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

, a very learned writer and statesman, in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, was born ^larch 28, 1514, at Saffron-Walden in Essex. He was the son of John Smith, a gentleman of that place, who was much inclined to the principles of the reformation, which had then made but a very small progress. After attending a grammar-school, Thomas was sent about 1528 to Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he greatly distinguished himself, and had a king’s scholarship at the same time with the celebrated John Cheke. Queen’s college was one of those which favoured the opinions of Erasmus and Luther, and many of the members used to confer privately together about religion, in which they learned to detect the abuses of the schools, and the superstitions of popery. In such conferences Mr. Smith probably took his share, when of sufficient standing to be admitted, which was very soon, for in 1531 he was chosen a fellow of the college. In the mean time he had formed a strict friendship with Cheke, and they pursued their classical studies together, reading Cicero, Plato, Demosthenes, and Aristotle: and such was Smith’s proficiency, that about 1533 he was appointed Greek professor in the university.

About this time he and Cheke introduced a new mode of reading Greek, being dissatisfied with the corrupt and vicious pronunciation which then prevailed. As this was accounted an innovation of the most important, and even dangerous tendency, and exhibits a curious instance of the manners and sentiments of the times, we shall give a more particular account of it in the plain language of honest Strype. According to this biographer, it appears that “custom had established a very faulty manner of sounding several of the vowels and diphthongs; for, i, n 9 v, ei, 01, w, were all pronounced as lura;” nihil fere aliud,“says Smith,” haberet ad loquendum, nisi lugubrss sonos et illud flebile /wra.“He conferred therefore with Cheke upon this point, and they perceived that the vulgar method of pronouncing Greek was false; since it was absurd, that so many different letters and diphthongs should all have but one sound. They proceeded to search authors for the determination of this point: but the modern writers little availed them; they had not seen Erasmus’s book, in which he excepted against the common way of reading Greek. But though both of them saw these palpable errors, they could not agree among themselves, especially concerning the letters vna and i/4-jXov. Soon after, having procured Erasmus’s book, andTerentianus” de literis et syllabis,“they began to reform their pronunciation of Greek privately, and only communicated it to their most intimate friends. When they had sufficiently habituated themselves to this new method of pronunciation, with which they were highly pleased, on account of the fullness and sweetness of it, they resolved to make trial of it publicly; and it was agreed that Smith should begin. He read lectures at that time upon Aristotle” de Republic^,“in Greek, as he had done some years before: and, that the novelty of his pronunciation might give the less offence, he used this artifice, that in reading he would let fall a word only now and then, uttered in the new correct sound. At first no notice was taken of this; but, when he did it oftener, his auditors began to observe and listen more attentively; and, when he had often pronounced n and 01, as e and w, they, who three years before had heard him sound them after the old way, could not think it a slip of the tongue, but suspected something else, and laughed at the unusual souncks. He again, as though his tongue had slipped, would sometimes correct himself, and repeat the word after the old manner. But, when he did this daily, some of his friends came to him, and told him what they had remarked in his lectures: upon which he owned that he had been thinking of something privately, but that it was not yet sufficiently digested and prepared for the public. They, on the other hand, prayed him not to conceal it from them, but to acquaint them with it frankly; and accordingly he promised them that he would. Upon this rumour many resorted to him, whom he desired only to hear his reasons, and to have patience with him three or four days at most; until the sounds by use were made more familiar to their ears, and the prejudice against their novelty worn off. At this time he read lectures upon Homer’s” Odyssey,“in his own college; and there began more openly to shew and determine the difference of the sounds: Cheke likewise did the same in his college. After this, many came to them, in order to learn of them how to pronounce after the new method; and it is not to be expressed with what greediness and affection this was received among the youth. The following winter there was acted in St. John’s college, Aristophanes’ s” Plutus," in Greek, and one or two more of his comedies, without the least dislike or opposition from any who were esteemed learned men and masters of the Greek language. Ponet, a pupil of Smith, and afterwards bishop of Winchester, read Greek lectures publicly in the new pronunciation; as likewise did Roger Ascham, who read Isocrates, and at first was averse to this pronunciation, though he soon became a zealous advocate for it. Thus, in a few years, this new way of reading Greek, introduced by Smith, prevailed every where in the university; and was followed even by Redman, the professor of divinity.

"Afterwards, however, it met with great opposition for, about lo'tv, when Smith was going to travel, Cheke being appointed the king’s lecturer of the Greek language, began by explaining and enforcing the new pronunciation, but was opposed by one liateclitf, a scholar of the university; who, being exploded for his attempt, brought the dispute before bishop Gardiner, the chancellor. Upon this, the bishop interposed his authority; who, being averse to all innovations as well as those in religion, and observing these endeavours in Cambridge of introducing the new pronunciation of Greek to come from persons suspected to be no friends to the old papal superstitions, he made a solemn decree against it. Cheke was very earnest with the chancellor to supersede, or at least to connive at the neglect of this decree; but the chancellor continued indexible. But Smith, having waited upon him at Hampton Court, and discoursed with him upon the point, declared his readiness to comply with the decree; but upon his return, recollected his discourse with the bishop, and in a long and eloquent epistle in Latin, privately sent to him, and argued with much freedom the points in controversy between them. This epistle consisted of three parts. In the first he shewed what was to be called true and right in the whole method of pronunciation; and retrieved this from the common and present use, and out of the hands both of the ignorant and learned of that time, and placed it with the ancients, restoring to them their right and authority, propounding them as the best and only pattern to be imitated by all posterity *vith regard to the Greek tongue. In the second he compared the old and new pronunciation with that pattern, that the bishop might see whether of the two came nearer to it. In the third he gave an account of his whole conduct in this affair. This epistle was dated from Cambridge, August 12, 1542. He afterwards, while he was ambassador at Paris, caused it to be printed there by Robert Stephens, in 4to, in 1568, under the title of “De recta et emendata Linguae Graecse Pronunciatione,” together with another tract of his concerning the right pronunciation and writing English/'

Strype lias computed the value of Dr. Smith’s preferments at this time; according to which, his professorship of civil law brought him in 40l.; the chancellorship of Ely was worth 50l. and a benefice which he had in Cambridgeshire was worth 36l. so that the whole of his preferments amounted to 126l. a year. “And this,” says Strype, “was the port he lived in before his leaving Cambridge. He kept three servants, and three gun-;, and three winter geldings. And this stood him in 3o/. per annum, together with his own board.” A man of his talents and reputation, however, was not destined to continue in a college life. On the accession of Edward \ I. when he could avow his sentiments with freedom, he was invited into the family of the protector duke of Somerset, by whom he was employed in atiairs of state, probably such as concerned the reformation. The duke appointed him his master of requests, steward of the stannenes, provost oi Eton, and dean of Carlisl Strype says that he “was at least in deacon’s orders,” but of this fact we have no evidence, and Strype, in Granger’s opinion, seems to have hazarded the conjecture because he could not otherwise account for the spiritual preferments he enjoyed. We have just mentioned that he had a benefice in Cambridgeshire, which was the rectory of Leverington, and this was conferred on him in the time of Henry VIII.; but a rectory might have been held by any one who was a clerk at large; for though the law of the church was, that in such a case, he should take the order of priesthood within one year after his institution, yet that was frequently dispensed with.

While he lived in the duke of Somerset’s family, he married his first wife, Elizabeth Carkyke, daughter of a gentleman in London. Strype says, “She was a little woman, and one that affected not fine, gaudy clothes, for which she was taxed by some. And by this one might rather judge her to have been a woman of prudence and religion, and that affected retirement rather than the splendour of a court. For Dr. Smith allowed her what she pleased; and she was his cash-keeper. However, he used to wear goodly apparel, and went like a courtier himself. For which he said, that some might seem to have cause rather to accuse him to go too sumptuously, than her of going too meanly.” “This wife,” Strype adds, “he buried, having no issue by her; and married a second, named Philippa, the relict of sir John Hamden, who outlived him.”

In 1548, he received the honour of knighthood, and was appointed secretary of state; and in July the same year he was sent to Brussels, in the character of ambassador to the emperor. He also continued to be active in promoting the reformation, and likewise in the redress of base coin, on which last subject he wrote a letter to the duke of Somerset. But in 1549, that nobleman being involved in those troubles which brought him to the scaffold, sir Thomas, who was his faithful adherent, incurred some degree of suspicion, and was for a short time deprived of his office of secretary of state. When the duke fell into disgrace, there were only three who adhered to him, viz. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, sir William Paget, and our sir Thomas Smith; between whom and the lords at London there passed letters on this affair, carried by sir Philip Hoby. In this they ran no small risk; for the lords wrote to them, that it seemed strange that they should assist, or suffer the king’s person to remain in the guard of the duke’s men; and that strangers should be armed with the king’s own armour, and be nearest about his person; and those, to whom the ordinary charge was committed, to be sequestered away. And the lords sent them word likewise, that if any evil came, they must expect it would be imputed to them; and as the archbishop, Paget, and Smith, in their letter to the lords told them, that they knew more than they (the lords) knew, the lords took advantage of these words, and answered, that “if the matters, which came to their knowledge, and were hidden from them, were of such weight as they pretended, or if they touched or might touch his majesty or his state, they thought that they did not as they ought to do in not disclosing the same to them.” At last Smith, together with the archbishop and Paget, sent another letter from Windsor, where the king and ibey were, that they would not fail to endeavour themselves according to the contents of the lords’ letters, and that they would meet when and where their lordships should think proper. “This,” says Strype, “was a notable instance of Smith’s fidelity to the duke his old master, who stuck thus to him as long as he durst, and was then glad to comply as fairly as he could.”

Sir Thomas, with all his talents and good sense, was much of a projector, and about this time engaged in a foolish scheme for transmuting iron into copper. Into this project, says Strype, “he brought sir William Cecil, secretary of state, who had a philosophical genius, the earl of Leicester, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and others. The first occasion of this business was from one Medley, who had by vitriol changed iron into true copper at sir Thomas Smith’s house at London, and afterwards at his house in Essex. But this was too costly, as sir Thomas saw, to make any profit from. He propounded, therefore, to find out here in England the Primum Ens Vitrivli, by which to do the work at a cheaper rate. Upon this sir Thomas Smith, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and Medley, entered into a company under articles to find this out; that is, that Medley should be employed in this business at the charge of the other two, till by the profit he should reap from the thing found out he might bear his proportion. The place where this was to be attempted was in the Isle of Wight, or at Poole, or elsewhere. But at Winchelsea he had made the first trial, on account of the plenty of wood there. He received of sir Thomas and sir Humphrey an hundred and one pounds a piece, for the buying of vessels and necessaries. They removed to Poole, thinking the Ens of vitriol to be there, and took a lease of the land of the lady Mountjoy of three hundred pounds per annum, for the payment of which sir Thomas, with the other two, entered into a bond of a thousand pounds. While these things were in this state, sir Thomas was sent ambassador to France in 1572; and a quarrel happening between sir Humphrey and Medley, who went to Ireland, the business was discontinued for some time. But sir Thomas revived it at his return, and persuaded the lord treasurer Burghley and the earl of Leicester to enter into society about December 1574, who deposited each a hundred pounds towards carrying on the project. Medley was now removed to Anglesey, where the fuel, earth, and water were proper for his business; and the things which he undertook to perform, were these two; first, to make of raw iron good copper, and c,f the same weight and proportion, abating one part in six; so that six hundred tons of iron should by boiling make five hundred tons of perfect copper; secondly, that the liquor, wherein the iron was boiled, should make copperas and alum ready for the merchant; which, keeping the price they then bore, should of the liquor of five hundred tons of copper be ten thousand pounds, that is, for every ton two thousand pounds. After several trials the patent of the society was signed in January 1574, in which the society was styled” The Society of the new Art;“but at last the project proved abortive;” and I make no doubt,“says Strype,” sir Thomas smarted in his purse for his chymical covetousness, and Gilbert seems to have been impoverished by it; and Medley was beggared."

Another of his projects was the establishment of a colony in a land which he had purchased in Ireland, called The Ardes, a rich and pleasant country on the eastern coast of Ulster, and of considerable extent, lying well for trade by sea. Sir Thomas in 1571 had procured a patent from her majesty for it, the substance of which was, that he was to be lieutenant-general there for war, and for distribution of Jands, orders, and laws in the matters thereunto pertaining; in short, to obtain and govern the country to be won, following the instructions and orders to him to be directed from the queen and her council; and this for the first seven years. Afterwards the government of the country to return to such officers as the customs and laws of England did appoint, except the queen should think him worthy to be appointed the governor thereof, as being a frontier country, the right to remain only in him as to the inheritance; the authority to muster and call together his sol tiers throughout the same country, and to dispose of them upon the frontiers, as he should see cause for the better defence of the country. Sir Thomas sent his natural son, Thomas Smith, with a colony thither, who did good service there, but was at last intercepted and slain by a wild Irishman. The settlement of this colony cost sir Thomas ten thousand pounds; but after his death it seems to have been neglected for some time, and the Ardes were afterwards lost to his family, being given away by king James I. to some of the Scots nobility.

