his own mouth, which being published the year following by Mr. Barron, a dissenting minister, was disavowed by Bower; though, when called upon, the mistakes which he was able to specify, were found to be few and trifling. This was the first impeachment of his integrity, and exposed him to the attacks of Dr. Douglas, who had before detected Lauder. To the periodical publication called” The World,“Mr. Duncombe contributed one paper, No. 84,” Prosperity and Adversity, an allegory." la

This living enabled him to fulfil a long engagement, or rather to obey the impulse of a long attachment, to miss Highmore, daughter of Mr. Highmore, who was known to the world, not only by his pencil, but by his other extensive knowledge, and literary pursuits. He was married at St. Anne’s church, 20th April 1763, by Dr. Squire, bishop of St. David’s. A similarity of taste and love of literature had early endeared their companionship; and a mutual affection was the natural consequence, which ensured to them twenty years happiness, rather increased than diminished by the hand of time! He settled at Canterbury; and, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the six preachers in that cathedral. In 1773, archbishop Cornwall is gave him the living of Herne, about six miles from Canterbury, which afforded him a pleasant recess in the summer months. His grace also granted him a chaplainship; and he had, previous to the last living, been entrusted with the mastership of Harbledown and St. John’s hospitals, places of trust only, not emolument: so that he had, in fact, three favours, though not any of them considerable, in succession, from three archbishops.

In the beginning of 1754, Mr. Dundas was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in the following snmmer he was appointed his majesty’s advocate for Scotland. In parliament, the share which Mr. Dundas took in public business, and his appearances on many interesting subjects of discussion, which occurred in that important period during which he sat in the house of commons, were such as fully to justify the character he had already attained for talents and ability. Such was the complexion of the times, and so high the tide of party, that it was perhaps impossible for human wisdom to have pointed out a line of political conduct which could entirely exempt from censure. The lord advocate shared with the rest of his party in the censure of those who followed an pposite plan of politics but of him it may certainly with truth be affirmed, that in no instance was he ever known to swerve from his principles, or to act a part in which he had not the countenance of many of the firmest friends to the interest of their country. He was chiefly censured for the opposition which he gave to the establishment of a militia in Scotland, by a great party in that country, who warmly supported that measure. But when the question is dispassionately viewed, it will appear to be one of those doubtful points, on which the wisest men and the best patriots may entertain opposite opinions.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

In 1759, the authority of the French in the East Indies was entirely overthrown by the English victories in that part of the globe. The great accession of power which was thus thrown into the successful scale, excited the jealousy of the Dutch, who, after some disputes in the country, transmitted their complaints home in form against the servants of the English East India company, as violators of the neutrality, and interrupters of the Dutch commerce. These complaints were delivered to sir Joseph Yorke, the English ambassador at the Hague, in 1761, and soon afterwards were communicated to the public in a pamphlet entitled “An authentic Account of the Proceedings of their High Mightinesses the States of Holland and West Friezeland, on the Complaint laid before them by his excellency sir Joseph Yorke, his Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador at the Hague, concerning hostilities committed in the river of Bengal, &c.” 4to. As the defence of the English company against these charges was absolutely necessary, it became requisite to select some person to whom the task of their vindication might be committed. One account says that Mr. Dunning was at that time known to the late Laurence Sullivan, esq. (long a Director, and many times chairman and deputychairman of the East India Company), as a barrister of rising talents in his profession, and of a very acute and logical understanding. Another account says, that he was introduced to Mr. Sullivan, in this character, by Mr. Hussey, one of the king’s counsel; but in either way, it was by Mr. Sullivan’s means that he was employed in drawing. up the defence, which was published under the title of “A Defence of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, and their Servants (particularly those at Bengal), against the Complaints of the Dutch East India Company; being a Memorial from the English Company to his Majesty on that subject,” 1762, 4to. This memorial, which produced a conciliating answer and proper redress from the Dutch government, was esteemed a master-piece of language and reasoning, and was so perfectly satisfactory both to government and the East India Company, that it is said the latter presented him with a bank-note of 500l.: but he derived his highest reward from the fame it procured him; and as he now became known to the public for high talents, his profession afforded him a constant security for having those talents well employed.

Though in the meridian of this celebrated lawyer’s fame he was far from being deficient in confident boldness, he originally had a very considerable degree of diffidence. Practice, however, and intimacy with the manner of the bar, enabled him to overcome this, as far as it was a hindrance, and perhaps a little farther, for often, in the latitude of cross-examination, he indulged himself in sarcasms on the names and professions of individuals, on provincial characters, &c. together with those of whole nations; all of which were much below his learning, his taste, and general manners: nor can we any other way account for it, than from that contagion which is sometimes caught from mixing with narrow men in the profession, who have no other way of shewing their own importance, than by endeavouring to raise it on the diffidence, the weakness, or modesty, of others. He did not, however, always escape unhurt in these sallies; and one of the poets of that day rallied him on this unmanly practice. He got another rub from his friend counsellor Lee (better known by the name of honest Jack Lee) on this account: he was telling Lee that he had that morning purchased some manors in Devonshire. “I wish,” said the other, “you could bring them to Westminster-hall.”

, a political writer of much note in France and England, and a citizen of Geneva, was born in 1749, of an ancient family in Switzerland, who had been distinguished as magistrates and scholars. At the age of twenty-two he was appointed, through the interest of Voltaire, professor of belles-lettres at Cassel, and about that time he published two or three historical tracts. He was afterwards concerned with Linguet in the publication of the “Annales Politiques,” at Lausanne. In 1783 he went to Paris, where, during the three years’ sitting of the first French assembly, he published an analysis of their debates, which was read throughout all Europe, and considered as a model of discussion no less luminous than impartial. While he intrepidly attacked the various factions, he neither dissembled the faults nor the exaggerations of their adversaries. In the month of April, 1792, he left Paris on a confidential mission from the king to his brothers, and the emperor of Germany. In consequence of his quitting Paris, his estate in France, and his personal property, were confiscated; and among other losses, he had to regret that of a valuable library, and a collection of Mss. including a work of his own, nearly ready for the press, on the political state of Europe before the French revolution. Whilst resident at Brussels with the archduke Charles, in 1793, he published a work on the French revolution, which was warmly admired by Mr. Burke, as congenial with his own sentiments, and indeed by every other person not influenced by the delusions which brought about that great event. In 1794 he returned to Switzerland, which he was obliged to leave in 1798, the French, to whom he had rendered himself obnoxious by his writings, having demanded his expulsion. The same year he came to England, where he published a well-known periodical journal called the “Mercure Britannique,” which came out once a fortnight, nearly to the time of his death. This event took place at the house of his friend count Lally Tollendal, at Richmond, May 10, 1800. His “Mercure,” and other works, although of a temporary nature, contain facts, and profound views of the leading events of his time, which will be of great importance to future historians, and during publication contributed much to enlighten the public mind.

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian of the last century, was the son of a father of the same names, descended of a noble family in Normandy, by Mary Vitart, of a family in Champagne. He was born at Paris, June 17, 1657, and after being instructed in the rudiments of grammar by his father, and private tutors, was entered, at the age of ten, of the college of Harcourt, where, under professor Lair, he imbibed that thirst for general knowledge which he indulged during the whole of his studious life. In 1672 he was admitted to the degree of master of arts. Having made choice of the church as a profession, he went through the usual course of studies at the Soi bonne, and employed much of his time in perusing the fathers and ecclesiastical historians, but had no other view in this than to gratify his curiosity, while preparing himself for his licentiateship in divinity, which he was then too young to obtain. In 1680, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in July 16S4, that of doctor. He soon after undertook to publish the work which has made him most known, his Universal Library of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing their lives, and a catalogue, critical account, and analysis of their works: a design of vast extent, which might have done credit to the labours of a society, yet was successfully accomplished by an individual, who was not only interrupted by professional duties, but wrote and published a great many other works. The first volume of his “Bibliotheque” was printed at Paris, 1686, 8vo, and the others in succession as far as live volumes, which contained an account of the first eight centuries. The freedom, however, which he had used in criticising the style, character, and doctrines of some of the ecclesiastical writers, roused the prejudices of the celebrated Bossuet, who exhibited a complaint against Dupin to Harlay, archbishop of Paris. The archbishop accordingly, in 1693, published a decree against the work, yet with more deliberation than might have been expected. His grace first ordered the work to be read by four doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris, who perused it separately, and then combining their remarks, drew up a report which they presented to the archbishop, who, in his decree, says that he also examined the work, and found that it would be very prejudicial to the church, if it were suffered to be dispersed. Dupin was then summoned before the archbishop andthe doctors, and after several meetings, gave in a paper, in which he delivered his opinion on the objections made to his hook in such a manner as to satisfy them that, however liberal his expressions, he was himself sound; but the work itself they nevertheless thought must be condemned, as “containing several propositions that are false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears, tending to weaken the arguments, xvhich are brought from tradition to prove the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture, and of several other articles of faith, injurious to general councils, to the holy apostolic see, and to the fathers of the church; erroneous, and leading to heresy.” This sentence upon the work, however, will prove its highest recommendation to the protestant reader, who will probably, as he may very justly infer, that it means no more than that Dupin was too impartial and candid for his judges. With the above decree was published Dupin’s retractation, both of which were translated and printed at London in 1703, folio, by William Wotton, B. D. who observes that in Dupin’s retractation, “dread of farther mischief seems to be far more visible, in almost every article, than real conviction arising from an inward sense of the author’s having been in an error; at least, that it is so written, as to have that appearance.” Dupin, however, went on with his work, and by some means obtained a permission to print, with some small alteration in the title, from “Bibliotheque universelle” to “Bibliotheque nouvelle,” and the addition of the ecclesiastical history to the ecclesiastical biography. He thus went on, concluding with the beginning of the eighteenth century, the whole making 47 vols. 8vo, which were reprinted at Amsterdam, in 19 vols. 4to; but as most of these volumes were printed from the first editions, this edition is imperfect. It was also begun to be translated into Lathy, and the first three volumes printed at Amsterdam; but no farther progress was made. Monsieur Dupin was engaged at his death in a Latin translation, to which he intended to make considerable additions. This Bibliotheque was likewise translated into English, and printed at London in several volumes in folio, usually bound in seven. A much finer edition was printed in 3 vols. folio, by Grierson of Dublin. The translation appears to have been executed partly by Digby Cotes, and revised by Wotton. Dupin’s Bibliotheque was attacked by M.Simon in a book printed at Paris in 1730, in four volumes 8vo, under the following title “Critique cle la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques & de Prolegomenes de la Bible publiez par M. Elies Dupin. Avec des eclaircissemens & des supplemens aux endroits, ou on les a juge necessaires, par feu M. Richard Simon, avec des remarques.” Simon has pointed out a considerable number of errors in Dupin, but when all deductions of this kind are made, it must be allowed that we have no book more generally valuable as a repository of ecclesiastical history and biography, making allowance for the author’s attachment to the principles of his church.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, who wrote several pieces in vindication of the Church of England, was born at St. Helier’s in the Isle of Jersey, in 1625. About the end of 1640, he was entered of Merton-college in Oxford; but when that city came to be garrisoned for king Charles I. he retired into France: and, having studied for some time at Caen in Normandy, took the degree of master of arts, in the Sylvanian college of that place, on the 8th of July 1664. Then he applied himself to the study of divinity, for above two years, at Saumur, under the celebrated Amyrault, divinity reader in that Protestant university. In 1647 he returned to Jersey, and continued for some time until the reduction of that island by the parliament-forces in 1651, when on account of his being in the defence of it for the king, he was forced to withdraw, or rather was expelled thence. He then went to Paris, and received episcopal ordination in the chapel of sir Richard Browne, knt. his majesty’s resident in France, from the hands of Thomas, bishop of Galloway. From Paris, he removed to St. Malo’s, whence the reformed church of Caen invited him to be one of their ministers, in the absence of the learned Samuel Bochart, who was going into Sweden. Not long after, the landgrave of Hesse having written to the ministers of Paris, to send him a minister to preach in French at his highness’s court, he was by them recommended to that prince, but preferred being chaplain to the duke de la Force, father to the princess of Turenne; in which station he continued above eight years. Upon the restoration he came over to England, and was very instrumental in setting up the new episcopal French church at the Savoy in London, in which he officiated first on Sunday, 14 July, 1661, and continued there for some years after, much to the satisfaction of his hearers. In April 1663, he was made prebendary of North Auiton, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; and, the llth of February following, succeeded to a canonry of Windsor. On the 1st of July, 1668, he was installed into the fourth prebend of Durham, and had a rich donative conferred on him. The 28th of February, 1669-70, he was actually created doctor of divinity, by virtue of the chancellor’s letters. In 1677, king Charles II. gave him the deanery of Windsor, vacant by the death of Dr. Bruno Ryves, into which he was installed July 27. He had also the great living of Witney in Oxfordshire conferred on him, all which preferments he obtained, partly through his own qualifications, being not only a good scholar, but also “a perfect courtier, skilful in the arts of getting into the favour of great men;” and partly through his great interest with king Charles II., to whom he was personally known both in Jersey and France. Mr. Wood thinks, that, had he lived some years longer, he would undoubtedly have been promoted to a bishopric. He published several things; and, among the rest, 1. “The Liturgy of the Church of England asserted, in a Sermon, preached [in French] at the chapel of the Savov, before the French Congregation, which usually assembles in that place, upon the first day that divine service was there celebrated according to the Liturgy of the Church of England.” Translated into English by G. B. doctor in physic, Lond. 1662, 4to. 2. “A View of the Government and public Worship of God in the reformed churches of England, as it is established by the act of uniformity,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Exceptions having been made to this book by the nonconformists, partly m a book called “Apologia pro ministris trt Anglia (vulgo) noneonformistis,” by an anonymous author, supposed to be Henry Hickman, he published, 3. “Sanctae Ecclesise Anglicanao ad versus iniquas atque inverecundas Schismaticorum Criminationes, Vindiciae.” The presbyterians, taking great offence at it, published these answers: 1. “Bonasus Vapulans or some castigations given to Mr. John Durel for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin book,” Loud. 1672, 8vo, reprinted in 1676 under this title, “The Nonconformists vindicated from the Abuses put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivner.” 2. Dr. Lewis Du Moulin published also this answer thereto: “Patronus bonre fidei, in causa Puritanorum,” &c Lond. 1672, 8vo. Besides these, Dr. Durel published his “Theoremata philosophise,” consisting of some theses maintained at the university of Caen; a French and Latin edition of the Common Prayer Book; and a French translation of the Whole Duty of Man, partly written by his wife.

Being at Francfort in April 1662, he declared to some gentlemen of Metz, that he longed extremely to see M. Ferri, an enthusiast, like himself, for uniting discordancies. He resolved at length to go to Metz, but met with two difficulties: the first was, that he must consent to dress after the French fashion, like a countryman: the second, to have his great white and square beard shaved. He got over these difficulties: and, upon his arrival, monsieur Ferri was so surprised, so overjoyed, and so very eager to salute this good doctor and fellow-labourer immediately, that he went out to meet him in a complete undress. They conferred much; and their subject was an universal coalition of religions. In 1674, however, Dury began to be much discouraged; nor had he any longer hopes of serving the church by the methods he had hitherto taken. He had therefore recourse to another expedient, as a sure means of uniting not only Lutherans and Calvinists, but all Christians; and this was, by giving a new explication of the Apocalypse. Accordingly he published it in a little treatise in French, at Francfort in 1674, He now enjoyed a quiet retreat in the country of Hesse: where Hedwig Sophia, princess of Hesse, who had the regency of the country, had assigned him a very commodious lodging, with a table well furnished, and had given him free postage for his letters. He returns her thanks for this in the epistle dedicatory to the book above mentioned. It is not known in what year he died. He was an honest man, full of zeal and piety,but somewhat fanatical. Among his publications, the titles of some of which shew his cast of opinions, in which he was by no means steady, we find, 1. “Consultatio theologica super negocio Pacis Ecclesiast.” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “A summary discourse concerning the work of Peace Ecclesiastical,” Camb. 1641, 4to, which was presented in 1639 to sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador at Hamburgh. 3. “Petition to the house of commons for the preservation of true Religion,” Lond. 1642, 4to. 4. “Certain considerations, shewing the necessity of a correspondency in spiritual matters betwixt all professed Churches,” ibid. 1642, 4to. 5. “Epistolary Discourse to Thomas Godwin, Ph. Nye, and Sam. Hartlib,” ibid. 1644, 4to, a discourse against toleration, which was answered by H. Robinson. 6. “Of Presbytery, and Independency, &c.” 1646, 4to. 7. “Model of the Church Government,” 1647, 4to. 8. “Peace makes the Gospel way,” 164*, 4to. 9. “Seasonable discourse for Reformation,” 1649, 4to, published by Sam. Hartlib. 10. “An epistolical Discourse to Mr. Thos. Thorowgood, concerning his conjecture that the Americans are descended from the Israelites, &c.” 1649, 4to. 11. “Considerations concerning the Engagement,” 1650, with two other pamphlets on the same subject, in answer to an antagonist. 12. “The Reformed School,” 1650, 12mo, published by Hartlib, with a supplement in 1651. 13. “The reformed Library Keeper,” 1650, 12mo, to which is added “Bibliotheca ducis Brunovicensis et Lunenburgi,” at Wolfenbuttle. 14. “Conscience eased, &c.” 165J, 4to. 15. “Earnest plea for Gospel Communion,” 1654. 16. “Summary platform of Divinity,” 1654. Hartlib wrote a defence of Dury against the presbyterians, Lond. 1650. In this we are told that he obtained an estate of 60l. per ann. in the marshes of Kent, which came into the possession of Henry Oldenburg, who married his daughter.

, a man of extraordinary talents, and who by their means was enabled to emerge from poverty and obscurity, was born in 1695 in the little village of Artonay in Champagne. At the age rjf ten years he lost his father, a poor labourer, who left his wife poor, and burthened with children, at a time when war and famine desolated France. In this state Duval accustomed himself from his infancy to a rude life, and to the privation of almost every necessary. He had scarcely learned to read, when, at the age of twelve years, he entered into the service of a peasant of the same village, who appointed him to take care of his poultry, but at the commencement of the severe winter of 1709, he quitted his native place, and travelled towards Lorraine. After a few days journey he was seized by an excessive cold, and even attacked by the small-pox, but by the humane care of a poor shepherd in the environs of the village of Monglat, aided by the strength of his constitution, he recovered, and quitted his benefactor to continue his route as far as Clezantine, a village on the borders of Lorraine, where he entered into the service of another shepherd, with whom he remained two years; but taking a disgust to this kind of life, chance conducted him to the hermitage of La llochette, near Deneuvre. The hermit, known by the name of brother Palemon, received him, made him partake his rustic labours, and when obliged to resign his place to a hermit sent to brother Palemon by his superiors, he got a letter of recommendation to the hermits of St. Anne, at some distance from La Rochette, and a mile or two beyond Luneville, where he arrived in 1713, and was entrusted with the care of six cows. The hermits also taught him to write; and as he had a great ardour for books, he engaged in the business of the chase, and with the money he procured for his game, was already enabled to make a small collection of books, when an unexpected occasion furnished him with the means of adding to it some considerable works. Walking in the forest one day in autumn, he found a gold seal, with a triple face well engraved on it. He went the following Sunday to Luneville, to entreat the vicar to publish it in the church, that the owner might recover it by applying to him at the hermitage. Some weeks after, a Mr. Foster, or Forster, an Englishman, knocked at the gate of St. Anne’s, and inquired for his. seal. In the course of the conversation which passed between him and Duval, he was surprized to find that the latter had picked up some knowledge of heraldry, and being much pleased with his answers, gave him two guineas as a recompense. Desirous of being better acquainted with this young lad, he made him promise to come and breakfast with him at Luneville every holiday. Duval kept his word, and received a crown-piece at every visit. This generosity of Mr. Foster continued during his abode at Luneville, and he added to it his advice respecting the choice of books and maps. The application of Duval, seconded by such a guide, could not fail of being attended with improvement, and he acquired a considerable share of various kind of knowledge.

In the first year of queen Elizabeth, on Nov. 18, 1559t, he returned to the common pleas, of which he was appointed, in the following January, chief justice, an office the functions of which he continued to exercise for more than twenty years with eminent integrity, firmness, and ability. In the course of this long period, we find him assisting at the trial of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk; on which occasion he opposed that unfortunate nobleman’s petition to have counsel assigned him; and with propriety as the rigorous complexion of the law was at that time, it having been reserved for the milder spirit of a latter age to indulge prisoners in his unhappy situation with that privilege. In 1571- he exhibited a singular proof of probity, courage, and talents, in the spirit with which he opposed the attempts of sir John Conway to oppress a poor widow of Warwickshire (that county being included in the circuit which he usually went) by forcibly keeping possession of her farm; and in his reply to the articles preferred against him to the privy council by certain justices of the peace, whom he had severely reprehended in public at the assizes, for partiality and negligence in permitting so gross a violation of the law, and whom he had caused to be indicted for the same. This singular curiosity, which is among the Inner Temple Mss. is copied in Mr. Vaillant’s Life of sir James Dyer, prefixed to his excellent edition of the “Reports.” What was the event of the dispute, his biographer has not been able to discover; but thinks it reasonable to conclude that the firmness and ability of Dyer prevailed over the malice of his adversaries; especially as he experienced no diminution of the queen’s favour, but continued in the full exercise of his judicial functions, without any other memorable transaction that is now known, down to his death, which happened at his seat of Great Stougbton, (an estate purchased by himself), in the county of Huntingdon, March 24, 1582, at the age of seventy.

Though Dr. Eachard’s works abound with wit and humour, he is said to have failed remarkably when he attempted to write in a serious manner. Mr. Baker, of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in a blank leaf of his copy of Kachard’s “Letter to R. L.” observes, that he went to St. Mary’s with great expectation to hear him preach, but was never more disappointed. And dean Swift says, “I have known men happy enough at ridicule, who, upon grave subjects, were perfectly stupid; of which Dr. Eachard, of Cambridge, who writ `The Contempt of the Clergy,' was a great instance.” It is remarked by Mr. Granger, and Dr. Warton, that the works of Dr. Eachard had been evidently studied by Swift. Dr. Eachard’s wit, however, was applied to the best of purposes; for although some parts of his “Grounds of the Contempt, &c.” may be mistaken, he cannot be too highly praised for turning the philosophy of Hobbes into contempt.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note, was born about 1676, and educated among the dissenters. Of his personal history we have little information. He officiated in the meetings in London between sixty and seventy years, and died in 1768. During this long life, he had never experienced a moment’s ill health. He would scarcely have known what pain was, had he not once broke his arm. He preached to the last Sunday of his life, and died suddenly in his chair, without a ^roan or sigh. All his faculties continued in great perfection, excepting his eye-sight, which failed him some time before his death. He was remarkable for a vivacity and cheerfulness of temper, which never forsook him to his latest breath; and he abounded in pleasant stories. He had published in his earlier days several occasional sermons, some of them preached at Sailers’-hall meeting, a “Treatise on the Sacrament,” 1707, 8vo, and a small collection of poems, in Latin and English. His chief excellence, as a scholar, was in classical learning. When he was above ninety years old, he would repeat, with the greatest readiness and fluency, a hundred verses or more from Homer, Virgil, . Horace, Juvenal, or others of the ancient poets, upon their being at any time occasionally mentioned.

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

But with this work it soon appeared that he did not mean to discontinue his labours; his mind was too active, and his love of knowledge too ardent, for him to rest satisfied with what he had already done. Accordingly, in 1758, he published his first volume of “Gleanings of Natural History,” exhibiting seventy different birds, fishes, insects, and plants, most of which were before non-descripts, coloured from nature, on fifty copper-plates. This work much increased his fame as a natural historian, and as an artist. In 1760, a second volume appeared, dedicated to the late earl of Bute, whose studious attachment to natural history, particularly to botany, was then well known. The third part of the “Gleanings,” which constituted the 7th and last volume of Mr. Edwards’s works, was published in 1763, and was dedicated to earl Ferrers, who, when captain Shirley, had taken in a French prize, a great number of birds, intended for madame Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV. These he communicated to our naturalist, who was hence enabled more completely to add to the value of his labours. Thus, after a long series of years, the most studious application, and a very extensive correspondence with every quarter of the world, Mr. Edwards concluded a work, which in 7 vo!s. 4to, contains engravings and descriptions of more than an hundred subjects in natural history, not before described or delineated, and all the productions of his own hand. We have already mentioned his scrupulous exactness, and may now confirm it in his own words. In the third volume of his “Gleanings” he says, “It often happens that my figures on the copper-plates differ from my original drawings for sometimes the originals have not altogetherpleased me as to their attitudes or actions. In such cases I have made three or four, sometimes six sketches, or outlines, and have deliberately considered them all, and then fixed upon that which I judged most free and natural, to be engraven on my plate.” He added to the whole a general index in English and French, which is now perfectly completed, with the Linna-an names, by Li mums himself, who frequently honoured him with his friendship and correspondence. Upon Mr. Edwards’ completing his great work, we find him making the following singular declaration, or rather petition, in which he seems afraid that his passion for his favourite subject of natural history, should get the better of a nobler pursuit, viz. the contemplation of his Maker.