The same obscurity envelopes his early years. Wood indeed says, that he was trained up in grammar-learning in his own country; but in what seminary, or whether his country at that time could boast of any institution deserving the name of a grammar-school, are subjects of conjecture. His late biographer, with equal acuteness and reason, has supposed him to have been educated in the household of Thomas, the first earl of Derby. The countess of Richmond, who was the second wife of this nobleman, according to a laudable custom in the houses of the nobility, provided in this manner for the instruction of young men of promising talents: and it is known, that she was an early patron of our founder.

At what time he removed to Oxford is uncertain, nor has any research discorered the college of which he was a member. Of his academical honours, all that we know with certainty is his degree of bachelor of law, which he had taken some time before 1492, when he was instituted to the rectory of Cheshuntin Hertfordshire. Wood asserts that he removed with other scholars from Oxford, dreading the pestilence which then raged, and went to Cambridge, where he became fellow, and afterwards master of Pembroke-hall. Browne Willis contradicts this only in part, by informing us that he became fellow, but not master. His late biographer, however, Mr. Churton, has decidedlyproved that he never belonged to Cambridge, and that the mistake of his former biographers originated in his being confounded with a. person of both his names, who was fellow of Pembroke-hall, and a contemporary.

For his tirst advancement he is supposed to have been indebted to the earl of Derby, who was one ol those friends of Henry VII. whom that monarch rewarded, after the crown was established in security. Probably also by his interest Smyth was appointed, September 20, 14-85, to the office of the clerk of the hanaper, with an annual stipend of 40l. and an additional allowance of eighteen-pence per day during his attendance, in person, or by his deputy, on the lord chancellor. This salary is worthy of notice, as the sum exceeds that which was attached to it, not only on a subsequent appointment in this reign, but for a century afterwards. It was, therefore, probably given as a special remuneration to Smyth, whose influence appears to have been increasing. It is certain that, while in this office, he was solicited by the university of Oxford to interpose, on a very critical occasion, when they had incurred the king’s displeasure; and such was his influence, that his majesty was pleased to remove their fears, and confirm their privileges. This occurred in the second year of Henry’s reign. While Smyth held this office, we also find his name in a writ of privy-seal for the foundation of Norbridge’s chantry in the parish church of the Holy Trinity at Guildford, along with Elizabeth, consort of Henry VII., Margaret, countess of Richmond, his mother, Thomas Bourchier and Reginald Bray, knights.

A few years after his being made clerk of the hanaper, he was promoted to the deanery of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, a dignity usually conferred on some favourite chaplain whom the king wished to have near his person. The precise time of his arriving at this preferment cannot be discovered, but it must have, been subsequent to July 28, 1480, when Henry Sharpe- occurs as dean. While, in this office he resided in Canon-row, and was honoured by his i?oyal master with a seat in the privy-council. From these preferments it may be inferred that Smyth’s talents and address had justified the hopes of his family and patrons. He must certainly have been a favourite with the king, and not less so with his mother, the countess of Richmond, who on June 14, 1492, presented him to the rectory of Cheshunt, which he quitted in 1494 for higher preferment. She conferred upon him another mark of her confidence, in appointing him one of the feoffees of those manors and estates, which were to answer the munificent purposes of her will. As to the reports of his former biographers, that he held, at one time, the archdeaconry of Surrey, and the prepositure of Wells, Mr. Churton has clearly proved that they have no foundation.

His next promotion was of the civil kind, that of president of the prince’s council within the marches of Wales. The unsettled state of Wales had engaged the attention of Henry VII as soon as he came to the throne; and the wisest policy, in order to civilize and conciliate the inhabitants of that part of the kingdom, appeared to consist in delegating such a part of the executive power as might give dignity and stability to the laws, and ensure subjection to the sovereign. With this view various grants and commissions were issued in the first year of his reign; and about 1492, Arthur, prince of Wales and earl of Chester, was included in a commission of the peace for the county of Warwick, with archbishop Morton, Smyth, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and others. There was a renewal of this commission in the 17th Henry VII. of which our prelate, who had then been translated to the see of Lincoln, was again lord president. The prince’s court was held chiefly at Ludlow-castle, long the seat of the muses, honoured at this time with a train of learned men from the universities, and afterwards immortalized by Milton and Butler. Here bishop Smyth, although placed in an office that seemed likely to divert him from the business of his diocese, took special care that his absence should be compensated by a deputation of his power to vicars-general, and a suffragan bishop, in whom he could confide: and here he conceived some of fhose generous and liberal plans which have conferred honour on his name. The first instance of his becoming a public benefactor was in rebuilding and re-endowing the hospital of St. John in Lichfield, which had been suffered to go to ruin by the negligence of the friars who occupied it. Accordingly, in the third year of his episcopate, 1495, he rebuilt this hospital, and gave a new body of statutes for the use of the society. Of tiiis foundation it is only necessary to add here, that the school attached to it, and afterwards joined to the adjacent seminary of Edward VI. has produced bishops Smalridge and Newton, the chief justices Willes and Parker, and those illustrious scholars, Joseph Addison and Samuel Johnson.

, a learned English divine and translator, was the son of the rev. Richard Smith, rector of AllSaints, and minister of St. Andrew, both in Worcester, who died in 1726. He was born at Worcester in 1711, and educated at the grammar-school of that city. In 1728 he was admitted of New-college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. in 1732, M. A. in 1737, and D. D. in 1758. In 1735 he was presented by his patron, James earl of Derby, in whose family he was reader, to the rectory of Trinity-church, Chester, and by his son and successor’s interest, whose chaplain he was, to the deanery of Chester in 1753. He held the mastership of Brentwood-school in Essex for one year, 1748; and in 1753 was nominated by the corporation of Liverpool one of the ministers of St. George’s church there, which he resigned in 1767. With his deanery he held the parish churches of Handley and Trinity, but in 1780 resigned the last for the rectory of West Kirkby. He died Jan. 12, 1787. His character is thus briefly drawn by his biographer: “He was tall and genteel; his voice was strong, clear, and melodious; he spoke Latin fluently, and was complete master not only of the Greek but Hebrew language; his mind was so replete with knowledge, that he was a living library; his manner of address was graceful, engaging, and delightful; his sermons were pleasing, informing, convincing; his memory, even in age, was wonderfully retentive, and his conversation was polite, affable, and in the highest degree improving.” He is known in the learned world, chiefly by his valuable translations of “Longinus on the Sublime,” 1739, 8vo, which went through four editions, the last of which, with the frontispiece designed by Dr. Wall of Worcester, is said to be the best; “Thucydides,” 1753, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1781, 8vo; “Xenophon’s History of the Affairs of Greece,” 1770, 4to. In 1782 he published “Nine Sermons on the Beatitudes,” 8vo, very elegantly written. In 1791, appeared “The Poetic Works of the rev. William Smith, D. D. late dean of Chester; with some account of the life and writings of the Author. By Thomas Crane, minister of the parish church of St. Olave in Chester, &c.” This work we have not seen, and for the account of Dr. Smith’s life we are indebted to a review of it in the Gent. Mag.

, a historian, novelist, and poet of considerable reputation, was the grandson of sir James Smollett of Bonhill, a member of the Scotch parliament, and one of the commissioners for framing the treaty of union. He married Jane, daughter of sir Aulay Macauley, bart. of Ardincaple, by whom he had four sons and two daughters. The fourth son, Archibald, married without asking his father’s consent, Barbara Cunningham, daughter of Mr. Cunningham of Gilbertfield s in the 7ieighbourhood of Glasgow. His father, however, allowed him an income of about 300l. a-year. He unfortunately died, after the birth of two sons and a daughter, who, with their mother, were left dependent on the grandfather, and we do not find that he neglected them. Tobias, the subject of this memoir, and the youngest of those children, was born in the house of Dalquhnrn, near Renton in the parish of Cardross, in 1721, and christened Tobias George; but this latter name he does not appear to have used.

On the death of his grandfather, who had hitherto supported him in his studies, but left no permanent provision for the completion of them, he removed to London, in quest of employment in the army or navy, and strengthened his hopes by carrying his tragedy with him. The latter, however, was in all respects an unfortunate speculation. After being amused and cajoled by all the common and uncommon tricks of the theatrical managers, for nearly ten years, he was under the necessity of sending it to the press in vindication of his own importunities, and the opinions of his friends. His preface may yet be read with advantage by the candidates for stage favour, although modern managers are said to be less fastidious than their predecessors, and from the liberality of their admissions, leave it somewhat doubtful whether they have not lost the privilege of rejection. In this preface, Smollett was not sparing of his indignation, but he reserved more substantial revenge for a more favourable opportunity.

In 1746 he first presented himself to the public as the author of “Advice, a Satire,” in which he endeavoured to excite indignation against certain public characters, by accusations which a man of delicacy would disdain to bring forward under any circumstances, and which are generally brought forward under the very worst. What this production contributed to his fame, we are not told; his friends, however, were alarmed and disgusted, and his enemies probably increased. About this time he wrote (for Coventgarden theatre), an opera called “Alceste,” which was never acted or printed, owing, it is said, to a dispute between the author and the manager. Sir John Hawkins, who, in all his writings, trusts too much to his memory, informs us, that Handel set this opera to music, and, that his labour might not be lost, afterwards adapted the airs to Dryden’s second ode on St. Cecilia’s day. But Handel composed that ode in 1739, according to Dr. Burney’s more accurate and scientific history of music. In 1747, our author published “Reproof, a Satire,” as a second part of “Advice,” and consisting of the same materials, with the addition of some severe lines on Rich, the manager of Covent-garden theatre, with whom he had just quarrelled.

In the same year he married miss Anne Lascelles, the lady whom he had courted in Jamaica, and with whom he had the promise of three thousand pounds. Of this sum, however, he obtained but a small part, and that after a very expensive law-suit. As he had, upon his marriage, hired a genteel house, aud lived in a more hospitable style than the possession of the whole of his wife’s fortune could have supported, he was again obliged to have recourse to his pen, and produced, in 1748, “The Adventures of Roderick Random,” in 2 vols. 12mo. This was the most successful of all his writings, and perhaps the most popular novel of the age, partly owing to the notion that it was in many respects a history of his own life, and partly to its intrinsic merit, as a delineation of real life, manners, and characters, given with a force of humour to which the publick had not been accustomed. If, indeed, we consider its moral tendency, there are few productions more unfit for perusal; yet such were his opinions of public decency that he seriously fancied he was writing to humour the taste, and correct the morals, of the age. That it contains a history of his own life was probably a surmise artfully circulated to excite curiosity, but that real characters are depicted was much more obvious. Independent of those whom he introduced out of revenge, as Lacy and Garrick for rejecting his tragedy, there are traits of many other persons more or less disguised, to the introduction of which he was incited merely by the recollection of foibles which deserved to be exposed. Every man who draws characters, whether to complete the fable of a novel, or to illustrate an essay, will be insensibly attracted by what he has seen in real life, and real life was Smollett’s object in all his novels. His only monster is count Fathom; but Smollett deals in none of those perfect beings who are the heroes of the more modern novel.

In 1749, his tragedy “The Regicide,” as already noticed, was published, very much to his emolument, but certainly without any injury to the judgment of the managers who had rejected it. Extraordinary as it might have appeared, if published as he wrote it at the age of eighteen, it seemed no prodigy in one of more advanced years, who had adopted every improvement which his critical friends could suggest. The preface has been mentioned as containing his complaints of delay and evasion, and he had now more effectually vented his rage on lord Lyttelton and Mr. Garrick in “Roderick Random.” With Garrick, however, he lived to be reconciled in a manner which did credit to their respective feelings.

In 1750, he took a trip to Paris, where he renewed his acquaintance with Dr. Moore, his biographer, who informs us that he indulged the common English prejudices against the French nation, and never attained the language so perfectly as to be able to mix familiarly with the inhabitants. His stay here was not long, for in 1751, he published his second most popular novel, “Peregrine Pickle,” in 4 vo!s. 12mo, which was received with great avidity. In the second edition, which was called for within a few months, he speaks with more craft than truth of certain booksellers and others who misrepresented the work, and calumniated the author. He could not, however, conceal, and all his biographers have told the shameless tale for him, that “he received a handsome reward” for inserting the profligate memoirs of lady Vane. It is only wonderful, that after this he could “flatter himself that he had expunged every adventure, phrase, and insinuation that could be construed by the most delicate readers into a trespass upon the rules of decorum.” In this work, as in “Roderick Random,” he indulged his unhappy propensity 'to personal satire and revenge, by introducing living characters. He again endeavoured to degrade those of Garrick and Quin, who, it is said, had expressed a more unfavourable opinion of the “Regicide” than even Garrick: and he was perhaps yet more unpardonable in holding up Dr. Akenside to ridicule.