“My petition to God (if petitions to God are not presumptuous) is, that he would remove from me all desire of pursuing natural history or any other study, and inspire me with as much knowledge of his divine nature as my imperfect state is capable of; that I may conduct myself, for the remainder of my days, in a manner most agreeable to his will, which must consequently be most happy to myself. What my condition may be in futurity, is known only to the wise disposer of all things; yet my present desires are (perhaps vain, and inconsistent with the nature of 'things!) that 1 may become an intelligent spirit, void of gross matter, gravity, and levity; endowed with a voluntary motive-power, either to pierce infinitely into boundless ethereal space, or into solid bodies; to see and know how the parts of the great universe are connected with each other, and by what amazing mechanism they are put and kept in regular and perpetual motion. But, O vain and daring presumption of thought; I most humbly submit my future existence to the supreme will of the One Omnipotent.”

After the last publication of his “Gleanings,” being arrived at his seventieth year, he found that his sight began to fail him, and that his hand lost its steadiness. He continued, however, some years afterward in his office of librarian; but finding his infirmities to increase, he retired in 1769 from public employment, to a small house which be had purchased at Plaistow: previously to which he disposed of all the copies, as well as plates, of his works to the late Mr. Robson, bookseller in New Bond-street, who published the Linnaean Index, his papers from the Philosophical Transactions, with the plates relative to these subjects all new engraved, in 1776, in a proper size to bind with his other vorks, the whole of which he assigned to Mr. Robson solely, and addressed a letter to the public upon the occasion, dated May 1, 1709. His collection of drawings, amounting to upwards of nine hundred, had before been purchased by the earl of Bute. The conversation of a few select friends, and the perusal of a few choice books, w,ere his amusement in the evening of his life, and he occasionally made excursions to some of the principal cities in England. During his residence at Plaistow, however, he delineated some scarce animals, which were afterwards engraved. His latter years were much embittered by a cancerous complaint which deprived him of the sight of one of his eyes, and by the stone, to which he had been subject at different periods of his life. It was nevertheless remarked, that in the severest paroxysms of misery, he was scarcely known to utter a single complaint. Having completed his eightieth ye?.r, and become emaciated with age and sickness, he died on the 23d of July, 1773, and was Interred in the church-yard of WestHam, his native parish, where his executors erected a stone with a plain inscription, to perpetuate his talents as an artist and zoologist. Dying a bachelor, he left his fortune to two sisters, who did not long survive him.

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Coventry, August 10, O.S. 1729, and was the son of the Rev. Thomas Edwards, M. A. vicar of St. Michael’s in that city, and of Katharine his wife. His grammatical education he received partly under the tuition of Edward Jackson, D. D. master of the free grammar-school in Coventry, but principally under the care of his own father; and such was his eagerness for the acquisition of knowledge, that he seldom engaged in the diversions common to boys. In 1747, at the age of eighteen, he was matriculated at the university of Cambridge, and entered of Clare hall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1750, and of M. A. in 1754. He was likewise a fellow of his college. In the younger part of his life he was a self-taught musician, and became no mean performer on the spinnet and the bass-viol: but, finding that this amusement encroached too much upon his studies, he entirely relinquished it. On the 22d of September, 1751, he was ordained deacon, and on the 23d of September, 1753, he was ordained priest, both which orders he received from the hands of Dr. Frederick Cornwallis, at that time bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. In the spring of 1755, when Mr. Edwards was not yet twenty-six years of age, he gave a striking proof of the diligence with which he applied himself to the study of the learned languages, and the acquisition of sacred literature. This was his publication of “A new English Translation of the Psalms from the original Hebrew, reduced to metre by the late bishop Hare with notes, critical and explanatory, illustrations of many passages, drawn from the classics, and a preliminary dissertation, in which the truth and certainty of that learned prelate’s happy discovery is stated, and proved at large,” 8vo. It was Mr. Edwards’s design to make Dr. Hare’s system of Hebrew metre better known, and to prove, that, by a judicious application of it, great light might be thrown upon the poetical parts of the Hebrew scriptures. He was of opinion that Dr. Hare’s hypothesis was rejected by many persons, partly from an over-hasty determination, and partly from too scrupulous a veneration for the Hebrew text. The notes, which comprehend more than one third of this book, chiefly contain emendations of the Hebrew text, pointed out by the metre, and illustrations of some passages, drawn from the classics, together with an explanation of the most difficult places. Considerable use is made by our author of Hare and Mudge, but with no servile adherence to their authority. Mr. Edwards’s next publication was only a single sermon, which he had preached at St. Michael’s in Coventry, on the 6th of February, 1756. On the 2d of May, 1758, he was nominated, by the corporation of Coventry, master of the free grammar-school, and presented to the rectory of St. John, the Baptist in that city. This promotion was- followed by his marriage, November 27th, in the same year, to Anne Parrott, daughter of Stony er Parrott, esq. of Hawkesbury, in the parish of Foleshill, in the county of Warwick, by whom he had one son, Dr. Edwards of Cambridge. Early in 1759, Mr. Edwards published one of his principal works, “The doctrine of irresistible Grace proved to have no foundation in the writings of the New Testament.” This was levelled at the opinions of the Calvinists on that subject. Our author’s next publication, which appeared in 1762, was entitled “Prolegomena in Libros Veteris Testamenti Poeticos; sive dissertatio, in qua viri eruditissimi Francisci Harii nuper Episcopi Cicestriensis de antiqua Hebraeorum poesi hypothesin ratione et veritate niti, fuse ostenditur, atque ad objecta quaedam respond etur. Subjicitur Metricae Lowthianae Confutatio, cum indicibus necessariis,” 8vo. This attack upon Dr. Lowth’s “Metricae Harianaj brevis Confutatio,” which had been annexed to the first edition of his admirable “Praelectiones de sacra Poesi Hebraeorum,” did not pass unnoticed by that gentleman. In the second edition of his “Praelectiones” he added a note, in which he strenuously maintained his own opinion, in opposition to that of Mr, Edwards. In reply to this note our author published, in 1765 t “Epistola ad doctissimimi Robertum Lowthium, S. T. P., In qua nonnulla, quae ad nuperae siur de sacra Hebraeorum Poesi Prielectionum editionis calcem habet, expenduntur.” In this he indulged himself in some severity of language, which the subject did not merit, and which ought not to have been used towards such an antagonist as Dr. Loath. The doctor thought the “Epistola” of consequence enough to deserve a reply; and therefore he printed, in 1766, “A larger Confutation of bishop Hare’s System of Hebrew Metre in a letter to the reverend Dr. Edwards in answer to his Latin cpisile,” 8vo. Here the controversy ended and the general opinion of the learned world gave the preference to Dr. Lowth’s arguments.

On the 20th of May following, he was constituted one of the commissioners to treat with sir Noel Caroon, knight, ambassador for the States General, concerning the rendition of the cautionary towns into the hands of the States. On the 3d of June, the archbishop of Canterbury, and others, were appointed to inquire who were the authors of his being indicted of pr<emunirc, which was the leading cause of sir Edward Coke’s disgrace. He was one of the grand council, convened at Whitehall on the 6th of June, 1616, the king himself in council, before whom the twelve judges were summoned to appear, and accused of having, in the execution of their office, unconstitutionally trenched on the powers and prerogatives of the crown, in granting commcndams. The king himself took an active part in this business, and, after a judicial discussion of the question, in which the opinion of sir Francis Bacon, the attorney general, was seconded and confirmed by that of the chancellor, they were severely censured for having grossly and wilfully erred both in the matter and manner of their proceedings; particularly in not obeying the royal command delivered to them by the attorney general, and in not delaying to proceed in a cause in which the prerogative was concerned till they had consulted his majesty, and known his farther pleasure. They all submitted willingly, except the lord chief justice Coke (in the whole of which business he acted a very noble part), and were obliged to crave his majesty’s gracious favour and pardon npon their knees. On the 20tb, the king, in the star-chamber, asserted the authority of the chancellor as more especially his own; and on the 30th, lord chief justice Coke was degraded for several causes of offence, particularly those two which have been just mentioned, viz. his attack upon the chancellor, and the affair of the commendams.

It is not always that men distinguished in public appear to advantage in their private characters. We shall consider the life of our prelate in both these views, and each will throw a lustre upon the other. In the following sketch we mean to delineate such select traits only as are not common to all other men, but were more peculiar in him. His person was tall and well formed, it had both elegance and strength; his countenance was ingenuous, animated, and engaging. By nature he was endowed with strong and lively parts, a good temper, “and an active disposition. Descended from noble ancestors, and initiated from his birth in the most honourable connections, his manners and sentiments were cast from an early age in the happiest mould, and gave all the advantages of that ease and propriety of behaviour, which were so very observable even in the most indifferent actions of his life. In his address there was a peculiar mixture of dignity and affability, by which he had the remarkable art both of encouraging those who were diffident, and checking those who were presumptuous. The vivacity of his spirits and conversation, and the peculiar propriety of his manners, made him universally admired and caressed. His memory was accurate and extensive. In describing the characters, and in relating the anecdotes and transactions with which he had been acquainted, he took particular delight; and this, when his health permitted, he did with much spirit, and often with the utmost pleasantry and humour; but scrupulously taking care that the desire of ornamenting any narrative should never in the smallest degree induce him to depart from the truth of it. With so rare and happy a talent for description, with a mind stored with much information, and a memory very retentive, he was one of the most instructive and entertaining of companions; his conversation was enriched with pertinent and useful observations, and enlivened by genuine wit and humorous anecdote. He had a very peculiar art of extricating himself with much immediate address from those little embarrassments which perplex and confound many, and which often occur in society from thf awkwardness of others, or from a concurrence of singular and unexpected circumstances. When pressed by improper questions, instead of being offended with them himself, or giving offence by his replies, be had a talent of returning very ready and very dextrous answers. In every sort of emergency, as well in personal danger as in difficulties of an inferior nature, he shewed an uncommon presence of mind. He possessed a great reach of understanding, and was singularly gifted with a quick and ready judgment, deciding rightly upon the instant when it was necessary. No man was better qualified, or at the same time more averse to give his opinion; which, upon many occasions, he found a difficulty in avoiding, its value being so well known, that it was often solicited by his friends; and, when he was prevailed upon, he delivered it rather with the humility of one who asked, than with the authority of one who gave advice. In forming his friendships, he was as cautious as he was steady and uniform in adhering to them. He was extremely partial to the friendships of his youth, and made a particular point of being useful to those with whom he had been thus early connected. In all the domestic relations of life he was exemplary, as a husband, a master, and a parent. Instead of holding over his children an authority founded upon interest, during his life he put them into possession of a great part of such fortunes as they would have inherited from him upon his death, willing to have their obedience proceed not merely from a sense of duty, but from gratitude, and from pure disinterested affection. Though he was ever disinclined to write for the public, yet his merit as a scholar was, however, well known, and properly estimated, by such of his private friends as were them” selves distinguished by their erudition, particularly by archbishop Seeker, Benson bishop of Gloucester, Butler bishop of Durham, the late lord Lyttelton, the late lord Egremont, the late Mr. George Grenville, Mr. William Gerard Hamilton, Mr. Ansty, Mr. Richard Owen Cambridge, Mr. Garrick, Mr. Stillingfleet, Mr. J. Nourse, author of several pieces of poetry in Dodsley’s collection, Dr. Croxall, sir William Draper, &c. &c. His only publications were three sermons one preached before the lords, the llth of February, 1757, being a general fast another before the lords, the 30th of January, 1761 and a third before the society for the propagation of the gospel, on the 18th of February, 1763. In the early part of his life he was fond of those manly exercises which give strength and vigour both to the body and mind, without suffering them to interrupt his studies; a practice, which thus regulated, instead of being injurious, is serviceable to learning, and which men eminent for their judgment have lamented was not more cultivated and improved. His usual relaxations were such as exercised the understanding; chess was his favourite amusement, and he played well at that game. The Greek and Latin tongues were familiar to him. He spoke the French and Italian languages; and wrote, and spoke his own with purity and precision. Of books he had a competent knowledge, and collected a good library. In every thing he had a pure taste. In history, anecdotes, and memoirs, in the belles-lettres, in the arts and sciences, and in whatever else may be supposed to fall within the circle of polite education, he was by no means uninstructed.