After the publication of this translation he visited his relations in Scotland, and on his return to England, was engaged to undertake the management of the “Critical Review,” which was begun in 1756, in dependence, as has been asserted, upon the patronage of the Tories, and the high church party. It does not appear, however, that any extraordinary aid came from those quarters, and the mode in which it was long conducted proves that the success of the Monthly Review was the only motive, or, if that could not be rivalled, it was hoped that the public might support two publications of the kind. To this task Smollett brought many necessary qualifications: a considerable portion of general knowledge, a just taste in works of criticism, and a style, flowing, easy, and popular. He had also much acquaintance with the litr-mry history of his times, and could translate with readiness from some of the modern languages. But, on the other hanu, it was his misfortune here, as in every stage of his life, that the fair di>play of his talents, and perhaps the genuine sentiments of his heart, were perverted by the prejudices of friendship, or by the more inexcusable impulses of jealousy, revenge, and all that enters into the composition of an i ratable temper. He had already suffered by provoking unnecessary animosity, and was now in a situation where it would have been impossible to escape invidious imputation, had he practised the utmost candour and moderation. How much more dangerous such a situation, to one who was always too regardless of past experience, and who seems to have gladly embraced the opportunity which secrecy afforded, of dealing his blows around without discrimination, and without mercy. It is painful to read in the early volumes of this Review, the continual personal abuse he levelled at his rival, Mr. Griffiths, who very rarely took any notice of if, and the many vulgar and coarse sarcasms he directed against every author who presumed to doubt the infallibility of his opinions. It is no less painful to contemplate the self-sufficiency displayed on every occasion where he can introduce his own character and works.

"Tell me youi company and I‘ll describe your manners, is a proverbial apothegm among our neighbours, and the maxim will generally hold good; but we apprehend the adage might be more justly turned to this purpose, Name your enemies, and I ’11 guess your character. If the Complete History of England were to be judged in this manner, we imagine the author would gladly submit to the determination of the public. Let us tnen see who are the professed enemies of that production: the saye, the patriot, the sedate Dr. Shebbeare: the serene Griffiths and 'his spouse, proprietors and directors of the Monthly Review: the profound, the candid, the modest Dr. Hill: the wise, the learned, and the temperate Thomas Comber, A. B. whose performance we are at present to consider. This is indeed a formidable group of adversaries, enough to daunt the heart of any young adventurer in the worLi of letters; but the author of the Complete History.^ E.igland has been long familiar with such seas o<* troubl-. Tae assault, however, which he has sustained from some of these heroes was not altogether unprovoked. Shebbeare had been chastised in the Critical Review for his insolent and seditious appeals to the public. He took it for granted that the lash was exercised by the author of the Complete History of England, therefore he attacked that performance tooth and nail. He declared that there was neither grammar, meaning, composition, or reflection, either in the plan or the execution of the work itself. Griffiths was enraged against the same gentleman, because he was supposed to have set up the Critical Review, in opposition to the Monthly, of which he (Griffiths) was proprietor: accordingly he employed an obscure grub, who wrote in his garret, to bespatter the History of England. Hill, for these ten years, has by turns praised and abused Dr. Smollett, whom he did not know, without being able to vanquish that silent contempt in which this gentleman ever held him and all his productions: piqued at this indifference and disdain, the said Hill has, in a weekly paper, thrown out some dirty insinuations against the author of the Complete History of England. We cannot rank the proprietors of R n * and other histories, among the personal enemies of Dr. Smollett, because they were actuated by the dictates of self-interest to decry his performance. This, however, they have pursued in the most sordid, illiberal, and ridiculous manner: they have caballed: they have slandered: they have vilified: they have prejudiced, misrepresented, and used undue influence among their correspondents in different parts of the kingdom: they have spared neither calumny nor expence to prejudice the author and his work: they have had the effrontery to insinuate in a public advertisement that he was no better than an inaccurate plagiary from Rapin: and they have had the folly to declare that Rapin’s book was the most valuable performance, just immediately after they had taxed Dr. Smollett with having, by a specious plan, anticipated the judgment of the public. Finally, finding all their endeavours had proved abortive, we have reason to believe they hired the pen of the Rev. Thomas Comber of York, A. B. to stigmatize and blacken the character of the work which has been to them such a source of damage and vexation. Accordingly this their champion has earned his

*Most of the names in this passage are printed only with the initial and final letters, except that of Rapin which follows. This R a may mean Eobertcon, whose first history was then in the press. wages with surprising eagerness and resolution: he has dashed through thick and thin, without, fear of repulse, without dread of reputation. Indeed he writes with a degree of acrimony that seems to be personal perhaps, if the truth was known, hewould be found one of those obscure authors, who have occasionally received correction in some number of the Critical Review, and looks upon Dr. Smollett as the n.iministrator of that correction; but

When lord Bute was promoted to the office of first minister, Smollett’s pen was engaged to support him against the popular clamour excited by Wilkes and his partizans. With this view our author commenced a weekly paper called “The Briton,” which was answered by Wilkes in his more celebrated “North Briton.” Had this been a contest of argument, wit, or even mere personal and political recrimination, Smollett would have had little to fear from the talents of Wilkes; but the public mind, inflamed by every species of misrepresentation, was on the side of Wilkes, and the “Briton” was discontinued, when lord Bute, its supposed patron, could no longer keep his seat. Before this short contest, Smollett had lived on terms of intimacy with Wilkes, who, having no animosities that were not absolutely necessary to serve a temporary interest, probably did not think the worse of Smollett for giving him an opportunity to triumph over the author of “The Complete History of England.” Smollett, however, was not disposed to view the matter with this complacency. He expected a reward for his services, and was disappointed, and his chagrin on this occasion he soon took an opportunity to express.

In the month of June, 1763, he went abroad, partly on account of his health, and partly to relieve his and Mrs. Smollett’s grief for the loss of their only child, an amiable young lady who died in her fifteenth year. He pursued his journey through France and Italy about two years, and soon after his return in 1766, gave the public the result of his observations, in two volumes 8vo, entitled “Travels through France and Italy.” This work, although it attained no high degree of popularity, was read with sympathetic interest, as exhibiting a melancholy picture of the author’s mind, “traduced,” as he informs us, “by malice, persecuted by faction, and overwhelmed by the sense of domestic calamity.” On this account, the natural and artificial objects which make travelling delightful, had no other effect on him than to excite his spleen, which he has often indulged in representations and opinions unworthy of his taste. These, however, are not unmixed with observations of another kind, acute, just, and useful. It is remarkable that in a subsequent publication, (“Humphrey Clinker”) he makes his principal character, Matthew Bramble, describe what he saw in England in the same unvaried language of spleen and ill humour.

Soon after his arrival from the continent, his health still decaying, he undertook a journey to Scotland, and renewed his attachment to his relations and friends. During this journey, Dr. Moore informs us that “he was greatly tormented with rheumatic pains, and afflicted besides with an ulcer on his arm, which had been neglected on its first appearance. These disorders confined him much to his chamber, but did not prevent his conversation from being highly entertaining, when the misery of which they were productive permitted him to associate with his friends.” From Scotland he went to Bath, and about the beginning of 1767 had recovered his health and spirits in a very considerable degree. His next production, which appeared in 1769, proved that br had not forgotten the neglect with which he was treated by that ministry in whose favour he wrote “The Briton.” This was entitled the “Adventures of an Atom.” Under fictitious names, of Japanese structure, he reviews the conduct of the eminent politicians who had conducted or opposed the measures of government from the year 1754, and retracts the opinion he ha i given of some of those statesmen in his history, particularly of the earl of Chatham and lord Bute. His biographer allows that many of the characters are grossly misrepresented, for which no other reason can be assigned than his own disappointment. The whole proves what has often been seen since his time, that the measures which are right and proper when a reward is in view, are wrong and abominable when that reward is withheld.

"Paunceford was a John C 1, who was fed by Smollett when he had not bread to eat, nor clothes to cover him. He was taken out to India as private secretary to a celebrated governor-general, and as essayist; and after only three years absence, returned with forty thousand pounds. From India he sent several letters to Smollett, professing that he was coming over to lay his fortune at the feet of his benefactor. But on his arrival he treated Smollett, Hamilton, and others who had befriended him, with the most ungrateful contempt. The person who taught him the art of essaying became reduced in circumstances, and is now (1792), or lately was, collector of the toll on

Such kindness and such ingratitude ought not to be concealed, but it is less necessary to point out the very flattering account he has given of his hospitality and patronage of inferior authors, while he resided at Chelsea. While full credit is given for these virtues, it cannot be a disrespectful wish that he had found another panegyrist than himself. There are few instances of men of Dr. Smollett’s rank in the literary world taking so many opportunities to sound their own praises, and that without any of the disguises which are employed by men who wish to acquire a factitious character. At this time, perhaps, he was desirous of recovering the reputation which envy and malice had suppressed or darkened, and might not be without hopes that, as he was now approaching the close of life, his enemies would relent, and admit his evidence.

In the neighbourhood of Leghorn, he lingered through the summer of 1771, in the full possession of his faculties, and died on the 21st of October, in the fifty-first year of his age. Dr. Armstrong, who visited him at Leghorn, honoured his remains with a Latin inscription, elegantly noticing his genius and virtues, and severely reflecting on the “times, in which hardly any literary merit, but such as was in the most false or futile taste, received any encouragement from the mock Maecenases of Britain.” In 1774, a column was erected to his memory on the banks of the Leven, near the house in which he was born. The inscription on this was the joint production of lord Kames, professor George Stuart, and John Ramsay, esq. and was revised by Dr. Johnson. It ig elegant, affecting, and modest.

“He was of an intrepid, independent, imprudent disposition, equally incapable of deceit and adulation, and more disposed to cultivate the acquaintance of those he could serve, than of those who could serve him What wonder that a man of his character was not, what is called, successful in life”

As an author, Dr. Smollett is universally allowed the praise of original genius displayed with an ease and variety which are rarely found. Yet this character belongs chiefly to his m.vels. In correct delineation of life and manners, and in drawing characters of the humourous class, he has few equals. But when this praise is bestowed, every critic who vu; nos what is more important than genius itself, the interest of moralsuid decency, must surely stop. It can be of no use to analyze each individual scene, incident, or character in works, which, after all, must be pronounced unfit to be read. But if the morals of the reader were in no danger, his taste can hardly escape being insulted or perverted. Smollett’s humour is of so low a cast, and his practical jokes so frequently end in what is vulgar, mean, and filthy, that it would be impossible to acquire a relish for them, without injury done to the chaster feelings, and to the just respect due to genuine wit. No novel-writer seems to take more delight in assembling images and incidents that are gross and disgusting; nor has he scrupled to introduce, with more than slight notice, those vices which are not fit even to be named. If this be a just representation of his most favourite novels, it is in vain to oppose it by pointing out passages which do credit to his genius, and jnore vain to attempt to prove that virtue and taste are not directly injured by such productions. As a historian, Smollett’s reputation has certainly not been preserved. When he published his History, something of the kind was wanted, and it was executed in a manner not unworthy of his talents. But the writings of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon have introduced a taste for a higher species of historical composition; and, if we are not mistaken, there has been no complete edition of Smollett’s history but that which he published. Had he been allowed the proper time for revision and reflection, it cannot be doubted that he might have produced a work deserving of more lasting fame. His history, even as we have it, when we advert to the short time he took fur its completion, is a very extraordinary efTort, and instead of blaming him for occasionally following his authorities too servilely, the wonder ought to be that he found leisure to depart from them so frequently, and to assign reasons, which are not those of a superficial thinker. It is impossible, however, to quit this subject without adverting to the mode of publication which dispersed the work among a class of persons, the purchasers of sixpenny numbers, whom Smollett too easily took for the learned and discerning part of the public. This fallacious encouragement afforded fuel to his irritable temper, by inciting him, not only to the arts of puffing, by which the literary character is degraded, but to those vulgar and splenetic recriminations, of which a specimen has been given, and which must have lowered him yet more, in the opinion of the eminent characters of his day.

Smollett was not successful in his dramatic attempts. Those who judged from the ease and vivacity of his pictures of life and manners in his novels, no doubt thought themselves justified in encouraging him in this species of composition. But all experience shews that the talents necessary for the prose epic, and those for the regular drama, are essentially different, and have rarely met in one man. Fielding, a novelist greatly superior, and who after the trials of more than half a century, may be pronounced inimitable, was yet foiled in his dramatic attempts, although he returned to the charge with fresh courage and skill.

In 1713, he had been installed a canon of Windsor, and on Feb. 21, 1719, was elected provost of King’s college, although the court-interest was in favour of Dr. Waddington. In 1723 he served the office of vice-chancellor of the university, and gave every satisfaction in discharging the duties of both offices. The revenues of the college were greatly augmented in his time, by the assistance of some fellows of the college, his particular friends. It was said that in 1722 he drew up the address to his majesty, George II. upon the institution of Whitehall preachers, “an address,” says Dr. Zachary Grey, “worthy of the imitation of both universities on all occasions of the like kind, as it was thought to have nothing redundant or defective in it.” He was for a short time rector of Knebworth in Hertfordshire, and afterwards, in 1737, of West-Ildesley in Berkshire. This last he retained till his death, which happened at his lodgings at Windsor castle, Dec, 30, 1742. He was buried at the east end of the south aile of the choir of the chapel, near his wife, who died in 1731. She was, when he married her, the opulent widow of sir Joshua Sharpe, knt. and alderman of London. It remains yet to be added to his preferments that he was several years head master of Eton school. He was a man of great learning and acuteness, and of an amiable temper. His zeal for the principles of the church of England was warm and honest, for it procured him many enemies, and probably obstructed his promotron. In 17 15, '3 vols. 8vo. of his “Sermons” were published by Drs. Berriman and Chapman. He had himself been editor of Dean Moss’s Sermons, and gave that divine a character which was thought to resemble his own. Although we seldom notice such matters, it may be worth while to add that there was a 4to mezzotinto print of him, which, after he was out of fashion, the print-sellers imposed on the public as the portrait of orator Henley.

, son of the preceding, and an excellent mathematician, was born at Leyden in 1591, where he succeeded his father in the mathematical chair in 1613, and where he died in 1626, at only thirty-five years of age. He was author of several ingenious works and discoveries, and was the first who discovered the true law of the refraction of the rays of light; a discovery which he made before it was announced by Des Cartes, as Huygens assures us. Though the work which Snell prepared upon this subject, and upon optics in general, was never published, yet the discovery was very well known to belong to him, by several authors about his time, who had seen it in his manuscripts. He undertook also to measure the earth. This he effected by measuring a space between Alcmaer and Bergen-op-zoom, the difference of latitude between these places being 1° 1′ 30″. He also measured another distance between the parallels of Alcmaer and Leyden; and from the mean of both these measurements, he made a degree to consist of 55,021 French toises or fathoms. These measures were afterwards repeated and corrected by Musschenbroek, who found the degree to contain 57,033 toises. He was author of a great many learned mathematical works, the principal of which are, 1. “Apollonius Batavus;” being the restoration of some lost pieces of Apollonius, concerning Determinate Section, with the Section of a Ratio and Space, in 1608, 4to, published in his seventeenth year; but on the best authority this work is attributed to his father. The present might perhaps be a second edition. 2. “Eratosthenes Batavus,” in 1617, 4to; being the work in which he gives an account of his operations in measuring the earth. 3. A translation out of the Dutch language, into Latin, of Ludolph van Collen’s book “De Circulo & Adscriptis,” &c. in 1619, 4to. 4. “Cyclometricus, De Circuli Dimensione,” &c. 1621, 4to. In this work, the author gives several ingenious approximations to the measure of the circle, both arithmetical and geometrical. 5. “Tiphis Batavus;” being a treatise on Navigation and naval affairs, in 1624, 4to. 6. A posthumous treatise, being four books “Doctrinæ Triangulorum Canonicæ,” in 1627, 8vo: in which are contained the canon of secants; and in which the construction of sines, tangents, and secants, with the dimension or calculation of triangles, both plane and spherical, are briefly and clearly treated. 7. Hessian and Bohemian Observations; with his own notes. 8. “Libra Astronomica & Philosophica;” in which he undertakes the examination of the principles of Galileo concerning comets, 9. “Concerning the Comet which appeared in 1618, &c.”

, a man of great learning and abilities, was the third son of Marianus Socinus, an eminent civilian at Bologna, and has by some been reckoned the founder of the Socinian sect, as having been in reality the author of all those principles and opinions, which Faustus Socinus afterwards propagated with more boldness. He was born at Sienna in 1525, and designed by his father for the study of the civil law. With this he combined the perusal of the scriptures; thinking that the foundations of the civil law must necessarily be laid in the word of God, and therefore would be deduced in the best manner from it. To qualify himself for this inquiry, he studied the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic tongues. What light he derived from this respecting the civil law is not known, but he is said to have soon discovered, that the church of Rome taught many tilings plainly contrary to scripture. About 1546 he became a member of a secret society, consisting of about forty persons, who held their meetings, at. different times, in the territory of Venice, and particularly at. Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a general reformation of the received systems of religion, and particularly endeavoured to establish the doctrines afterwards publicly adopted by the Socinians; but being discovered, and some of them punished, they dispersed into other countries; and our Socinus, in 1547, began his travels, and spent four years in France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland; and then settled at Zurich. He contracted a familiarity, and even an intimacy, with the learned wherever he went and Calvin, Melancthon, Builinger, Beza, and others of the same class, were amongst. the number of his friends. But having soon discovered, by the doubts he proposed to them, that he had adopted sentiments the most obnoxious to these reformers, he became an object of suspicion and Calvin, in particular, wrote to him an admonitory letter, of which the following is a part; “Don't expect,” says he, “that I should answer all your preposterous questions. If you chuse to soar amidst such lofty speculations, suffer me, an humble disciple of Jesus Christ, to meditate upon such things as conduce to my edification; as indeed I shall endeavour by my silence to prevent your being troublesome to me hereafter. In the mean time, I cannot but lament, that you should continue to employ those excellent talents with which God has blessed you, not only to no purpose, but to a very bad one. Let me beg of you seriously, as I have often done, to correct in yourself this love of inquiry, which may bring you into trouble.” It would appear that Socinus took this advice in part, as he continued to live among these orthodox divines for a considerable time, without molestation. He found means, however, to communicate his notions to such as were disposed to receive them, and even lectured to Italians, who wandered up and down in Germany and Poland. He also sent writings to his relations, who lived at Sienna. He took a journey into Poland about 1558; and obtained from the king some letters of recommendation to the doge of Venice and the duke of Florence, that he might be safe at Venice, while his affairs required his residence there. He afterwards returned to Switzerland, and died at Zurich in 1562, in his thirty-seventh year. Being naturally timorous and irresolute, he professed to die in the communion of the reformed church, but certainly had contributed much to the foundation of the sect called from his, or his nephew’s name, for he collected the materials that Faustus afterwards digested and employed with such dexterity and success. He secretly and imperceptibly excited doubts and scruples in the minds of many, concerning several doctrines generally received among Christians, and, by several arguments against the divinity of Christ, which he left behind him in writing, he so far seduced, even after his death, the Arians in Poland, that they embraced the communion and sentiments of those who looked upon Christ as a mere man, created immediately, like Adam, by God himself. There are few writings of Laelius exta.it, and of those that bear his name, some undoubtedly belong to others.

In 1579, Socinus retired into Poland, and desired to be admitted into the communion of the Unitarians, or United Brethren; but was refused, on account of his doctrines, to which they did not assent. Afterwards, he wrote a book against James Paheologus; of which complaint was made to Stephen, then king of Poland, as containing seditious opinions; yet this seems without foundation, for Socinus was such a friend to absolute submission, that he even condemned with severity the resistance of the people of the Netherlands against the tyranny of Spain. He found it, however, expedient to leave Cracow, after he had been there four years; and to take sanctuary in the house of a Polish lord, with whom he lived some years; and married his daughter with his consent. In this retreat he wrote many books, which raised innumerable enemies against him. He lost Ins wife in 1587, at which he was inconsolable for many months; and was, about the same time, deprived, by the death of the duke of Tuscany, of a noble pension, which had been settled on him by the generosity that prince. In 1598, he returned again to Cracow, where he became so obnoxious, that the scholars of that place raised a mob of the lower order, who broke into his house, dragged him into the streets, and were with difficulty prevented from murdering him. They plundered his house, however, and burnt some manuscripts which he particularly lamented, and said he would have redeemed at price of his blood. To avoid these dangers for the future. he retired to the house of a Polish gentleman, at a village about nine miles distant from Cracow; where he spent the remainder of his life, and died in 1604-, aged sixtyfive.

His sect did not die with him; but the sentiments of the modern Socinians are widely different from those of their founder, who approached to a degree of orthodoxy nowhere now to be found among them. To enter, however, upon all the varieties of their opinions would occupy a much larger space than is consistent with the plan of this work. Yet all those varieties, and all the shapes and forms on which the modern Socinians, or Unitarians, as they affect to be called, rest their opinions, may be traced to the main principle of Socinianism, as stated by Mosheim. Although, says that writer, the Socinians profess to believe that our divine knowledge is derived solely from the Holy Scriptures; yet they maintain in reality, that the sense of the Scripture is to be investigated and explained by the Dictates of right reason, to which, of consequence, they attribute a great influence in determining the nature, and unfolding the various doctrines of religion. When their writings are perused with attention, they will he found to attribute more to reason, in this matter, than most other Christian societies. For they frequently insinuate artfully, and sometimes declare plainly, that the sacred penmen were guilty of many errors, from a defect of memory, as well as a want of capacity; that they expressed their sentiments without perspicuity or precision, and rendered the plainest things obscure by their pompous and diffuse Asiatic style; and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to employ the lamp of human reason to cast a light upon their doctrine, and to explain it in a manner conformable to truth. It is easy to see what they had in view by maintaining propositions of this kind. They aimed at nothing less than the establishment of the following general rule, viz. that the history of the Jews, and also that of Jesus Christ, were indeed to be derived from the books of the Old and New Testament, and that it was not lawful to entertain the least doubt concerning the truth of this history, or the authenticity of these books in general; but that the particular doctrines which they contain, were, nevertheless, to be understood and explained in such a manner as to render them consonant with the dictates of reason. According to this representation of tilings, it is not the Holy Scripture, which declares clearly and expressly what we are to believe concerning the nature, counsels, and perfections of the Deity; but it is human reason, which shews us the system of religion that we ought to seek in, and deduce from, the divine oracles. This fundamental principle of Socinianism, continues Mosheim, will appear the more dangerous and pernicious, when we consider the sense in which the word reason was understood by this sect. The pompous title of right reason was given, by the Socinians, to that measure of intelligence and discernment, or, in other words, to that faculty of comprehending and judging, which we derive from nature. According to this definition, the fundamental rule of Socinianism necessarily supposes, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose pu.is are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding.; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of an and argument, ai to answer the extent of our limited faculties. Thosr wlio adopt this singular rule, must at the same time grant that the number of religions must be nearly equ~l to that of individuals. For as there is a great variety in the talents and capacities of different persons, so what will appear dnKcolt and abstruse to one, will seem evident and clear to another; and thus the more discerning and penetrating will adopt as divine truth, what the slow and superficial will look upon as unintelligible jargon. This consequence, however, does not at all alarm the Socinians, who suffer their members to explain, in very different ways, many doctrines of the highest importance, and permit every one to follow his particular fancy in composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general, the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the precepts which the gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions.

, the most celebrated of the ancient philosophers, was born at Alopece, a small village of Attica, in the fourth year of the seventy-seventh olympiad, or about 469 years B. C. His parents were far from illustrious, Sophroniscns iiis father being a statuary of no great note, and Phtenareta his mother a midwife; who yet is represented by Plato as a woman of a bold and generous spirit, and Socrates often took occasion to mention both his parents with respect. Sophroniscus brought him up to his own trade, which, on his father’s death, he was obliged to continue for subsistence, and was not unsuccessful. He is said to have made statues of the habited graces, which were allowed a place in the citadel of Athens. But, as he was naturally averse to this profession, he only followed it while necessity compelled him and employed his leisure hours in the study of philosophy and this being observed by Crito, a rich philosopher of Athens, he took him under his patronage, and entrusted him with the instruction of his children and having now opportunities- of hearing the lectures of the most eminent philosophers, Socrates entirely relinquished the business of a statuary.

It was not till Socrates was upwards of sixty years of age that he undertook to serve his country in any civil office. At that age he was chosen to represent his own district, in the senate of five hundred. In this office, though he at first exposed himself to some degree of ridicule from want of experience in the forms of business, he soon convinced his colleagues that he was superior to them all in wisdom and integrity. Whilst they, intimidated by the clamours of the populace, passed an unjust sentence of condemnation upon the commanders, who, after the engagement at the Arginusian islands, had been prevented by a storm from paying funeral honours to the dead, Socrates stood forth singly in their defence, and, to the last, refused to give his suffrage against them, declaring that no force should compel him to act contrary to justice and the laws. Under the subsequent tyranny he never ceased to condemn the oppressive and cruel proceedings of the thirty tyrants; and when his boldness provoked their resentment, he still continued to support, with undaunted firmness, the rights of his fellow-citizens. The tyrants, probably that they might create some new ground of complaint against Socrates, sent an oruer to him, with several other persons, to apprehend a wealthy citizen of Salarnis: the rest executed the com mission; but Socrates refused, sayijig, that he would rather himself suffer death than be instrumental in inflicting it unjustly upon another. But whatever character he thus established as a good citizen, it is as a philosopher and moral teacher that he is chiefly renowned, and that by the concurring evidence of all antiquity.