, a painter, was born at Leyden in 1602. Who was his master is not known. He travelled early in life, and his longest stay was in France, where he was painter to Lewis XIII. and Lewis XIV. and one of the twelve elders of the then establishment of the royal academy of painting and sculpture of Paris, Jan. 20, 1649. He assisted Vouet in many of his historical works, and himself painted history in various dimensions. He was a person of consideration in his time, and especially at court. It is not known what induced him to leave France; but it is certain that he returned to Antwerp, where he died, January 8, 1674, and his wife on June 19, 1685. They were both buried in the church 'of St. James.

The liberality of Trew, by which Ehret gained 4000 florins, inspired him with confidence in his own abilities, and such a share of ambition as inclined him to quit his home, and seek at once to raise his fortune, and to gratify the desire he had to see the world. It appears, however, that he was too much elated with his success, and having soon dissipated his money, found himself at Basil with a very few florins in his pocket. Necessity now obliged him to exert himself, and he was so successful, that although he exhibited numerous specimens of his art, and put a high price upon them, the demand was beyond what his industry could supply. Having, however, by this means recruited his finances, he journeyed into France, and resided some time at Montpelier, where he taught his art to a lady of fortune, who rewarded him generously, and, on his wish to remove, paid his expences to Lyons and Paris. At the latter city he became known to Jussieu, and was for some time employed to paint the plants of the royal garden, under that eminent professor’s inspection. After a certain time, he came to London, but not succeeding to his mind, soon returned to the continent, and in 1736 he was employed in the garden of Mr. Clifford, where Linnaeus found him, and gave him some instructions in the principles of the sexual system. His fine taste and botanical accuracy appear to have been first publicly displayed in the figures of the “Hortus Cliffortianus,” which appeared in 1737.

Mr. Eliott returned in his seventeenth year to his native country of Scotland, and was in the same year, 1735, introduced by his father, sir Gilbert, to lieutenant-colonel Peers of the 23d regiment of foot, or royal Welsh fuzileers, then lying in Edinburgh. Sir Gilbert presented him as a youth anxious to bear arms for his king and country. He was accordingly entered as a volunteer in that regiment, and continued for a twelvemonth or more. At this time he gave a promise of his future military talents, and shewed that he was at least a soldier in heart. From the 23d he went into the engineer corps at Woolwich, and made great progress in that study, until his uncle, colonel Eliott, introduced him as adjutant of the 2d troop of horsegrenadiers. In this situation he conducted himself with the most exemplary attention, and laid the foundation of that discipline which has rendered those two troops the finest corps of heavy cavalry in Europe. With these troops he went upon service to Germany, in the war before last, and was with them in a variety of actions, particulars’ at the battle of Dettingen, where he was wounded. In this regiment he first bought the rank of captain and major, and afterwards purchased the lieutenant-colonelcy from colonel Brewerton, who succeeded to his uncle. On arriving at this rank he resigned his commission as an engineer, which he had enjoyed along with his other rank, and in which service be had been actively employed very much to the advantage of his country. He bad received the instructions of the famous engineer Bellidor, and made himself completely master of the science of gunnery. Had he not so disinterestedly resigned his rank in the engineer department, he would now by regular progression have been at the head of that corps. Soon after this he was. appointed aid-de-camp to king George II. and was already distinguished for his military skill and discipline. In 1759 be quitted the second troop of horse grenadier guards, being selected to raise, form, and discipline the first regiment of light horse, called after him Eliott’s. As soon as they were raised and formed, he was appointed to the command of the cavalry, in the expedition on the coasts of France, with the rank of brigadier- general and after this he passed into Germany, where he was employed on the staff, and greatly distinguished himself in a variety of movements, while his regiment displayed a strictness of discipline, an activity, and enterprise, which gained them signal honour; and indeed they have been the pattern regiment, both in regard to discipline and appointment, to the many light dragoon troops that have been since raised in our service. From Germany he was recalled for the purpose of being employed as second in command in the memorable expedition against the Havannah. The circumstances of that conquest are well known. It seems as if our brave veteran had always in his eye the gallant Lewis de Velasco, who maintained his station to the last extremity, and, when his garrison were flying from his side, or falling at his feet, disdained to retire or call for quarter, but fell gloriously exercising his sword upon his conquerors. A circumstance which occurred immediately after the reduction shews, that in the very heat and outrages of war the general was not unmindful of the rights of humanity. He was particularly eminent among the conquerors of the Havannah, for his disinterested procedure, and for checking the horrors of indiscriminate plunder. To him, therefore, appeals were most frequently made. A Frenchman, who had suffered greatly by the depredations of the soldiery, made application to him, and begged, in bad English, that he would interfere to have his property restored. The petitioner’s wife, who was present, a woman of great spirit, was angry at the husband for the intercession, and said, “Comment pouvez vous demander de grace a uu homme qui vient vous de‘pouilliefr N’en esperez pas.” The husband persisting in his application, his wife grew more loud in the censure, and said, “Vous n'étes pas François!” The general, who was busy writing at the time, turned to the woman, and said smiling, “Madame, ne vous échauffez pas; ce que votre mari demande lui sera accordé!”—“Oh, faut-il pour surcroit de malheur,” exclaimed the woman, “que le barbare parle le François!” The general was so very much pleased with the woman’s spirit, that he not only procured them their property again, but also took pains to accommodate them in every respect; and such was through life the manly characteristic of the general: if he would not suffer his troops to extend, for the sake of plunder, the ravages of war, he never impoverished them by unjust exactions. He would never consent that his quarter-master’s place should be sold, “not only,” says he, “because I think it the reward of an honest veteran soldier; but also because I could not so directly exercise my authority in his dismission should he behave ill.”

, known by the title of the Apostle of the North American Indians, from having been the first that preached the gospel among them, was a native of England, and born about the year 1604. He was educated at Cambridge, and engaged himself as an assistant to a school, which, Neal says, he was not permitted to continue, on account of his puritanical notions; but for this we have no other authority. It appears, however, that he was a nonconformist in matters of church-government, and that in 1631, in order to enjoy his own opinions uncontrouled, he embarked for America, and succeeded a Mr. Wilson as pastor of an independent church at Boston. He afterward^ removed to Roxburg, in New England, where Mr. Eliot passed with some of his countrymen and friends the greater part of his life in the active discharge of those duties which belong to the pastoral office. In 1646, he began his scheme of preaching to the native Indians, and for this purpose learned their language; and, besides preaching among them with considerable success, and at much hazard, he translated the Bible into the Indian language: this was printed at Cambridge, in New England, in 1664, and a short time before Mr. Eliot’s death, it was reprinted with corrections by Mr. Cotton, his fellow-labourer in the Indian mission. By the exertions and influence of this excellent man, many of the wandering Indian tribes were collected into regular societies, and formed into congregations, which were instructed by him, and by others who joined him, in the manner best adapted to their capacities. At Roxburg he established a free grammar school, which was eminently beneficial to the interests of learning in the New England states: and among the Indians he formed schools in which many were trained to useful knowledge, and some of whom became qualified for a liberal education, which they afterwards received at college. The measures adopted by Mr. Eliot were aided by large contributions from England, with which estates were purchased and placed in the hands of trustees, who were afterwards incorporated under the title of “The society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts.” This venerable apostle continued his labours till he arrived at his eightyfourth year. He died in the latter end of 1689, having attained to the great age of eighty-six.

, queen of England, one of the most celebrated sovereigns of this or of any country, was the daughter of Henry VIII. by his queen Anne Boleyn, and born in the year 1533. JShe was educated in the principles of the protestant religion, and was distinguished for her attainments in classical literature. By the last will of her father, she was nominated third in order of succession, but by the influence of the duke of Northumberland, she was by an act of Edward VI. excluded from the crown, to which nevertheless she attained on the death of her sister Mary. During, however, the reign of that sister, she was treated with the utmost indignity and severity, committed to the Tower, and threatened with still greater calamities. Her confinement in this fortress was short, for even the judges of Mary could find no plea against her, and she was sent from thence to Woodstock, where, though kept in safe custody, she was treated with much respect. Her sufferings and her principles endeared her to the nation, and she became so extremely popular that it was, in a short time, deemed impolitic to put any restraint upon her. When set at liberty she chose study and retirement, and was very submissive to the will of her sister. Attempts were made to draw her into some declarations respecting her religion, which might be laid hold of; but in every instance she acted with so much prudence and caution as to give her enemies no advantage of that kind, and seemed to comply with the external forms of the established religion, though it was well known, she was attached to that of the reformation.

Elizabeth was at Hatfield, when she heard of her sister’s death, Nov. 17, 1558, and hastening up to London, was received by the multitude with universal acclamations. Even the catholics, it is said, were not sorry at an event which promised greater security to the civil liberties of the nation. On her entrance into the Tower, then a royal palace, she could not refrain from remarking on the difference of her present and her former visit when a prisoner. Not to alarm the partizans of the catholic religion too much, before her power should be completely established, she retained eleven of her sister’s counsellors, but in order to balance their authority, she added eight who were known to be attached to the pwtestant interest, namely the marquis of Northampton, the earl of Bedford, sir Thomas Parry, sir Edward Rogers, sir Ambrose Cave, sir Francis Knolles, sir Nicholas Bacon, whom she created lord keeper, and sir William Cecil, secretary of state. With these counsellors, particularly Cecil, she frequently deliberated concerning the means of restoring the protestant religion, and by his advice, her first measure was to recall all the exiles who had fled from her sister’s tyranny, and give liberty to all prisoners who were confined on account of religion. She next published a proclamation by which she forbade all preaching without a special licence. She also suspended the laws so far as to have a great part of the service read in English, and forbade the host to be any more elevated in her presence. A parliament soon after, in 1539, sanctioned these acts of the prerogative; and in one session the form of religion was established as it has ever since remained; and to show what a deep root the principles of the reformation had taken, even in her bloody sister’s reign, it is upon record, that out of 9400 beneficed clergymen, which was the number of those in the kingdom, only fourteen bishops, twelve archdeacons, fifteen heads ef colleges, and about eighty of the parochial clergy, a number not exceeding 121, chose to quit their preferments rather than give up their religion.

In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with England, a new system of European power, with a view of controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his projects, and the French minister departed in admiration of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage, and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable, “feeding,” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable burden to her.” Few words she uttered, and they were all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them. Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed, much less to make trial of any remedies which they prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that, as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which continued some hours, and she expired gently, without farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign.

, daughter of the emperor Maximilian II. and wife of Charles IX. king of France, was married at Mezieres, Nov. 26, 1570. She was one of the most beautiful persons of her time, and her virtue is said to have surpassed her beauty. The deplorable and fatal night of St Bartholomew afflicted her extremely; on hearing the news of what had past, when she rose in the morning, bathed in tears, she threw herself at the foot of her crucifix to: ask mercy of God on the perpetrators of so atrocious a deed, which she detested with horror. Elizabeth had but very little share in what passed in France under the tumultuous reign of Charles IX. She attended to pothing but her domestic concerns, and conducted her fat-­niily by the principles of prudence and honour for which she xvas highly remarkable. Sensible to the irregularities of, her husband, whom she loved and honoured extremely, she never let him perceive those jealous disquietudes which often augment and seldom remedy the evil. She was mild and patient Charles was lively and impetuous; the ardour of the king was moderated by the serenity of Elizabeth accordingly she never lost his affection and his esteem, and he recommended her, when dying, to Henry IV. then king of Navarre, with the utmost tenderness: “Take cart? of my daughter and my wife,” said he; “my brother, take care of them; I recommend them to the generosity of your heart.” During his illness, Elizabeth spent all the time when she was not attending upon him, in prayers for his recovery. When she went to see him, she did not place herself by his bedside, as she had a right to do; but kept at a little distance, and by her modest silence, by her tender and respectful looks, she seemed to cover him in her heart with the love she bore him “then,” adds Brantome, “she was- seen to shed tears so tender and so secret, that a common spectator would have known nothing of it; and wiping her watery eyes, excited the liveliest emotions of pity in all that were present: for,” continues he, “I was a witness to it.” She stifled her grief; she dared not let her tenderness appear, fearing lest the king should perceive it. The prince could not avoid saying, when speaking of her, that he might boast of having an amiable wife, the most discreet and the most virtuous woman, not in all France, not in all Europe, but in the whole world. He was nevertheless as reserved with her as the queen mother, who, apprehending that she might have some power over the king, doubtless employed her influence in preventing that prince from reposing in her confidence, which would have disconcerted her schemes. "While she was at the court of France, she honoured with a tender affection Margaret queen of Navarre, her sisterin-law, though of a conduct so totally opposite to hers; and, after her return to Germany, Elizabeth always kept up an epistolary correspondence with her. She even sent her, as a pledge of her friendship, two books of her own composing: the one, on the word of God; the other, on the most considerable events that had happened in France in her time. Tins virtuous princess, after the death of the king her husband, retired to Vienna, where she died in 1592, aged only thirty-eight, in a convent of her own foundation.