That Socrates had himself a proper school, which has been denied, may perhaps be proved from Aristophanes, who derides some particulars in it, an-d calls it his “phrontisterium.” Plato mentions the Academy, Lyceum, and a. pleasant meadow without the city on the side of the river Jlissus, as places frequented by him and his auditors. Xenophon affirms that he was continually abroad; that in the morning tie visited the places of public walking and exercise; when it was full, the Forum; and that the rest of the day he sought out (he most populous meetings, where he disputed openly for every one to hear that would; and Plutarch relates, that he did not only teach, when the benches were prepared, and himself in the chair, or in stated hours of reading and discourse, or at appointments in walking with his friends; but even when he played, or eat, or drank, or >vas in the camp or market, or finally when he was in prison; making every place a school of instruction.

Xenophon represents him as excelling in all kinds of learning. He instances only in arithmetic, geometry, and astrology, but Plato mentions natural philosophy; lilomeneus, rhetoric; and Laertius, medicine. Cicero affirms, that by the testimony of all the learned, anu toe judgment of all Greece, he was, in respect to wisdom, acuteness, politeness, and subtilty, in eloquence, variety, and richness, and in whatever he applied himself to, beyond comparison the first man of his age. As to his philosophy, it may be necessary to observe, that having searched into all kinds of science, he first discovered that it was wrong to neglect those things which concern human life, for the sake of inquiring into those things which do not; secondly, that the things men have usually made the objects of their inquiries, ure above the reach of human understanding, and the source of all the disputes, errors, and superstitions, which have prevailed in the uorld; and, thirdly, that such divine mysteries cannot be made subservient to the uses of human life. Thus, esteeming speculative knowledge so far only as it conduces to practice, be decried in all the sciences what he conceived to be useless, and exchanged speculation for action, and theory for practice: and thus, says Cicero, “first called philosophy down from heaven, and from things involved by. nature in impenetrable secrecy, which yet had employed all the philosophers till his time, and brought her to common life, to inquireafter virtue and vice, good and evil.” That Socrates had an attendant spirit, genius, or daemon, which guarded him from dangers, is asserted by Plato and Antisthenes, who were his contemporaries, and repeated by innumerable authors of antiquity; but what this attendant spirit, genius, or daemon was, or what we are to understand by it, neither antient nor modern writers have in general been able to determine. There is some disagreement concerning the name, and more concerning the nature of it: only it is by most writers agreed, that the advice it gave him was always dissuasive; “never impelling,” says Cicero, “but often restraining him.” It is commonly named his daemon, by which title he himself is supposed to have owned it. Plato sometimes calls it his guardian, and Apuleius his god; because the namv of daemon, as St. Austin tells us, at last grew odious. As for the sign or manner, in which this daemon or genius foretold, and by foretelling, guarded him against evils to come, nothing certain can be collected about it. Plutarch, who rejects some popular absurdities upon the subject, conjectures, first, that it iiiigtit be an apparition; but at last concludes, that it was his observation of some inarticulate unaccustomed sound or voi-e, conveyed to him in an extraordinary way, as happens in dreams. Others confine this foreknowledge of evils within the soul of Socrates himself; and when he said that “his enius advised him,” think that he only meant that “his mind foreboded and so inclined him.” But this is inconsistent with the description which Socrates himself gives of a voice and signs from without. Lastly, some conceive it to be one of those spirits that have a particular care of men; which Maxhmis Tyrius and Apuletus describe in such a manner, that they want only the name of a good angel; and this Laciantius has suppl ed; for, after proving that God sends angels to guard mankind, he adds, “and Socrates affirmed that there was a daemon constantly near him, which had kept him company from a child, and by whose beck and instruction he uidecl his life.” Such are the varieties of opinion entertained unon this singular subject, winch, however, have arisen chiefly out of the prevalence of Platonic ideas, and the desire of exalting Socrates beyond all reason. The account given by Xeriophon, the strictest and truest Socratic, and confirmed by some passages in Plutarch’s treatise “De Genio Socratis,” is perhaps clear and reasonable. It is plainly this, that, believing in the gods of his country, and the divinations commonly in use, Socrates, when he took an omen, said that he proceeded by divine intimation. This he did out of piety, thinking it more respectful to the gods to refer the suggestion to them, than to the voice or other intermediate sign by which they conveyed it. His phrase on this occasion was, To dai/wviov auna ay/Aa'iveiv, which being in some degree ambiguous, as foufumotnignt mean either the divine power abstractedly, 01 -Omh- parricular deity, his e-iemies took advantage of it to accuse him of introducing new deities; and his friends to indulge the vanity of boasting that he had an attendant daemon. This account may be seen at full length, supported by many arguments and proofs from the original authors, in a little tract on this subject, published in 1782*.

In the days of this philosopher, the Sophists were the great and leading men the masters of languages, as Cicero calls them, who arrogantly pretended to teach every thing, and persuaded the youth to resort only to them. With these Socrates carried on perpetual warfare: he attacked them constantly with his usual interrogatories; and, by his skill and subtilty in disputation, exposed their sophistry, and refuted their principles. He took all opportunities’of proving that they had gained a much greater portion of esteem than they had a right to claim; that they were only vain affecters of words; that they had no knowledge of the things they professed to teach; and that, instead of taking money of others for teaching, they should themselves give money to be taught. The Athenians were pleased to see the Sophists thus checked; were brought at length to deride them; and, at the instigation of Socrates, withdrew their children from them, and excited them to the study of solid virtue under better masters.

posed intimations to be communicated truly and respectfully than they who

to him, a daemon or divinity. This attribute to birds the power which beexplanation of the matter is favoured longs to the gods.“The altercations that Socrates had with the Sophists therefore gained him respect, and made him popular with the Athenians; hut he had a private quarrel with one Anytus, which, after many years continuance, was the occasion of his death. Anytus was an orator by profession, a sordid and avaricious man, who was privately maintained and enriched by leather-sellers. He had placed two of his sons under Socrates, to be taught; but, because they had not acquired such knowledge from him as to enable them to get their living by pleading, he took them away, and put them to the trade of leather-selling. Socrates, displeased with this illiberal treatment of the young men, whose ruin he presaged at the same time, reproached, and exposed Anytus in his discourses to his scholars. Anytus, hurt by this, studied all means of revenge but feared the Athenians, who highly reverenced Socrates, as well on account of his great wisdom and virtue, as for the particular opposition which he had made to those vain babblers the Sophists. He therefore advised with Melitus, a young orator; from whose counsel he began, by making trial in smaller things, to sound how the Athenians would entertain a charge against his life. He suborned the comic poet Aristophanes, to ridicule him and his doctrines in his celebrated comedy called” The Clouds.“Socrates, who seldom went to the theatre, except when Euripides, whom he admired, contested with any new tragedian, was present at the acting of” The Clouds;“and stood up all the while in the most conspicuous part of the theatre. One that was present asked him if he was not vexed at seeing himself brought upon the stage?” Not at all,“answered he:” I am only a host at a public festival, where I provide a large company with entertainment."

Many years having passed from the first disagreement between Socrates and Anytus, at length Anytus, observing a fit conjuncture, procured Melitus to prefer a bill against him to the senate in these terms: “Melitus, son of Melitus, a Pythean, accuses Socrates, son oi Sophroniscus, an Alopecian. Socrates violates the law, not believing the deities which this city believes, but introducing other new gods He violates the Ihw likewise in corrupting youth: the punishment death.” This bill being preferred upon oath, Crito became bound to the judges for his appearance at the day of trial; till which Socrates employed himself in his usual philosophical exercises, taking no care to provide any defence. On the day appointed, Anytus, Lyco, and Metitus, accused him, and Socrates made his own defence, witu.tut procuring an advocate, as the cu*t>m was, to plead for him. He did not defen-i himself with the tone and language of a suppliant or guilty person, but with the freedom, frrmnfiSS, and spirit, of conscious innocence and superior merit. Many of his friends spoke also inus betialf; and, lastly, Plato, then a young iuan, en Jeavoured to plead, but while attempting to apologize for his youth, was ordered by the court to sit down. The court then proceeding to vote, they found Socrates guilty by two hundred and eighty-one voices. It uas the custom of Athens, as Cicero informs us, when any one was cast, if the fault were not capital, to impose a pecuniary mulct, and the guilty person was asked the highest ratf at which he estimated his offence. This was proposed to Socrates, who told the judges, that to pay a penalty was to own an offence; and that, instead of being condemned for what he stood accused, he deserved to be maintained at the public charge out of the Prytanacum. This being the greatest honour the Athenians could confer, the answer so exasperated the judges, that they condemned him to dea h by eighty votes more.

The sentence being passed, he was sent to prison; which, says Seneca, he entered with the same resolution and firmness with which he had opposed the thirty tyrants; and took away all ignominy from the place, which, adds Seneca, could not be a prison while he was there. On the day of condemnation, it happened thdt the ship, which was employed to carry a customary animal offering to the island of Delos, set sail. It was contrary to the law of Athens, that, during this voyage, any capital punishment should be inflicted within the city. This circumstance delayed the execution of the sentence against Socrates for thirty days, during which he was constantly visited by Crito, Plato, and other friends, with whom he passed the time in his usual manner. He was often solicited by them to escape, which he not only refused but derided; asking, “if they knew any place out of Attica, whither death would not come.” The manner of his death is related by Plato, who was an eye-witness of it; and, as there is not, perhaps, a more afft cling picture to be found in antiquity, we will exhibit it here in his own words. Socrates, the day he was to die, had been discoursing to his friends upon the immortallty of thfe soul: and, “when he had made an end of speaking, Crito asked him, if he had any directions to give concerning his sons, or other things, in which they could serve him ‘ I desire no more of you,’ said Socrates, ‘than what I have always told you: if you take care of yourselves, whatsoever you do will be acceptable to me and mine, though you promise nothing; if you neglect yourselves and virtue, you can do n (thing acceptable to us, though you promise ever so much.’ ‘ That,’ answered Crito, ‘we will observe; but how will you be buried?’ ‘ As you think good,’ says he, ‘ if you can catch me, and I do not give you the slip.’ Then, with a smile, applying himself to us, ‘ I cannot persuade Crito,’ says he, ‘ that I am that Socrates who was haranguing just now, or anything more than the carcass you will presently behold; and therefore he is taking all this care of my interment. It seems, that what I just now explained in a long discourse has made no impression at all upon him; namely, that as soon as I shall have drunk the poison, I shall not remain longer with you, but depart immediately to the seats of the blessed. These things, with which I have been endeavouring to comfort you and myself, have been said to no purpose. As, therefore, Crito was bound to the judges for my appearance, so you must now be bound to Crito for my departure; and when he sees my body burnt or buried, let him not say, that Socrates suffers any thing, or is any way concerned: for know, dear Crito, such a mistake were a wrong to my soul. I tell you, that my body is only buried; and let that be done as you shall think fit, or as shall be most agreeable to the laws and customs of the country.’ This said, he arose and retired to an inner room; taking Crito with him, and leaving us, who, like orphans, were to be deprived of so dear a father, to discourse upon our own misery. After his bathing, came his wife, and the other women of the family, with his sons, two of them children, one of them a youth; and, when he had given proper directions about his domestic affairs, he dismissed them, and came out to us. It was now near sun-set, for he had staid long within; when coming out he sat down, and did not speak much after. Then entered an officer, and approaching him, said, ' Socrates, I am persuaded, that I shall have no reason to blame you, for what I have been accustomed to blame in others, who have been angry at me, and loaded me with curses, for only doing what the magistrate commands, when I have presented the poison to them. But I know you to be the most generous, the most mild, the best of all men, that ever entered this place; and am certain, that, if you entertain any resentment upon this occasion, it will not be at me, but at the real authors of your misfortune. You know the message I bring; farewell: and endeavour to bear with patience what must be borne.‘ `And,’ said Socrates to the officer, who went out weeping, `fare thee well I will. How civil is this man I have found him the same all the time of my imprisonment he would often visit me, sometimes discourse with me, always used me kindly and now see, how generously he weeps for me. But come, Crito let us do as he bids us if the poison be ready, let it be brought in if not, let somebody prepare it.‘ `The sun is yet among the mountains, and not set,’ says Crito: `I myself have seen others drink it later, who have even eat and drunk freely with their friends after the sign has been given be not in haste, there is time enough.‘ `Why, yes,’ says Socrates, `they who do so think they gain something; but what shall I gain by drinking it late? Nothing, but to be laughed at, for appearing too desirous of life: pray, let it be as I say.‘ Then Crito sent one of the attendants, who immediately returned, and with him the man, who was to administer the poison, bringing a cup in his hand: to whom Socrates said, `Prithee, my good friend, for thou art versed in these things, what must I do?’ `Nothing,‘ said the man, `but walk about as soon as you shall have drunk, till you perceive your legs to fail; and then sit down.’ Then he presented the cup, which Socrates took without the least change of countenance, or any emotion whatever, but looking with his usual intrepidity upon the man. He then demanded, `Whether he might spill any of it in libation?‘ The man answered, `he had only prepared just what was sufficient.’ `Yes,‘ says Socrates, `I may pray to the gods, and will, that my passage hence may be happy, which I do beseech them to grant:’ and that instant swallowed the draught with the greatest ease. Many of us, who till then had refrained from tears, when we saw him put the cup to his mouth, and drink off the poison, were not able to refrain longer, but gave vent to our grief: which Socrates observing, `Friends,' said he, `what mean you? I sent away the women for no other reason, but that they might not disturb us with this: for I have heard that we should die with gratulation and applause: be quiet then, and behave yourselves like men.‘ These words made us wiih shame suppress our tears. When he had walked a while, and perceived his legs to fail, he lay down on his back, as the executioner directed: who, in a little time, looking upon his feet, and pinching them pretty hard, asked him, `If he perceived it?’ Socrates said, `No.‘ Then he did the same by his legs and shewing us, how every part successively grew cold and stiff, observed, that when that dullness reached his heart, he would die. Not long after, Socrates, removing the garment with which he was covered, said, ’ I owe a cock to Æsculapius; pay it, neglect it not.‘ `It shall be done,’ says Crito ‘would you have any thing else?’ He made no answer, but, after lying a while, stretched himself forth: when the executioner uncovering him found his eyes fixed, which were closed by Crito.” This,“says Plato,” was the end of the best, the wisest, and the justest of men" and this account of it by Plato, Cicero professes, that he could never read without tears.