, a physician of Prussia, was born at Pletzaw, in the principality of Anhalt-Bernburgh, in 1689. He received the first rudiments of education at home under a private tutor, and was then sent to the university of Quedlinburgh, and thence to Jena, in 1709. His father intended him for the law; but a passion which he expressed for mathematical and physical researches, soon altered that design, and determined young Eller to follow the profession of physic. As Jena afforded no opportunity for the study of anatomy, he was removed to Halle, and soon after to Ley den, to finish his education under the celebrated Albinus, and the learned Sengerd and Boerhaave. Thence he passed to Amsterdam for the advantage of hearing the lectures of Rau, and examining the preparations of iluysch, and he followed Rau to Leyden, on the latter being appointed to succeed professor Bidloe. Having quitted Leyden, he spent some time in the mines of Saxony and Hartz, where he completed his chemical studies, and made astonishing progress in metallurgy and other parts of natural knowledge. On his visiting Paris, he attended several new courses in chemistry, under Lemery and Homberg, while he was pursuing his anatomical studies under the direction of Pecquet, du Verney, Winslow, and acquiring physiological and practical knowledge by the assistance of Astruc, Helvetius, Jussieu, &c. Though every branch of medical knowledge, and particularly surgery, was successfully practised in Paris, the reputation of Cheselden’s operation for the stone, and the ambition of being known to the immortal Newton, drew Mr. Eller to England, where he arrived in company with the earl of Peterborough, and remained five months. Leaving London in 1721, he returned to his own country, and was immediately honoured with the place of first physician to his sovereign the prince of Anhalt-Bernburgh; but he afterwards removed to Magdeburgh, where he soon attracted the notice of the king of Prussia, Frederick I. by whom he was made physician in ordinary, counsellor of the court, professor of the royal college of physic and surgery at Berlin, physician to the army, and perpetual dean of the superior college of medicine; employments equally honourable and lucrative. On the accession of Frederick II. he was farther promoted, and in 1755 was created a privy counsellor, the greatest honour to which he could possibly arrive, in his career as a scholar; and the same year he was appointed director of the academy called “Curieux de la nature,” where, according to the custom of the society, he was introduced by the name of Euphorbio. These employments and dignities he retained to his death in 1759. After his death was published a work by him, entitled “Observationes de cognoscendis et curandis morbis, praescrtim acutis, 1762, 8vo, which was translated into French by Le Roy, 1774, 12mo. This work is chiefly founded on the results of his long practice. He wrote also various papers in the Transactions of the Academy of Berlin, for the years 1748, 1749, and 1752, which with other pieces by him were collected and published, in German, under the title of” Physical, chemical, and medical treatises," Berlin, 1764, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an artist, was the son of an able physician, and was born at Gottemburg the I 8th of September 1633, according to Houbraken, and in 1632 by Weyermann’s account. Ottomar’s father centred all his views in making his son a scholar, and he therefore put him to study the languages under the most famous professors. It was soon perceived that he relaxed in his progress in every other of his lessons, in proportion as his taste for painting was unfolded: and that in the very classes and school-hours he was secretly practising with the crayon. Chastisements were even found ineffectual to his correction, notwithstanding the obstinacy of his mother in not altering her purpose. A lucky accident delivered our young man from this disagreeable situation. One day a poor person desired to speak in private with the physician: the beggar displayed to him his extreme distress in several languages. The wife of the physician, who was present at this conversation, said to her husband, “Since I see that there are men of learning in indigence as well as painters, I think it altogether indifferent to which profession my son applies; let him satisfy his own inclination.” Elliger was then placed at Antwerp in the school of Daniel Segers, the Jesuit; where he learnt to paint flowers and fruit, and at length equalled his master. He was called to the court of Berlin, where he was highly honoured for his talents, and the elector Frederic William appointed him his principal painter. This prince found great amusement in conversing with Elliger, and his smart replies on all occasions pleased him so much, that he made frequent visits to his lodgings. This agreeable life, in which he found much profit as well as pleasure, continued till his death, the year of which is not known. Elliger’s works, which are as much sought after as those of his master, are principally in Germany, where they are preserved with the utmost care.

, an English divine, whose writings, in the opinion of a recent biographer, deserve to be more extensively known than, it is apprehended, they now are, or ever have been, was the son of Mr. Ellis, steward to Dr. Barnaby Potter, bishop of Carlisle, and wasjborn in 1630, near Penrith in Cumberland. He became a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Tully, in 1649, and was afterwards a tabarder; and when master of arts, became a fellow of the college.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

Mr. Ellis in his person was below the middle size, with hard features, which at the first appearance were rather forbidding, but on a nearer acquaintance he was hardly ever known to fail of conciliating the regard of those whom he desired to please. He lived a bachelor, as he used often to declare, from a disappointment early in life; but he was particularly attentive to the fair-sex, whose favour hfe seemed earnest to acquire and in general was successful to obtain. Temperate, regular, and cheerful, he was always a pleasing companion, and joined in the conversation of his friends with ease, freedom, and politeness. He abounded in anecdote, and told a story with great success. He was charitable to the poor and unfortunate, and benevolent in an extraordinary manner, to some of his relations who wanted his assistance. He early acquired a disgust to the cant and hypocrisy which he thought he had discovered in the sectaries among whom he was bred; and, from disJiking the obnoxious parts of his early religious practice, he carried his aversion much further than some of his friends would be willing to defend, and became an infidel; his opinions, however, he seldom obtruded, or ostentatiously brought forwa'rd for the purpose of controversy. His aversion to sectaries he seems to have retained to the end of his life . As a man of business he was careful and attentive, and from his accuracy afforded no opportunity for controversies among his clients on the score of errors or mistakes.

, a learned prelate of the church of England, was born in 1693. Who his parents were, and what was the place of his birth, we are not informed, nor have any reason to suppose him related to the subject of the following article. After having gone through a proper course of grammatical education, he was entered of Clarehall, in the university of Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1712, and that of master of arts in 1716. It is highly probable that he likewise became a fellow of his college. Some time after, having taken holy orders, ne was in 1724 promoted to the vicarage of St. Olave, Jewry, and to the rectory of St. Martin, Iremonger lane, which is united to the former. In 1725, he was presented, by the lord chancellor Macclesfield, whose chaplain he is said to have been, to a prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Gloucester. On the 25th of April, 1728, when king George the Second paid a visit to the university of Cambridge, Mr. Ellys was created doctor of divinity, being one of those who were named in the chancellor’s list upon that occasion. In 1736, when the protestant dissenters were engaged in endeavouring to obtain a repeal of the corporation and test acts, Dr. Ellys appeared in opposition to that measure, and published a work, entitled “A Plea for the Sacramental Test, as a just security to the Church established, and very conducive to the welfare of the State,” 4to, an elaborate performance, written with great ability and learning. In 1749, Dr. Ellys published a sermon, which he preached before the house of commons on the thirtieth of January. This discourse, the text of which was Mat. xxii. 21, was printed, as then was customary, at the request of the house. Our author’s next publication was early in 1752, being “Remarks on an Essay concerning Miracles, published by David Hume, esq, among his Philosophical Essays,” 4to. In this small piece, which was written in a sensible and genteel manner, Dr. Ellys considered what Mr. Hume had advanced, relating to miracles, in a somewhat different light from what had been done by Dr. Rutherforth and Mr. Adams; but the tract being anonympus, and coming after what Mr. Adams had so admirably written on the same subject, it did not, perhaps, excite that attention which, it deserved. In October, 1752, Dr. Ellys was promoted to the see of St. David’s, in the room of the honourable Dr. Richard Trevor, translated to the bishopric of Durham, and was consecrated February 28, 1753. It had for many years been understood, that our author was engaged in preparing, and had frequently declared his intention of publishing, a work, the design of which should be to illustrate, confirm, and vindicate, the principles of religious liberty, and the reformation from popery, founded upon them. This design recommended him to the notice of the excellent persons at that time in administration, and particularly to archbishop Herring; and it was the reputation of being employed in the accomplishment of it, that occasioned Dr. Ellys’s advancement to the high station which he held in the church. Why our prelate never completed his design during his life-time, and why he received no farther marks of favour, from the great personages who first countenanced him, is not known. Dr. Ellys, after his promotion to the bishopric of St. )avid’s, continued to bold his prebend of Gloucester, and his city living in commendam; and besides his other preferments, he was vicar of Great Marlow, Bucks. In 1754, he published the sermon which he had preached before the house of lords on the thirteenth of January. The text was 1 Pet. ii. 16. In 1758, he was called to a similar service, before the tame house, on the twenty-ninth of May, being the anniversary of king Charles the Second’s restoration. The last discourse published by him was in 1759, having been delivered, from John xv. 8. before the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts. On the seventeenth of January, 1761, our prelate died at Gloucester, and was buried in the South aile of the cathedral there, where a neat pyramidal monument is erected to his memory, with an epitaph on a tablet of white marble, supported by a cherub.

, a divine and antiquary, descended from a very ancient family in the bishopric of Durham, was born at Newcastle upon Tyne, Jan. 1, 1673, and was the son of Mr. Ralph Elstob, a merchant of that place. Being intended for the church, he received his grammatical education, first at Newcastle, and afterwards at Eton after which he was admitted of Catharine-hall, in Cambridge but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he removed to Queen’s college, Oxford. Here his studious turn acquired him so much reputation, that in 1696 he was chosen fellow of University college, and was appointed joint tutor with Dr. C layering, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. At this college Mr. Elstob took the degree of master of arts, June 8, 1697. In 1701, he translated into Latin the Saxon homily of Lupus, with notes, for Dr. Jiickes. About the same time he translated into English sir John Cheke’s Latin version of Plutarch, “De Superstitione,” which is printed at the end of Strype’s Life of Cheke. The copy made use of by Mr. Elstob was a manuscript in University college, out of which Obadiah Walker, when master of that college, had cut several leaves, containing Cheke’s remarks against popery. In 1702, Mr. Elstob was appointed rector of the united parishes of St. Swithin and St. Mary Bothaw, London, where be continued to his death, and which appears to be the only eqclesiastical preferment he ever obtained. In 1703, he published, at Oxford, an edition of Ascham’s Latin Letters. He was the author, likewise, of an “Essay on the great affinity and mutual agreement between the two professions of Law and Divinity,” printed at London, with a preface, by Dr. Hickes. This book, in process of time, became so little known, that Mr. Philip Carteret Webbe insisted upon it that there was no such work, until convinced, by an abstract or view of it, which was sent to Mr. Pegge, from a copy in the library of St. John’s college, Cambridge. It is a thin octavo, and not very scarce. In 1704, Mr Elstob published two sermons; one, a thanksgiving sermon, from Psalm ciii. 10, for the victory at Hochstet; and, the other, from 1 Timothy i. 1, 2, on the anniversary of the queen’s accession. Besides the works already mentioned, our author, who was a great proficient in the Latin tongue, compiled an essay on its history and use collected materials for an account of Newcastle and, also, the various proper names formerly used in the north but what is become of these manuscripts is not known. In 1709, he published, in the Saxon language, with a Latin translation, the homily on St. Gregory’s day. Mr. Elstob bad formed several literary designs, the execution of which was prevented by his death, in 1714, when he was only forty-one years of age. The most considerable of his designs was an edition of the Saxon laws, with great additions, and a new Latin version by Somner, together with notes of various learned men, and a prefatory history of the origin and progress of the English laws, down to the conqueror, and to Magna Charta. This great plan was completed in 1721, by Dr. David Wilkins, who, in his preface, thus speaks concerning our author “Hoc Gulielmus Elstob, in literis Anglo-Saxonicis versatissimus præstare instituerat. Hinc Wheloci vestigia premens, Leges quas editio ejus exhibet, cum Mss. Cantabrigiensibus, Bodleiano, Roffensi, et Cottonianis contulerat, versioneque nova adornare proposuerat, ut sic Leges, antea jam publici juris factae, ejus opera et studio emendatiores prodiissent. Veruin morte immatura præreptus, propositum exequi non potuit.” Whilst Mr. Elstob was engaged in this design, Dr. Hickes recommended him to Mr. Harley, as a man whose modesty had made him an obscure person, and which would ever make him so, unless some kind patron of good learning should bring him into light. The doctor added his testimony to Mr. Elstob’s literature, his great diligence and application, and his capacity for the work he had undertaken. Mr. Harley so far attended to Dr. Hickes’s recommendation as to grant to Mr. Elstob the use of the books and manuscripts in his library, which our author acknowledged in a very humble letter. A specimen of Mr. Elstob’s design was actually printed at Oxford, in 1699, under the title of “Hormesta Pauli Orosii, &c. ad exemplar Junianum, &c.” He intended, also, a translation with notes, of Alfred’s Paraphrastic Version of Orosins; his transcript of which, with collations, was in Dr. Pegge’s hands. Another transcript, by Mr. Ballard, with a large preface on the use of Anglo-Saxon literature, was left by Dr. Charles Lyltelton, bishop of Carlisle, to the library of the Society of Antiquaries. Alfred’s Version of Orosius has since been given to the public, with an English translation, by the honourable Daines Barrington. In his publication, Mr. Barrington observes, that he has made use of Mr. Elstob’s transcript, and that he has adopted from it the whimsical title of Hormesta. When it is considered that Mr. Elstob died in early life, it will be regretted, by the lovers of antiquarian learning, that he was prevented from acquiring that name and value in the literary world, to which he would otherwise probably have arisen.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born May 14, 1701, at Hurvvorth, a village about three miles south of Darlington, on the borders of the county of Durham, at least it is certain he resided here from his childhood. His father, Dutlly Emerson, taught a school, and was a tolerable proficient in the mathematics; and without his books and instructions perhaps his son’s genius might might never have been unfolded. Besides his father’s instructions, our author was assisted in the learned languages by a young clergyman, then curate of Hurworth, who was boarded at his father’s house. In the early part of his life, he attempted to teach a few scholars; but whether from his concise method (for he was not happy in expressing his ideas), or the warmth of his natural temper, he made no progress in his school; he therefore Sood left it oft', and satisfied with a small paternal estate of about 60l. or 70l. a year, devoted himself to study, which he closely pursued in his native place through the course of a long life, being mostly very healthy, till towards the latter part of his days, when he was much afflicted with the stone: towards the close of the year 1781, being sensible of his approaching dissolution, he disposed of the whole of his mathematical library to a bookseller at York, and on May the 26th, 1782, his lingering and painful disorder put an end to his life at his native village, in the eighty-first year of his age. In his person he was rather short, but strong and well-made, with an open countenance and ruddy complexion. He was never known to ask a favour, or seek the acquaintance of a rich man, unless he possessed some eminent qualities of the mind. He was a very good classical scholar, and a tolerable physician, so far as it could be combined with mathematical principles, according to the plan of Keil and Morton. The latter he esteemed above all others as a physician the former as the best anatomist. He was very singular in his behaviour, dress, and conversation. His manners and appearance were that of a rude and rather boorish countryman, he wasof very plain conversation, and indeed seemingly rude, commonly mixing oaths in his sentences. He had strong natural parts, and could discourse sensibly on any subject; but was always positive and impatient of any contradiction. He spent his whole life in close study and writing books; with the profits of which he redeemed his little patrimony from some original incumbrance. He had but one coat, which he always wore open before, except the lower button no waistcoat; his shirt quite the reverse of one in. common use, no opening before, but buttoned close at the collar behind; a kind of flaxen wig which had not a crooked hair in it; and probably had never been tortured with a comb from the time of its being made. This was his dress when he went into company. One hat he made to last him the best part of his lifetime, gradually lessening the flaps, bit by bit, as it lost its elasticity and hung down, till little or nothing but the crown remained. He never rode although he kept a horse, but was frequently seen to lead the horse, with a kind of wallet stuffed with the provisions he had bought at the market. He always walked up to London when he had any thing to publish, revising sheet by sheet himself; trusting no eyes but his own, which was always a favourite maxim with him. He never advanced any mathematical proposition that he had not first tried in practice, constantly making all the different parts himself on a small scale, so that his house was filled with all kinds of mechanical instruments together or disjointed. He would frequently stand up to his middle in water while fishing; a diversion he was remarkably fond of. He used to study incessantly for some time, and then for relaxation take a ramble to any pot ale-house where he could get any body to drink with and talk to. The duke of Manchester was highly pleased with his company, and used often to come to him in the fields and accompany him home, but could never persuade him to get into a carriage. When he wrote his sinall treatise on navigation, he and some of his scholars took a small vessel from Hurworth, and the whole crew soon gotswampt; when Emerson, smiling and alluding to his treatise, said “They must not do as I do, but as I say.” He was a married man; and his wife used to spin on an old-fashioned wheel, of which a very accurate drawing is given in his mechanics. He was deeply skilled in the science of music, the theory of sounds, and the various scales both ancient and modern, but was a very poor performer. He carried that singularity which marked all his actions even into this science. He had, if we may be allowed the expression, two first strings to his violin, which, he said, made the E more melodious when they were drawn up to a perfect unison. His virginal, which is a species of instrument like the modern spinnet, he had cut and twisted into various shapes in the keys, by adding some occasional half-tones in order to regulate the present scale, and to rectify some fraction of discord that will always remain in the tuning. He never could get this regulated to his fancy, and generally concluded by saying, 4< It was a bad instrument, and a foolish thing to be vexed with."

, a learned English divine, a great champion of Arianism, and memorable for his sufferings on that account, was descended of a substantial and reputable family, and born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 27, 1663. His parents were frequenters of the established church, and particularly acquainted with Cumberland, then a minister at Stamford, afterwards bishop of Peterborough; but being inclined to the sentiments of the nonconformists, they chose to bring up their son to the ministry among them. For this purpose, after he had been at a private school four years, he was sent in 1678 to an, academy in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years more. He went in 1679 to Cambridge, and was admitted of Emanuel college; but soon returned to the academy. In August 1682, he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s school near London; and in December following made his first essay as a preacher at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting-house, near Cripplegate. In 1683, Mr. Emlyn became chaplain to the countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but then living in Lincoln’sinn-fields. In 1684, Mr. Emlyn went over with the countess and the rest of her family to Belfast, in Ireland, where she was soon after married to sir William Kranklin, and lived in great state and splendour. Here our chaplain had a very liberal and handsome allowance, usually wore the habit of a clergyman, and was treated by sir VV illiam and the countess with every mark of civility. Sir William, who had a good estate in the ivest of England, offered him a considerable living there; but this offer he declined, not being satisfied with the terms of ministerial conformity, though at that time he had no scruples on the subject of the trinity constantly attended the service of the church both parts of the day and when in the evening he preached in the countess’s hall, he had the minister of the parish, Mr. Claude Gilbert, for a hearer, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and for whom he often officiated in the parish church. Indeed, without any subscription, he had from the bishop of the diocese a licence to preach facultatis exercende gratiá; insomuch that it was reported that he had entirely left the dissenters, and was gone over to the establishment. While Mr. Emlyn was in this station, he made a journey fo Dublin, where he preached once to the congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Joseph Boyse were then pastors; and so acceptable were his services to the audience, that the people were afterwards induced to invite him thither. Towards the latter end of king James’s reign, the north of Ireland was thrown into such confusion and disorder, that the family of sir William Franklin and the countess of Donegal broke up; an event which was accelerated by some domestic differences. Mr. Emlyn, therefore, returned to London, where he arrived in December 1688. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams had some time before retreated to the same place, having quitted the pastoral care of the congregation at Dublin, which he could never be persuaded to resume. When this determination was known, and Mr. Emlyn had not yet left Ireland, Mr. Boyse sounded him by letter, to know whether he was disposed to become Mr. Williams’s successor, and wished him to take Dublin in his way to England, but this he declined. In Mr. Emlyn’s journeyings between Ireland and London, he several times accepted of invitations to preach in the parish-churches of some towns through which he passed. At Liverpbol in particular, as he was standing at the door of his inn one Saturday evening, the minister of the place, concluding by his garb that he was a clergyman, requested him to give his parishioners a sermon the next day, which he accordingly did. What was very remarkable, when he passed that way again some time afterwards, the minister being dead, several of the people, who had heard him before, desired him to preach for them the next Sunday, which service he performed so much to their satisfaction, that they offered to use their interest with their patron to procure him the living; an offer with which his views of things did not permit him to comply. After Mr. Emlyn had returned to London, being out of employment, he was invited by sir Robert Rich, one of the lords of the admiralty, in May 1689, to his house near Beccles, in Suffolk, and was by him prevailed upon to officiate as minister to a dissenting congregation at Lowestoff in that county. This place he supplied for about a year and a half, but refused the invitation of becoming their pastor, having determined not to accept the pastoral care, where he was not likely to settle for life, or at least for a long continuance. Here also Vie cultivated a friendly correspondence with the parish-minister, frequently taking several of his people along with him to church, and accompanying the minister in collecting public charities; by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the establishment and the dissenters. During Mr. Emlyn’s residence at LowestofT, ho contractcJ a closu and intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Manning, a nonconformist minister at Peasenhall in that neighbourhood. Being both of them of an inquisitive temper, they frequently conferred together, and jointly examined into the principal points of religion, mutually communicating to each other their respective sentiments. This correspondence, notwithstanding the great distance to which they were afterwards separated, was carried on by letters as long as Mr. Manning lived. Dr. Sherlock’s “Vindication of the Trinity” having been published about this time, their thoughts were much turned to the consideration of that subject, the result of which was, that they began to differ from the received doctrine in that article. Mr. Manning embraced the Socinian opinion, and strove hard to bring Mr. Emlyn into the same way of thinking; but he could not be brought to doubt either of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Logos, or that by him God had created the material world. The interpretations which the Socinians gave of the scriptures appeared to our divine so forced and unnatural, that he could by no means accede to them; nor did he ever, in the succeeding part of his life, change his sentiments upon the subject. Nevertheless, upon occasion of his carrying a letter from Mr. Whiston to the prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, in 1711, he was reflected on as a Socinian preacher.