He died, according to Plato, when he was more than seventy, 396 B. C. He was buried with many tears and much solemnity by his friends, among whom the excessive grief of Plato is noticed by Plutarch: yet, as soon as they performed that last service, fearing the cruelty of the thirty tyrants, they stole out of the city, the greater part to Euclid at Megara, who received them kindly; the rest to other places. Soon after, however, the Athenians were recalled to a sense of the injustice they had committed against Socrates; and became so exasperated, as to insist that the authors of it should be put to death. Melitus accordingly suffered, and Anytus was banished. In farther testimony of their penitence, they called home his friends to their former liberty of meeting; they forbade public spectacles of games and wrestlings for a time; they caused his statue, made in brass by Lysippus, to be set up in the Pompeium; and a plague ensuing, which they imputed to this unjust act, they made an order, that no man should mention Socrates publicly and on the theatre, in order to forget the sooner what they had done.

Socrates left behind him nothing in writing; but his illustrious pupils, Xenophon and Plato, have, in some measure, supplied this defect. The “Memoirs of Socrates,” however, written by Xenophon, afford a much more accurate idea of the opinions of Socrates, and of his manner of teaching, than the Dialogues of Plato, who every where mixes his own conceptions and diction, and those of other philosophers, with the ideas and language of his master. It is related, that when Socrates heard Plato recite his “Lysis,” he said, “How much does this young man make me say which I never conceived!” Xenophon denies that Socrates ever taught natural philosophy, or any mathematical science, and charges with misrepresentation and falsehood those who had ascribed to him dissertations of this kind; probably referring to Plato, in whose works Socrates is introduced as discoursing upon these subjects. The truth appears to be, that the distinguishing character of Socrates was, that of a moral philosopher.

The doctrine of Socrates, concerning God and religion, was rather practical than speculative. But he did not neglect to build the structure of religious faith upon the firm foundation of an appeal to natural appearances. He taught that the Supreme Being, though invisible, is clearly seen in his works, which at once demonstrate his existence, and his wise and benevolent providence. Besides the one supreme Deity, Socrates admitted the existence of beings who possess a middle station between God and man, to whose immediate agency he ascribed the ordinary phoenomena of nature, and whom he supposed to be particularly concerned in the management of human affairs. Hence, speaking of the gods, who take care of men, he says, “Le t it suffice you, whilst you observe their works, to revere and honour the gods and be persuaded, that this is the way in which they make themselves known for, among all the gods who bestow blessings upon men, there are none who, in the distribution of their favours, make themselves visible to mortals.” Hence he spoke of thunder, wind, and other agents in nature, as servants of God, and encouraged the practice of divination, under the notion, that the gods sometimes discover future events to good men.

If these opinions concerning the Supreme Being, and the subordinate divinities, be compared, there will be no difficulty in perceiving the grounds upon which Socrates, though an advocate for the existence of one sovereign power, admitted the worship of inferior divinities. Hence he declared it to be the duty of every one, in the performance of religious rites, to follow the customs of his country. At the same time, he taught, that the merit of all religious offerings depends upon the character of the worshipper, and that the gods take pleasure in the sacrifices of none but the truly pious. “The man,” says he, “who honours the gods according to his ability, ought to be cheerful, and hope for the greatest blessings: for, from whom may we reasonably entertain higher expectations, than from those who are most able to serve us? or how can we secure their kindness, but by pleasing them? or, how please them better, than by obedience?”

Concerning the human soul, the opinion of Socrates, according to Xenophon, was, tliat it is allied to the divine Bt-ing, not by a participation of essence, but by a similarity of nature; that man excels all other animals in the (acuity of reason, and that the existence of good men will be continued after death, in a state in which they will receive the reward of their virtue. Although it appears that, on this latter topic, Socrates was not wholly free from uncertainty, the consolation which he professed to derive from this source in the immediate prospect of death, leaves little room to doubt, that he entertained a real belief and expectation of immortality. The doctrine which Cicero ascribes to Socrates on this head is, that the human soul is a divine principle, which, when it passes out of the body, returns to heaven and that this passage is most easy to those who have, in this life, made the greatest progress in virtue.

, an ecclesiastical historian, who flourished about the middle of the fifth century, was born at Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius. He studied grammar under Helladius and Ammonius, who, having fled from Alexandria to Constantinople, had opened a school there; and, after he had finished his studies, for some time professed the law, and pleaded at the bar, whence he obtained the name of Scholasticus. In the decline of life he undertook to write the history of the church, beginning from 309, where Eusebius ends, and continued it down to 440, in seven books. This history is written, as Valesins his editor observes, with much judgment and exactness. His veracity may be presumed from his industry in consulting the original records, acts of council, bishops’ letters, and the writings of his contemporaries, of which he often gives extracts. He is also careful in setting down the succession of bishops, and the years in which every thing was transacted; and describes them by consuls and olympiads. His judgment appears in his reflections and observations, which are rational and impartial. He has been accused of being a Novatian; and it cannot be denied that he speaks well of that sect: yet, as Valesius has proved, he was not one of them, but adhered to the church, while he represents them as separated from it. What he says of these Novatians is only a proof of his candour and generous peaceable temper. His style is plain and easy; and has nothing in it of declamation, which he treats with contempt. His history has been translated into Latin, and published in Greek and Latin by Valesius, together with Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians; and republished, with additional notes by Reading, at London, 1720, 3 vols, folio. There is also an English edition printed at Cambridge, 1683, fol.

, a celebrated naturalist, the pupil of Linnæus, and the friend of sir Joseph Banks, was a native of the province of Nordland in Sweden, where his father was minister. He was born Feb. 28, 1736, and studied at Upsal, where he appears to have taken his degree of doctor in inedicine. Linnseus, who during his residence in England, had formed an intimacy with Mr. Peter Collinson, advised his pupil to visit England, and probably recommended him to that gentleman. Dr. Solander arrived in England in 1760, and in October 1762, was strongly recommended by Mr. Collinson to the trustees of the British Museum, as a person who had made natural history the study of his life, and was particularly qualified to draw up a catalogue of that part of their collection. Three years after, he obtained a closer connection with that institution, being appointed one of the assistants in the department of natural history. In 1764 he became a fellow of the Royal Society. In 1766, he drew up for Mr. Brander, the scientific descriptions of his Hampshire fossils, then published in a thin volume, 4to, entitled “Fossilia Hantoniensia, collecta, et in Musseo Britanmco deposita, a Gustavo Brander, R. S. et S. A. S. Mus. Brit. Cur.” Of his obligations to Dr. Solander, this gentleman thus speaks in his preface: “And now I think I have nothing more to do, than to acknowledge myself indebted for the scientific description of them to the learned and ingenious Dr. Solander, one of the officers of the British Museum, who is at this time employed by the trustees to compose a systematical catalogue of the natural productions of that entire collection.” It does not appear that this catalogue was ever completed.

“Dr. Solander, who had more than once crossed the mountains which divide Sweden from Norway, well knew that extreme cold, especially when juined with fatigue, produces a torpor and sleepiness that are almost irresistible: he therefore conjured the company to keep moving, whatever pain it might cost them, and whatever relief they might be promised by an inclination to rest. Whoever sits down, says he, will sleep; and whoever sleeps will wake no more. Thus, at once admonished and alarmed, they set forward but while they were still upon the naked rock, and before they had got among the bushes, the cold became suddenly so intense, as to produce the effects that had been dreaded. Dr. Solander himself was the first who found the inclination, against which he had warned others, irresistible; and insisted upon being suffered to lie down. Mr. Banks intreated and remonstrated in vain; down he lay upon the ground, though it was covered with snow; and it was with great difficulty that his friend prevented him from sleeping. Richmond also, one of the black servants, began to linger, having suffered from the cold in the same manner as the doctor. Mr. Banks, therefore, sent five of the company, among whom was Mr. Buchan, forward to get a fire read)', at the first convenient place they could find; and himself, with four others, remained with the doctor and Richmond, whom, partly by persuasion and intreaty, and partly by force, they brought on; but when they had got through the greatest part of the birch and swamp, they both declared they could go no farther. Mr. Banks had recourse again to entreaty and expostulation, but they produced no effect; when Richmond was told that if he did not go on he would in a short time be frozen to death; he answered, that he desired nothing but to lie down and die. The doctor did not so explicitly renounce his life; he said, he was willing to go on, but that he must first take some sleep, though he had bet >re told the company that to sleep was to perish. Mr. Banks and the rest found it impossible to carry them, and there being no remedy, they were both suffered to sit down, being partly supported by the bushes, and in a few minutes they fell into a profound sleep: soon after, some of the people who had been sent forward returned, with the welcome news that a fire was kindled about a quarter of a mile further on the way. Mr. Banks then endeavoured to wake Dr. Solander, and happily succeeded; but, though he had not slept five minutes, he had almost lost the use of liis limbs, and the muscles were so shrunk, that the shoes fell from his feet; he consented to go forward with such assistance as could be given him; but no attempts to relieve poor Richmond were successful. Mr. Banks, with much difficulty, at length got the doctor to the fire.” Richmond and a seaman finally perished from the cold; the remainder of the party, to the number of ten, happily regained the ship, alter the utmost difficulties and hazards. The “Dictionnaire Historique” affirms, that Dr. Solan. tier had a salary of 400l. sterling a year, during this voyage. “Whatever he had must have been t'ri>tn the munificence of Mr. Banks, as he had no public appointment. There can be no doubt that the zeal and generosity of that friend rewarded him very amply, both for the time employed in the voyage, and for that which he afterwards spent in arranging and describing the vast collection of plants which they had made. In 1773, Dr. Solander was advanced from the office of assistant to be one of the under-librarians in the British Museum. He died in consequence of a stroke of apoplexy, onMay Ui, 178 1. Dr. Pulteney, in his” Sket> of the progress of Botany in England,“regards the arrival of Dr. Solander in this country as an acra of importance in that history.” At this juncture,“he says,” it is material, among those circumstances which accelerated the progress of the new system, to mention the arrival of the late muchlamented Dr. Solander, who came into England on the 1st of July, 1760. His name, and the connection he was known to bear, as the favourite pupil of his great master, had of themselves some share in exciting a curiosity which led to information; while his perfect acquaintance with the whole scheme enabled him to explain its minutest parts, and elucidate all those obscurities with which, on a superficial view, it was thought to be enveloped. I add to this that the urbanity of his manners, and his readiness to afford every assistance in his power, joined to that clearness and energy with which he effected it, not only brought conviction of its excellence in those who were inclined to receive it, but conciliated the minds, and dispelled the prejudices, of many who had been averse to it.“It is testified of him by others, who knew him intimately, that to a very extensive knowledge he added a mode of communication, not only remarkable for its readiness, but for so peculiar a modesty, that he contrived almost to appear to receive instruction when he was bestowing it in the most ample manner. There are said to be some papers by him scattered in the various memoirs of philosophical societies; but in the transactions of the Royal Society of London, there is only one letter, which is in vol. LI I. p. 654, and is entitled,” Account of the Gardenia (Jasminoides), in a Letter to Philip Carteret Webb, esq. F. R. S. from Daniel C. Solander, M. D." Nor, though his time was always usefully employed, do we know of any other production of which he was the author. He was a short, fair man, rather fat with small eyes, and a good-humoured expression of countenance.

, was born at Montpellier in 16S7, of a noble family, and went early to Paris, where he was noticed at court, and soon employed in an honourable station in Poland. He there became acquainted with king Stanislaus, who took him, after a time, not only as his secretary, but as his friend. He followed this prince into France, when he went to take possession of Lorraine, and became secretary of that province, and perpetual secretary to the academy of Nanci. There he found leisure to cultivate literature and philosophy, and employed himself in writing. His learning was extensive and his manners amiable. He died in 1773, at the age of eighty. His principal works are, 1. “A History of Poland,” in 5 vols. 12mo. 2. “Eloge Historique du Roi Stanislas,” 8vo, written with feeling and with genius. 3. Several detached pieces in the Memoirs of the academy of Nanci.

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

, an ingenious Spanish writer, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at Placenza in Old Castile, July 18, 1610. He was sent to Salamanca to study law; but, having a natural turn for poetry, gave it the preference, and cultivated it with a success which did him great honour. He was but seventeen, when he wrote an ingenious comedy, called “Amor y Obligacion:” and he afterwards composed others, which were received with the highest applause. Antonio affirms him to have been the best comic poet Spain has ever seen. At six and twenty, he applied himself to ethics and politics. His great merit procured him a patron in the count d'Oropesa, viceroy then of Navarre, and afterwards of the kingdom of Valence, who appointed him his secretary. In 1642, when he wrote his comedy of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” for representation at Pampeluna, upon the birth of the count’s son, Philip IV. of Spain made him one of his secretaries; and, after Philip’s death, the queen regent made him first historiographer of the Indies, a place of great profit as well as honour. His “History of the Conquest of Mexico” was thought to justify this honour, and was much praised. But it is evident that his object was to celebrate the glories of Ferdinand Cortez, his hero, to whom he has imputed many strokes of policy, many reflections, and many actions, of which he was not capable; and he has very wisely closed his account with the conquest of Mexico, that he might not have occasion to introduce the cruelties afterwards committed. Nevertheless, the history is reckoned upon the whole very interesting, and has been translated into several languages; and he is better known for it, out of his own country, than for his poetry and dramatic writings, although they are said to be excellent. After living many years in the busy and gay world, he resolved to dedicate himself to the service of God, by embracing the ecclesiastical state; and accordingly was ordained a priest at fifty- seven. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon subjects of devotion, which are represented in Spain on certain festivals. He died April 19, 1686. His comedies were printed at Madrid in 1681, 4to; his sacred and profane poems, at the same place, 1716, 4to; his “History of Mexico” often, but particularly at Brussels in 1704, folio; with his life prefixed by D. Juan de Goyeneche. There is also a collection of his “Letters” published at Madrid in 1737.

, ben Abraham, ben Abdulla by his first wife Tanomata, was born at Bonda, a town founded by his father Ibrahim, in the kingdom of Futa or Sanaga, which lies on both sides the river Senegal or Sanaga, and extends as far as the Gambra. Being sent by his father, in Feb. 1731, to sell some slaves to captain Pyke, commander of a trading vessel belonging to Mr. Hunt, and not agreeing about their price, he set out with another black merchant on an expedition across the Gambra; but they were taken prisoners by the Mandingos, a nation at enmity with his own, and sold for slaves to captain Pyke aforesaid, who immediately sent proposals to his father for their redemption. The ship sailing before the return of an answer, Job was carried to Annapolis, and delivered to Mr. Denton, factor to Mr. Hunt. He sold him to Mr. Tolsey of Maryland, from whom, though kindly treated, he escaped; and, being committed to prison as a fugitive slave, discovered himself to be a Mahometan. Being at length conveyed to England, a letter addressed to him by his father fell into the hands of general Og!cthorpe, who immediately gave bond to Mr. Hunt for payment of a certain sum on his delivery, in England. Accordingly, he arrived in England in 1733; but Mr. Oglethorpe was gone to Georgia. Mr. Hunt provided him a lodging at Limehouse; and Mr. Bluet, who first found him out in Maryland, took him down to his house at Cheshunt. The African Company undertook for his redemption, which was soon effected by Nathaniel Brassey, esq. member for Hertford, for 40l. and 20l. bond and charges, by a subscription amounting to 60l. Being now free, he translated several Arabic Mss. for sir Hans Sloane, who got him introduced at court, and after fourteen months stay in London, he returned home loaded with presents to the amount of 500l. He found his father dead, and his native country depopulated by war. He was of a comely person, near six feet high, pleasant but grave countenance, acute natural parts, great personal courage, and of so retentive a memory, that he could repeat the Koran bv heart at fifteen, and wrote it over three times in England by memory.

, one of the seven wise men of Greece, as they are called, was born atS;t!amis, of Athenian parents, who were descended from Codrus, in the sixth century B. C. His father leaving little patrimony, he had recourse to merchandise for his subsistence. He hat!, however, a greater thirst after knowledge and fame, than after riches, and made his mercantile voyages subservient to the increase of his intellectual treasures. He very early cultivated the art of poetry, and applied himself to the study of moral and civil wisdom. When the Athenians, tired out with a long and troublesome war. with the Megarensians, for the recovery of the isle of Salamis, prohibited any one, under pain of death, to propose the renewal of their claim to that island, Solon, thinking the prohibition dishonourable to the state, and finding many of the younger citizens desirous to revive the war, feigned himself mad, and took care to have the report of his insanity spread through the city. In the mean time, he composed an elegy, adapted to the state of public affairs, which he committed to memory. Every tiling being thus prepared, he sallied forth into the market place, with the kind of cap on his head which was commonly worn by sick persons, and, ascending the herald’s stand, he delivered, to a numerous crowd, his lamentation for the desertion of Salamis. The verses were heard with general applause; and Pisistratus seconded his advice, and urged the people to renew the war. The decree was immediately repealed, and the conduct of the war being committed to Solon and Pisistratus, they defeated the Megarensians, and recovered Salamis. He afterwards acquired additional fame by a successful alliance which he formed among the states, in defence of the temple at Delphos, against the Cirrhoeans.

But the height of his glory was when the dissert dons and civil commotions among the Athenians rendered it necessary to vest the supreme powers of legislator and magistrate in one person, and when in 594 B. C. he was appointed to this high office under the title of Archon. This office he appears to have executed with such wisdom and firmness as to give universal satisfaction, and spread his fame through the most distant parts of the world. In the exercise of his power, he made a new distribution of the people, formed new courts of judicature, and framed a judicious code of laws, which afterwards became the basis of the laws of the twelve tables in Rome. At the opening of this new plan of government, Solon was every day visited by persons, who were desirous, either to propose questions concerning the meaning and application of his laws, or to suggest farther corrections and improvements. Finding these importunities troublesome, he determined to make his escape from the difficult situation in which he was placed, and to leave his laws to their own natural operation. For this purpose he obtained permission from the state to travel. His first voyage was to Egypt. Here he became acquainted with several of the more eminent priests of Heliopolis and Sais, by whom he was instructed in the Egyptian philosophy. One of his preceptors, boasting of the antiquity of the Egyptian wisdom, said to him, “Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children; you have not an old man among you.” From Egypt he sailed to Cyprus, where he formed an intimate friendship with Philocyprus, one of the princes of the island, and assisted him in founding a new city.

It is also related, that he visited Croesus, king of Lydia, and that, during the interview, the following interesting conversation passed between them. Croesus, after entertaining his guest with great splendour, and making an ostentatious display of the magnificence of his palace, desirous to extort from Solon expressions of admiration which he did not seem inclined to bestow, asked him, whom, of all mankind, he esteemed most happy Solon answered, “Tellus, the Athenian.” Crcesns, surprized that Solon should name any other man in preference to himself, requested to be informed of the grounds of this judgment. “Tellus,” replied Solon, “was descended from worthy parents, was the father of virtuous children, whom every one respected, and, at last, fell n tin engagement in which, before he expired, he saw his country victorious.” Croesus, flattering himself that he should at least obtain the second place, in Solon’s judgment, among the fortunate, inquired, whom, next to Tellus, he thought most happy? Solon, in return, said, two youths of Argos, Cleobis and Biton, who while they lived were universally admired for their fraternal affection to each other, and for their dutiful behaviour to their mother; and who, after they had given an illustrious example of filial piety, expired without sorrow or pain. Crcesus, mortified to find the condition of a private citizen of Athens or Argos preferred to his own, could no longer refrain from asking Solon, whether he meant wholly to exclude him from the number of the happy? Solon’s reply is a memorable proof of his wisdom: “The events of future life are uncertain; he who has hitherto been prosperous may be unfortunate to-morrow: let no man therefore be pronounced happy before his death.” This observation made so deep an impression upon the mind of Crcesus, that when afterwards, experiencing a reverse of fortune, he became a prisoner to Cyrus, and was brought forth to be put to death, he cried out, “O Solon! Solon!” Cyrus inquiring into the meaning of the exclamation, Crcesus informed him of what had formerly passed between himself and Solon. The consequence was, that Cyrus, struck with the wisdom of Solon’s remark, set Croesus at liberty, and treated him with all the respect due to his former greatness. The story is attended with some chronological difficulties; but it is so consonant to the character of Solon, and so admirable an example of the moral wisdom of those times, that we could not persuade ourselves to reject it.

Solon died in the island of Cyprus, about the eightieth year of his age. Statues were erected to his memory, both at Athens and Salamis. His thirst after knowledge continued to the last: “I grow old,” said he, “learning many things.” Among the apophthegms recorded of him, are, “Laws are like cobwebs, that catch the weak but are broken through by the strong;” “He who has learned to obey, will know how to command;” “In every thing you do, consider the end.” Laertius has mentioned among his writings, his orations, poems, laws, and an Atlantic history, completed afterwards by Plato and has preserved som epistles, but of doubtful authority.

, an eminent English lawyer, was born at Worcester, March 4, 1650, but no register of his baptism can be found. A house called White Ladies is shown on the east side of the cathedral, and very near St. MichaePs church, where he is said to have been born. His father, John Somers, was an attorney of considerable eminence, and had an estate of about 300l. per ann. at Clifton. During the rebellion he commanded a troop of horse, part of Cromwell’s army, but resigned his commission after the battle of Worcester, and returned to his profession, and, among other business, had the superintendance of the finances and estates of the Talbots, earls of Shrewsbury, which eventually produced a lasting friendship and cordiality between the duke of Shrewsbury and his son, the subject of this article. Of old Mr. Somers the following anecdote has been recorded: “He used to frequent the terms in London, and in his way from Worcester was wont to leave his horse at the George, at Acton, where he often made mention of the hopeful son he had at the Temple. Cobbet, who kept the inn, hearing him enlarge so much in praise of his son, to compliment the old gentleman, cried, ` Why wont you let us see him, Sir?‘ The father, to oblige his merry landlord, desired the young gentleman to accompany him so far on his way home; and being come to the George, took his landlord aside, and said, ’ I have brought him, Cobbet, but you must not talk to him as you do to me; he will not sutler such fellows as you in his company'.” After the restoration Mr. Somers obtained a pardon for what he might have committed while in the republican army, which pardon is still in the possession of the family. He died Jan. 1681, and was buried at Severnstoke, in the county of Worcester; where an elegant Latin inscription, engraved on a marble monument, and written by his son, is still to be seen.

In 1675, Mr. (afterwards lord) Somers, was entered as a commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford. In the year following he is known to have contributed 5l. towards the embellishment of the chapel and some years afterwards, as appears by the bursar’s book, 100l. more.It is said that he did not entirely quit the university until 1682, and had in the interim become a student of law in the Middle Temple, and returning to college took his degree of M. A, June 14, 1681. While studying- law, he never neglected the belles lettres, and it was by his amusements in that way, his translations, and poetical performances, that he first became known to the public At that time merit of this kind was a passport both to tame and riches, and Mr. Somers, who in some degree owed his promotion to the muses, showed himself not ungrateful when he endeavoured to raise into notice their favourite votary Addison. Sir Francis Winnington, then solicitor, was one of his earliest patrons. By such assistance, united to his own merit and application, he became, what was very rarely seen in those days, when a deeper legal knowledge was supposed essential to a barrister, an eminent counsel, before he had attained the age of thirty. It is imagined by some, that his early acquaintance vvth the duke of Shrewsbury, might have contributed to turn his attention to the law, and possibly accelerated his rapid progress in that profession. His abilities, however, and powerful oratory, were always exerted in favour of liberty, and in the support of that rational freedom which is equally opposed to licentiousness and slavery.