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

In 1614, he began his comment upon the first epistle of St. John, which gave occasion to various rumours, all of them tending to prove him a Socinian. The year taking the opportunity of the vacation, he went to Paris, for the sake of seeing that city; but his object was immediately misrepresented, and on his return home, his adversaries published, that he had had secret conferences with father Cotton, in order to concert the ruin of the protestant church and the United Provinces that he avoided all conversation with Peter du Moulin, minister at Paris or, as others say, that the latter declined all conference with him, seeing him so intimate with the enemies of his country, and of the protestant religion; and although there was little truth in these reports, it was not easy for Episcopius to prove his innocence. The states of Holland having invited him to come to the synod of Dort, that he might take his place in that assembly, as well as the other professors of the Seven United Provinces, he was one of the first that went thither, and was accompanied by some remonstrant ministers. But the synod would not suffer them to sit in that assembly as judges, nor admit them but as persons summoned to appear. They were obliged to submit, and appear before the synod. Episcopius made a speech, in which he declared, that they were all ready to enter into a conference with the synod; but was answered, that the synod did not meet to confer, but to judge. They excepted against the synod, and refused to submit to the order made by that assembly: which was, that the remonstrants should neither explain nor maintain their opinions, but as far as the synod should judge it necessary. Upon their refusing to submit to this order, they were expelled the synod and measures were taken to judge them by their writings. They defended their cause with the pen and Episcopius composed most of the pieces they presented on this occasion, and which were published some time after. The synod then deposed them from their functions; and because they refused to subscribe a writing, which contained a promise not to perform privately any of their ministerial functions, they were banished out of the territories of the commonwealth in 1618, and took up their residence at Antwerp: as thinking themselves there in the best situation to take care of their churches and families. Episcopius was not now so much taken up with the affairs of his party, as not to find time to write against the church of Rome in defence of those truths which all the protestants in general maintain. When the war between tho Spaniards and United Provinces began again in 1621, he went to France; and there laboured by his writings, as much as lay in his power, to strengthen and comfort his brethren. He not only composed, in common with them, “A confession of faith;” and published, soon after, his “Antidote against the canons of the synod of Dort,” but he also disputed with great strength of argument against Wadingus, a Jesuit; who treated him very kindly, and, taking an advantage of the difficulties he saw him under, endeavoured to persuade him to enter into the pale of his church. The times being grown more favourable, he returned to Holland in 1620; and was made a minister of the church of the remonstrants at Rotterdam. He married the year after, but never had any children by his wife, who died in 1641. In 1634 he removed to Amsterdam, being chosen rector of the college which those of his sect had founded there, and continued in that post till his death, which was preceded by a tedious and gradual decline. August 1640, hiring a vessel, he went with his wife to Rotterdam but in the afternoon, while he was yet upon Ins voyage, a fever seized him and, to add to his indisposition, about evening came on such a storm of thunder and fain as had not been known for many years. All these hindrances made them arrive so late at Rotterdam, that the gates of the city were shut: and the long time he was obliged to wait, before he could get them opened, increased his disorder so much, that he was confined to his bed for the four following months. He recovered; yet perceived the effects of this illness, in the stone and other complaints, as long as he lived. He died the 4th of April, 1643, having lost his sight some weeks before. Limborch, with the partiality of a friendly biographer, tells us, that the moon was under an eclipse at the hour of his death; and that some considered it as a fit emblem of the church, as being then deprived of much light by the disappearing of such a luminary as Episcopius. He tells us also, with more truth, that Episcopius’s friends and relations had some medals struck with the images of Truth and Liberty upon them, in remembrance of him. Yet Episcopius did not always write with that moderation 'which becomes the patience and humility of a Christian; and his friends who have defended him against this charge, have not been very successful.

He had now given many public proofs of his uncommon abilities and learning, and his fame was spread in all probability over a great part of Europe; yet we find by many of his letters, that he still continued extremely poor. His time was divided between pursuing his studies, and looking after his patrons; the principal of whom was Autonius & Bergis, the abbot of St. Berlin, to whom he had been lately recommended, and who had received him very graciously. This abbot was very fond of him, and gave him a letter of recommendation to cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards pope Leo X.; for Erasmus had professed his intention to go into Italy, with a view of studying divinity some months at Bononia, and of taking there a doctor’s degree; also to visit Rome in the following year of the jubilee; and then to return home, and lead a retired life. But, although disappointed for want of the necessary means, he spent a good part of 1501 with the abbot of St. Berlin; and, the year after, we find him at Louvain, where he studied divinity under Dr. Adrian Florent, afterwards pope Adrian VI. This we learn from his dedication of Arnobius to this pope in 1522; and also from a letter of that pope to him, where he speaks of the agreeable conversations they were wont to have in those hours of studious leisure. In 1503 he published several little pieces, and amongst the rest his “Enchiridion militis Christian i:” which he wrote, he tells us, “not for the sake of shewing his eloquence, but to correct a vulgar error of those, who madereligion to consist in rites and ceremonies, to the neglect of virtue and true piety.” Long, indeed, before Luther appeared, Erasmus had discovered the corruptions and superstitions of the church of Rome, and had made some attempts to reform them. The “Enchiridion,” however, though it is very elegantly written, did not sell upon its first publication; but in 1518 Erasmus having prefixed a preface which highly offended the Dominicans, their clamours against it made its merit more known.

Not enjoying a very good state of health at Padua, he went to Sienna, where he drew up some pieces of eloquence for the use of his royal pupil; and soon after to Rome, leaving Alexander at Sienna. He was received at Rome, as Rhenanus tells us, with the greatest joy and welcome by all the learned, and presently sought by persons of the first rank and quality. Thus we find that the cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards Leo X. the cardinal Raphael of St. George, the cardinal Gritnani, and Giles of Viterbo, general of the Augustines, and afterwards a cardinal, had a generous contention among themselves who should be foremost in civility to Erasmus, and have the most of his company. There is something interesting in the manner he was introduced to cardinal Gritnani, as related by himself in one of his letters, dated March 17, 1531: “When I was at Rome,” says he, “Peter Bembus often brought me invitations from Grimani, that I would come and see him. I never was fond of such company; but at last, that I might not seem to slight what is usually deemed a very great honour, 1 went. On arriving at his palace, not a soul could I perceive, either in or about it. It was after dinner; so, leaving the horse with my servant, I boldly ventured by myself into the house. I found all the doors open; but nobody was to be seen, though I had passed through three or four rooms. At last I happened upon a Greek, as I supposed, and asked him whether the cardinal was engaged He replied, that he bad company but asking what was my business Nothing, said I, but to pay iny compliments, which I can do as well at any other time. I was going; but halting a moment at one of the windows to observe the situation and prospect, the Greek ran up to me, and asked my name; and without my knowledge carried it to the cardinal, who ordered me to be introduced immediately. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as if I had been a cardinal conversed with me for two hours upon literary subjects and would not suffer me all the time to uncover my head ^ and upon my offering to rise, when his nephew, an archbishop, came in to us, he ordered me to keep my seat, saying, it was but decent that the scholar should stand before the master. In the course of our conversation, he earnestly entreated me not to think of leaving Rome, and offered to make me partaker of his house and fortunes. At length he shewed me his library, which was full of books in all languages, and was esteemed the best iti Italy, except the Vatican. If I had known Grimani sooner, I certainly should never have left Rome; but I was then under such engagements to return to England, as it was not in my power to break. The cardinal said no more upon this point, when I told him that I had been invited by the king of England himself; but begged me to believe him very sincere, and not like the common tribe of courtiers, who have no meaning in what they say. It was not without some difficulty that I got away from him; nor before I promised him, that I would certainly wait on him again before I left Rome. I did not perform my promise; for I was afraid the cardinal by his eloquence would tempt me to break my engagements with my English friends. I never was more wrong in my life but what can a man do, when fate drives him on”

, a Spanish poet, was the son of a celebrated lawyer, and was born at Madrid in 1533. He was brought up in the palace of Philip II. and fought under him at the famous battle of Saint Quentin in 1557, after which being desirous to acquire the knowledge of different countries and their inhabitants, he travelled over France, Italy, Germany, and England. Having heard, while at London, that some provinces of Peru and Chili had revolted against the Spaniards, their conquerors and their tyrants, he was seized with an ardent longing to signalize his courage on this new scene of action. Accordingly he set out on the voyage; and soon after his arrival, he passed the frontiers of Chili into a little mountainous region, where he maintained a long and painful war against the rebels, whom at length he defeated. It is this war which makes the subject of his poem of the “Araucana,” so called from the name of the country, and which has very considerable merit, and several passages glow with all the charms of animated verse. The descriptions are rich, though defective in variety; but we can trace no plan, no unity of design, no probability in the episodes, nor harmony in the characters. This poem consists of more than 36 cantos, the length of which is produced by many repetitions and tedious details. Mr. Hayley, however, has bestowed considerable attention on it in his “Essay on Epic poetry,” with a view to recommend it to the English reader. It was printed, for the first time, in 1597, 12mo; but the best edition is that of Ma1632, 2 vols. 12mo. The time of his death is hot known, nor can he be traced beyond 1596.

, was born at Tacnnstadt in Thuringia, Aug. 4, 1707, was educated at Witternberg and Leipsic, and became one of the most learned philologers of Germany. He studied theology as a profession; and in 1734 was chosen rector of St. Thomas’s school. In 1742 he was appointed professor extraordinary of ancient literature, in 1756 professor of eloquence, and in 1758 doctor and professor of divinity, the functions of all which offices he discharged with great assiduity and high reputation, and yet found leisure for his numerous original publications, and those excellent editions of the classics which have made his name familiar in the learned world. As a divine, he disliked the modern philosophical innovations in the study of theology, and was alike hostile to infidelity and superstition. He died, with the character of a man of consummate learning and irreproachable character, Sept. 11, 1781. Among his valuable editions of the classics are, 1. His “Homer,” Leipsic, 1759, 5 vols. 8vo, which may be ranked among the very best. It is formed on the basis of Clarke’s, containing his text and notes, and the various readings of a Leipsic manuscript, with those of the ancient editions. 2. “Callimachus,” Ley den, 1761, 2 vols. 8vo, containing, besides the preface, notes, and version of Ernesti, many grammatical and critical observations of Hemsterhusius and Ruhnkenius, and the whole of what is valuable in Gravius. 3. “Cicero,” of whose works he published three editions, the first at Leipsic, 1737, 5 vols. the others at Halle, 1758 and 1774, in 8 vols. 8vo. The second and third, which are the most correct, contain the famous “Clavis Ciceroniana,” which has been published separately. 4. “Tacitus,” Leipsic, 1752, 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, both valuable, although there are more errors and omissions than could have been wished; yet the preface, notes, and indexes are interesting and useful. 5. “Suetonius,” two editions, at Leipsic, 1748 and 1775, 8vo, but neither correct, or indeed at all valuable. 6. Aristophanes’ s Nubes,“Leipsic, 1788, a very useful edition, with the ancient scholia, and remarks by the editor and by Nagelius. 7. Xenophon’s” Memorabilia,“of which there have been several editions, 1737, 1742, 1755, &c. The best is that of Leipsic, 1772. Ernesti’s other works are, 8.” Initia doctrinse solidioris,“Leipsic, 1783, 8vo, the seventh edition. 9.” Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti,“Leipsic, 1775, 8vo, the third edition, which Alberti of Leyden calls a” golden work.“10. An improved edition of Hederic’s Lexicon, 1754 and 1767. 11. A” Theological Library,“1760 1771, 11 vols. 8vo. 12.” Opuscula Oratoria, Orationes, Prolusiones et Elogia x “Leyden, 1762, 8vo. This contains thirteen very elegant and judicious academical discourses, pronounced on different occasions, with the same number of historical eloges. The subjects of the discourses are, 1. Of the study of the belles lettres. 2. That eloquence has its real source in the heart. 3. That we must conform to the laws of criticism in the study of divinity. 4. Of the revolutions of eloquence. 5. Of the conditions to be observed for studying and teaching philosophy with success. 6. Of the advantages of real learning. 7. The arts of peace and war. 8. A parallel between the Greek and Roman writers. 9. Of the name of on’s country. 10. Of joining the art of thinking to that of speaking. 11. Of the desire of praise and reputation. 12. Of popular philosophy and, 13. Of moral or practicable philosophy. These discourses are written in an easy flowing style, and in elegant Latinity. II.” Opusculorum oratoriorum, novum volumen,“Leipsic, 1791, 8vo: this and another volume published in 1794, forms a complete collection of Ernesti’s smaller tracts. 12.” Archaeologia literaria,“Leipsic, 1768, 8vo, to which we may add his excellent new edition, of which he lived to publish only 3 volumes, of” Fabricii Bibl. Graeca." His nephew, Augustus William Ernes n, was born in 1733, and died in 1801 at Leipsic, where he was professor of eloquence in that university from 1770, and well known by his edition of Livy, Quintilian, and other classics. To the university library there he bequeathed his very complete collection of the works of Camerarius; and to that of the Senate, his collection of the editions and Mss. of Cicero, to complete the Ciceronian collection already in it.

His works, which have spread his name all over the world, are, l, “Annotationes ad lexicon Arabicum Francisci llaphelengii,” Leyden, 1613, 4to, printed with the Lexicon. 2. “Grammatica Arabica,” 1613, 4to. 3. “Proverbiorum Arabicorum centuriae II. Arabice & Latine, cum s.choliis Josephi Scaligeri & Thomas Erpenii,” 1614, 4 to. having translated and written notes upon part of the Arabian proverbs, Casaubon engaged Erpenius, Scaliger being dead, to complete that work. 4. “Lockmanni fabulrr & selecta qurcdam Arabum adagia, cum interpretatione Latina & notis,” 1615, 8vo; Amst. 1636, and 1656, in 4to, with the Arabic grammar just mentioned. 5. “Giarumia grammatica de centum regentibus, sive lingux Arabia; particulis, Arabice & Latine, cum notis,” 1617, 4to. Giarumia is an Arabic grammar, which takes its name from its author, and is highly esteemed in Asia and Africa. 6. “Novum Testamentum, Arabice,” 1615, 4to. This is an ancient Arabic version, whose author is not known. 7. “Historia Josephi patriarchs ex Alcorano, Arabice, cum versione Latina & notis,” 1617, 4to. 8. “Canones de literarum Evi apud Arabes natura & permutatione,” 1618, 4to. 9. “Rudimenta lingute Arabic,” 1620, 8vo: an improved edition of this was published by Schultens, at Leyden, in 1733, 4to, with a collection of Arabic sentences and a key of dialects. 10. “Versio & notac ad Arabic-am paraphrasin in evangelium Joannis,” 1620. 11. < Grammatica Hebraea,“1621, 8vo, 12.” Orationes tresdelinguarum Hebretc atque ArabicaB dignitate,“1621, vo. 13.” Pentateuch us Mosis, Arabic^“1622, 4to. This version is ancient, and was made by a Christian. 14.” Elmacini historia Saracenica,“&c. 1625, fol. 15.” Psalmi Davidis, Syriace, cum versione Latina,“1625, 4to. 16.” Grammatica' Chaldaa & Syra,“1628, 8vo. 17.” De peregrinatione Gallica utiliter instituenda tractatus,“1631, 12mo. 18.” Prtrcepta de lingua Grsccorum communi,“1662, 8vo. 19.” Arcanum punctationis revelatum,“&c. 1624, 4to. The whole of these were printed at Leyden, and some of them, the reader sees, are posthumous; he had a design to have published an edition of the Koran, with an accurate Latin version and notes, and a confutation of it where it was necessary; a” Thesaurus Grammaticus“for the Arabic tongue: and a lexicon of the same language. But he was prevented by death from executing these designs; as we are informed by Mr. Chappelow, in the preface to his” Elementa linguae Arabicoe ex Erpenii rudimentis, ut plurimum, desumpta. Cujus praxi grammaticie novam legendi praxin addiclit Leonardus Chappelow, linguae Arabicae apud Cantabrigienses professor," Lond. 1730, 8vo.

, baron of Dun, the ancestor of the preceding, and one of the protestant reformers in Scotland, was born at the family-seat near Montrose, in 1508, or 1509. His father was John Erskiue, of Dun, a descendant of the earls of Marr, and his mother was a daughter of William, first lord Ruthven. He was educated most probably at the university of Aberdeen; and according to the ancient custom of the nobility of Scotland, pursued his studies for some time in one or other of the foreign universities. Buchanan styles him “a man of great learning:” and to this character he is amply entitled, as we are informed he was the first of his countrymen who patronized the study of the Greek language, which was first taught by his means at Montrose. In 1534, on returning from his travels, he brought with him a Frenchman skilled in the Greek tongue, whom he settled at Montrose, and upon his departure he liberally encouraged others to come from France and succeed to his place; and from this private seminary many Greek scholars proceeded, and the knowledge of the language was gradually diffused through the kingdom. After his father’s death, he was employed as the other barons or lairds then, were, in administering justice in the county of Angus, to which he belonged, and occasionally assisting in the meetings of parliament. He was besides almost constantly chosen provost, or chief magistrate of the neighbouring town of Montrose. At an early period of his life, he became a convert from popery, but the precise manner in which his conversion was accomplished, is not known. He was, however, a liberal encourager of those who became converts, and especially those who suffered for their rehgiou. The castte of Dun was always a sanctuary to protestant preachers a-.id professors, and here he appears to have associated with a number of persons, some of high rank, who strengthened each other in their principles, and by their power and influence contributed much to the reformation in that part of the kingdom.

, D. D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born June 2, 1721. He was the eldest son of John Krskiue, esq. of Carnock, afterwards of Cardross, advocate, and professor of Scotch law in the university of Edinburgh, who is well known by his “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” a work of the highest authority and reputation. His grandfather, colonel John Erskine, third son of Heury lord Cardross, was a man of eminent piety, and distinguished by his services in support of the revolution in 1688. Mr. Erskine, the subject of this article, was originally intended by his relations for the profession of the law, and received a suitable education. He appears, however, from his earliest years, to have been of a serious turn of mind, and to have preferred the study of theology, and the employment of the ministry. He entered the university of Edinburgh in 1734, where he acquired much useful knowledge, and formed an intimate connection with some fellow-students, who afterwards rose to great eminence both in the political and literary world. At this time it was the practice to prescribe discourses to the students, on subjects connected with the lectures which they heard. A volume of essays of this description is preserved in the college library, and in it are two theses delivered April 30, 1737, one by the late eminent historian, Dr. Robertson, afterwards Dr. Erskine’s colleague in the ministry, and at that time his fellow-studeiU, under the title “De probabilitate historiea, sive de evidentia morali,” the other by Dr. Erskine, entitled “De rectae rationis usu Icgitimo, sive de libertate cogitandi.” They are both written in very pure Latin, and discover a considerable acquaintance with philosophical discussions.

, son of the above, was born in the prison of the Bass, June 22, 1680, and in 1701 took his degree of M. A. in the university of Edinburgh. lu 1703 he was ordained minister of Portmoak in the county of Fife, where he discharged the pastoral duty with great integrity till 1731, when he was made choice of to be one of the ministers of Stirling. In April 1732, being chosen moderator of the synod of Perth and Stirling, it was his turn to preach at the opening of that synod at Perth, and in his sermon he took occasion to censure some late proceedings of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, respecting patronage; and this brought on a prosecution against him, which was conducted with so little judgment or moderation on the part of the assembly, as eventually to occasion a schism in the church of great extent. This is usually known by the name of the secession, and its adherents by that of Seceders, now a very numerous body in Scotland, for whose history we may refer to a very impartial and well-written account under the article Seceders, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or to a tract, where their history is more minutely detailed, entitled “An historical account of the rise and progress of the Secession,” by John Brown, minister of the gospel at Hadclington. Mr. Erskine, however, experienced by this no falling off in his popularity, being still beloved by his hearers, and esteemed even by those who were his professed enemies, A meeting was built for him at Stirling, where he officiated to a very numerous congregation, and where he died, June 2, 1754. As a gentleman and a scholar, few ever equalled him; and, although but in low circumstances, his charity was unbounded. Four volumes of his sermons were printed at Glasgow in 8vo, 1762, and a fifth volume at Edinburgh, 1765, under the patronage of the late duchess of Northumberland, in whose family one of his sons lived as a gardener.

, great grandson of the foregoing, and inheritor of the literary industry of his ancestor, was born at Lisbon in 1673. He bore arms with distinguished merit; and obtained in 1735 the title of camp-master general and counsellor at war. He died in 1743, in the seventieth year of his age, member of the academy of Lisbon, of that of the arcades of Rome, and of the royal society of London, to which last he was admitted in 1738, and was then director of the royal academy of history in Portugal. He did not put on the airs of a man of quality among the learned, but was easy, “polite, and communicative. Pope Benedict XIII. honoured him with a brevet; the king of France made him a present of the catalogue of his library, and 21 Volumes of engravings, The academy of St. Petersburg addressed its memoirs to him; several writers of France, England, Italy, &c. paid him the compliment of their works. His ancestors had left him a select and numerous library, which he augmented with 15,Ooo volumes and 1000 manuscripts. He marked his literary career by upwards of a hundred different publications. The most known of them are, 1.” Memoirs on the value of the Coins of Portugal, from the commencement of the monarchy,“1738, 4to. 2.” Reflections on academical studies.“3.” Fifty-eight Parallels of illustrious men, and twelve of illustrious women.“4.” The Henriade, an Heroic Poem, with observations on the rules to be observed in Epic Poetry," 1741, 4to. Among his manuscripts were found a quantity of essays on the number 22, on occasion of the 22 sorts of Roman coins presented to the king, and dug up at Lisbon the 22d of October 1711, on which day that prince completed his 22d year; and from these accidental circumstances, he proves the number 22 to be the most perfect of all. Such puerilities are sometimes found in otherwise judicious heads.

, surnamed of Mendoza, a Spanish Jesuit, and famous casuist, who died July 4, 1669, aged eighty, is author of several theological works, in which he professes to smooth the way to salvation. His principles of morality have beeo turned into ridicule by the ingenious Pascal: they are convenient, he allows; but, says he, the gospel proscribes all conveniencies. The most known of his books are, 1. “His Moral Theology,” Lyons, 1663, 7 vols. in folio; and, 2. “His Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” Lyons, 1667, 9 vols. fol.

, a pious and learned Jesuit, born at Seville in 15.58, of a noble and ancient family, possessed a large estate, which he employed in works of charity: His zeal led him to the Indies, where he took the habit of a monk, and died at Lima in 1624, at the age of sixty-six. He published, 1. “Condones quadragesimales et de adventu,” fol. 2. “De festis Domini.” 3. “Sermones de historiis Sacrse Scriptune;” but these works are scarcely known out of Spain.

, an eminent canonist, was born at Louvain in 1646, “and after taking his degree of doctor of laws in 1675, filled a chair in the college of pope Adrian VI. with great success. Being fond of retirement and study, he is only known to the world by his writings. Having lost his sight in the sixty-fifth year of his age, by a cataract, which was removed two years afterwards, he neither lost any thing of his vivacity nor his application. His sentiments on the Formulary, and on the frull Unigenitus, and the kind of approbation which he gave to the consecration of Steenoven, archbishop of Utrecht, brought on him much unmerited persecution, chiefly from the envy of individuals. What they made him suffer, however, forced him to retire to Maestricht, and then to Amersfort, where he died, Oct. 2, 1728, at the age of eighty-three. Van Espen is doubtless one of the most learned canonists of his times. His principal work, still consulted, is his” Jus ecclesiasticum universum,“in which the most important points of ecclesiastical discipline are circumstantially discussed with profound knowledge of. the subject. At Paris, under the imprint of Louvain, was published, in 1753, a collection of all the works of Van Espen, in 4 vols. folio. This edition, which is enriched with the observations of Gibert on the” Jus ecclesiasticum," and the notes of father Barre, a canoiv-regular of St. Genevieve, contains every particular of importance in ethics, the canon, and even the civil law, and since that time a supplementary volume was published by Gabriel de Bellegarde.

, a learned French divine, was born at Chalons-sur-Marne in 1511, of noble parents, became a doctor of the Sorbonne, and was rector of the university of Paris. He preached with considerable applause; but having in one of his sermons called the “Légende Doreée” the “Légende Ferrée,” it was concluded that he did not believe in the worship of the saints; especially from his doubting of certain facts related by the legendary writers in the “Golden Legend,” of which he ventured to speak thus disrespectfully. The faculty of Paris was about to pass a censure on him; but he explained himself in another discourse, and the transient storm was succeeded by a calm. The cardinal de Lorraine, who was well aware of his merit, employed him in several affairs of importance. D‘Espence attended him to Flanders in 1544, for the purpose of ratifying the peace between Charles V. and Francis I. His eminence took him afterwards to Rome in 1555, where he made so conspicuous a figure, that Paul IV. would have honoured him with the purple, in order to retain him. But his intention was set aside (says fatrjer, Berthier) as being apparently contrary to the interests of France. The imperialists requested the hat for three monks; and therefore the cardinal de Lorraine, who IV voured the design of getting D’Espence into the sacred college, relinquished the idea. “I rather chose,” says he in a letter to the king, “that he should not be there, than that three monks should get in; accordingly I entreated his holiness to think no more of it, and, by that means, I kept out the whole crew.” D'Espence, liking far less to live at Rome than at Paris, returned to France, and appeared with consequence at the assembly of the states of Orleans in 1560, and at the conference of Poissy in 1561, where he attached himself to the Calvinists, which gave much offence to his popish brethren. He died of the stone at Paris, Oct. 5, 1571, in the sixtieth year of his age. He was one of the most moderate and judicious doctors of the age in which he lived, and with all his attachment to popery, was the declared enemy of all violent measures, and disapproved of persecutions. He was well versed in the sciences, both ecclesiastical and profane. His works are almost all written in Latin, with an elegance scarcely known to the theologians of that period. The principal of them are, 1. “A treatise on Clandestine Marriages;” in which he proves that the sons of distinguished families cannot validiy contract marriage, without the consent of their relations. 2. “Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus,” full of long digressions on the hierarchy and the ecclesiastical discipline. 3. Several controversial tracts, some in Latin and others in French. Ah his Latin works were collected at Paris in 1619, folio.