Having formed an acquaintance with lord Russell, Algernon Sidney, and other supporters of liberty at that time, he frequently employed his pen against the arbitrary proceedings of the reign of Charles II.; but as it was his practice to publish such pieces without his name, very few of them are now known, and these we shall notice at the conclusion of this article. In 1688, when in his thirtysixth year, he distinguished himself as counsel for the seven prelates who were tried for opposing the dispensing power of James II. He had afterwards a considerable share in concerting the measures for bringing about the revolution. He was chosen representative for his native city of Worcester, in the convention-parliament; and in the conference between the two houses about the word abdicated, on which he delivered a celebrated speech, he was appointed one of the managers for the House of Commons.

On the accession of king William, Mr. Somers was rewarded for his exertions, by being, on May 9, 1689, made solicitor-general, elected recorder of Gloucester in 1690, appointed attorney-general, on May 2, 1692, and lordkeeper in 1693. We may judge of his popularity, his activity, and political skill, by the following expression of lord Sunderland, in a letter to king William, written about this period: “Lord Somers,” says he, “is the life, the soul, the spirit of his party; and can answer for it” A character of such influence was not to be neglected by a yet unestablished monarch, and accordingly king William, who had conferred the honour of knighthood on Mr. Somers when solicitor-general, now created him baron of Evesham, and lord chancellor of England. For the support of these dignities and honours, his majesty made him a grant of the manors of Ryegate and Howlegh, in Surrey, and another grant of 2, 100l. per annum out of the fee-farm rents of the crown. Lord Orford, in a note on his very flippant character of lord Somers, thinks these grants formed an alloy, but has not told us how lord Somers’s rank was to be kept up without them. “One might as well,” observes lord Hardwicke, “lay a heavy charge on his father’s (sir Robert Walpole) memory, for the grants of lucrative offices obtained for his family, and taking a pension when he resigned. Lord Somers raised no more from his offices and grants than a fortune which enabled him to live with decency and elegance.”

Before the king’s departure for Holland, in the summer of the year 1697, his majesty communicated to lord Somers a proposition made by count Tallard, to prevent a war about the succession to the crown of Spain, upon the death of the then monarch of that kingdom; and the chancellor afterwards received a letter from his majesty, then in Holland, informing him, that fresh offers had been made to the same purpose; and requiring him to dispatch full powers, under the great seal, with the names in blank, to empower his majesty to treat with the before mentioned Count. This order he accordingly complied with; and the negociations being immediately entered upon, a treaty was concluded. This was the first Partition-treaty; and in the next session of parliament, which began Nov. 16, 1699, great complaints were made in the House of Commons against the chancellor; and the House being resolved, on Dec. 6, to push the resumption of the grants of the Irish forfeited estates, by tacking it to the land-tax-bill, an address was concerted on April 10, 1700, praying, that “John lord Somers, lord chancellor of England, should be removed for ever from his majesty’s presence and councils;” but the majority of the House voted against any such address. However, the parliament being prorogued the next day, his majesty sent for the lord chancellor, and desired him to surrender the seals voluntarily; but this his lordship declined, thinking that it would imply a consciousness of guilt, He told the king, however, that whensoever his majesty should send a warrant under his hand, commanding him to deliver them up, he would immediately obey it. Accordingly an order was brought to him for this purpose by lord Jersey, upon which the seals were sent to the king. Thus was lord Somers removed from the post of chancellor, the duties of which he had discharged with great integrity and ability; and although this was contrary to the king’s inclinations to make such a sacrifice, “was not sufficient to appease the tory party, who now formed a design to impeach him. This his lordship in some measure anticipated, by sending, os> April 14, 1701, a message to the House of Commons, in which,” having heard tiiat the House was in a debate concerning him, he desired that he might be admitted and heard.“This was granted, and a chair being set by the Serjeant, a little wittiin the bar on the left hand, he had directions to acquaint lord Somers r that he might come in; and on his entrance the Speaker informed him, that he might repose himself in the chair provided for him. His lordship then defended himself with respect to his share in concluding the partition-treaty, which was the principal charge against him in that House, and, according to Burnet,” spoke so fully aud clearly, that, upon his withdrawing, it was believed, if the question had been quickly put, the whole matter had b*>en soon at an end, aud that the prosecution would have been let fall. But his enemies drew out the debate to such a length, that the impression, which his speech had made, was much worn out; and the House sitting till it was past midnight, they at last carried it by a majority of seven or eight to impeach him."

rairer of lord Somers, aud who defends tins favourite maxim, in which he was

fectiug his character than all that his and intellects (jod ever bestowed oa contemporary enemies had advanced. man, were reduced before his final di. ­“His (lord Somers’s) ideas, astocmi- solution.” We know not how to renexion with women (having been dis- concile this with Miss M ore’s introdui 1 ­appuinted in his first attachment, on ing his lordship in her “Religion of lite which he renounced ever after the Fashionable World.” as one who " was thought of marrying) were such as he not only remarkable for a strict attendprofesses and teaches in the Tale of a ance on the public duties of religion.

fora g'iceque. Nor did any ri:aii-ever exactness in his family.“ Many are the encomiums which have been bestowed upon this noble and illustrious person. Burnet tells us that” he was very learned in his own profession, with a great deal more learning in other professions; in divinity, philosophy, and history. He had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; for he was fair and gentle, perhaps to a fault, considering his post: so that he ru:d all the patience and softness, as well as the justice and equity, becoming a great magistrate.“Lord Orford calls him” one of those divine men, who, like a chapel in a palace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest i tyranny, corruption, and folly. All the traditional accounts of him, the historians of the last age, and its best authors, represent him as the most incorrupt lawyer, and the honestest statesman, as a master-orator, a genius of the finest taste, and as a patriot of the noblest and most extensive views; as a man who dispensed blessings by his life, and planned them for posterity.“He was a very great patron of men of parts and learning, and particularly of Mr. Addison, who has drawn his character at large in one of his” Freeholders,“in that of May 4, 1716, where he has chosen -his lordship’s motto for that of his paper,” Prodesse quam conspici.“Lord Somers was one of those who first redeemed Milton’s” Paradise Lost“from that obscurity in which party-prejudice and hatred had suffered it long to lie neglected, and who pointed out the merits of that noble poem. The most unfavourable character of lord Somers is that drawn by Swift, once his friend, as appears by the dedication of the” Tale of a Tub,“if that be Swift’s; and here we may notice that lord Somers’s biographer, Mr. Cooksey, offers some arguments, and combines some facts, to prove that this satire was the production of his lordship, and of his gay young friend lord Shrewsbury. The characters of Peter, Jack, and Martin, are said to have been sketched from living persons, and these sketches of character, after many years remaining in ms. and passing through the hands of lord Shaftesbury and sir William Temple, are said to have been published by dean Swift. That this work was the sportive production of Mr. Somers,” I have no doubt,“says Mr. Cooksey,” from the private tradition of the family, and drawn by him from real life, and originals within his own observation.“Blurton, the uncle of Mr. Somers, a good and pious man, furnished, it is said, the portrait of the church of England man. The character of Jack, the Calvinist, exhibited that of his grandfather, Somers, who was so devoted an admirer of Richard Baxter, of presbyterian memory, as to be induced to spend most of his latter days with him at Kidderminster, and to direct his remains to be deposited under a cross in the church-yard there, as he supposed the ground hallowed by die sanctity of Baxter. Peter had his lineaments from father Petre, the Jesuit. Lord Somers’s later biographer, Mr. Maddock, after examining the probability of this story, discredits it, and leaves the” Tale of a Tub" the property of its generally reputed author, dean Swift; and most readers, we apprehend, will be more inclined to acquiesce in the opinion of Mr. Maddock than in that of Mr. Cooksey.

which married sir Philip Yorke, who thereby came to the right of the fourth share of that collection, and purchased the other fourth. They consisted of about 6000 articles, and were valued at near 4000l. by Mr. Gyles and Mr. Charles Davies. I was employed, when apprentice to Mr. Gyles, in dividing them between sir Joseph Jekyll and sir Philip Yorke, previous to which I called them over, to see if they answered the catalogue. Every book almost went through my hands four or five times. This gave me a.n opportunity, when young, of attaining the knowledge. of many scarce books, much sooner than the common course of business would have done. The catalogue was excellently well ranged in sciences and their subdivisions, *by the care, I heard, of the rev. Humphrey Wanley. It was about 17X1 the affair was finished. A fine collection of Bibles in all languages made a part."

Lord Somers never married. The two sisters mentioned by Mr. Whiston, were Mary, who married Charles Cocks, esq. grandfather to Charles Cocks, created baron Somers in 1784; and Catherine, who married James Harris, esq. of Salisbury, the ancestor of lord Malmsbury. The eldest daughter by this marriage, Elizabeth, married sir Joseph Jekyl, master of the rolls, who introduced Mr. Yorke to Mr. Cocks, as a proper match for his eldest daughter, Margaret, then the young widow of Mr. William Lygon of Madersfield.

His distresses, says Dr. Johnson, need not be much pitied: his estate is?aid to have been fifteen hundred a year, which by his death devolved to lord Somervile, of Scotland. His mother, indeed, who lived till ninety, had a jointure of six hundred. Dr. Johnson regrets his not being better enabled to exhibit memorials of a writer, who at least must be allowed to have set a good example to men of his own class, by devoting part of his time to elegant knowledge; and who has shewn by the subjects which his poetry has adorned, thn it is practicable to be at once a skilful sportsman and a man of letters. He tried many modes of poetry; and though perhaps he has not in any reached such excellence as to raise much envy, it may commonly be said at least, that “he writes very well for a gentleman.” His serious pieces are sometimes elevated, and his trifles are sometimes elegant. His subjects are commonly such as require no great depth of thought or energy of expression. His fables are generally stale, and therefore excite no curiosity. Of his favourite, The Two Springs, the fiction is unnatural, and the moral inconsequential. In his Tales there is too much coarseness, with too little care of language, and not sufficient rapidity of narration. As a poet, however, he is chiefly known by his “Chace,” which is entitled to great praise as a descriptive poem.

In 1640 he published “The Antiquities of Canterbury,” 4to; an accurate performance, and very seasonably executed, as it preserved from oblivion many monuments of antiquity, which were soon after buried by civil discord iti ruin. This work obtained a high character; and Dr. Meric Casaubon, prebendary of Canterbury, and a great encourager of our author in his studies, represents it as “exceedingly useful, not only to -those who desire to know the state of that once flourishing city, but to all that are curious in the ancient English history.” It was reprinted in folio, with cuts, and revised and enlarged by the editor, Nicholas Batteley, to which he added a second part, of his own composition. Thus far Somner had searched only into the Latin writers, and such national records as had been penned since the Norman conquest: but his thirst after antiquities urged him to proceed, and to attain the British and Saxon tongues. To acquire the British, there were rules of grammar, explications of words, and other sufficient memoirs, besides the living dialect, to guide a man of industry and resolution; but the Saxon was extinct, and the monuments of it so few and so latent, that it required infinite courage as well as patience. Encouraged, however, by his friend Casaubon, and being of an active spirit, he did not despair; but, beginning his work, he succeeded so wonderfully, as to be compared with the most knowing rn that way: and he has always been ranked by the best judges among the few complete critics in the Saxon language. His skill in this obliged him to inquire into most of the ancient European languages; and made him also go through the Old Gaelic, Irish, Scotch, and Danish dialects, and yet more particularly the Gothic, Sclavonian, and German. Of his perfection in the latter he gave the world a public specimen on the following occasion. While his friend Casaubon was employed in an essay on the Saxon tongue, he met with an epistle of Lipsius to Schottus, which contained a large catalogue of old German words, in use with that nation eight or nine hundred years before. Casaubon thought that many of them had a great affinity to the Saxon; and, therefore, being then in London, sent down the catalogue to Somner at Canterbury; who in a few days returned his animadversions upon them, and shewed the relation of the German with the Saxon language. They were published as an appendix to Casaubon’s essay in 1650, 8vo; at which time the same Casaubon informs us, il that Somner would have printed all his useful labours, and have written much more, if that fatal catastrophe had not interposed, which brought no less desolation upon letters than upon the land."

Somner' s reputation was now so well established that no monuments of antiquity could be further published without his advice and helping hand. In 1652, when a collection of historians came forth under this title “Histories Anglicanze Scriptores X. ex vet. Mss. mine primuin in lucem editi,” the Appendix, or Glossarium, (SeeyEu-Ric,) was the labour of Mr. Somner: whom sir Roger Twisden, who, with the assistance of archbishop Usher and Mr. Selden, published these historians, represents in the preface as “a man of primitive probity and candour, a most sagacious searcher into the antiquities of his country, and most expert in the Saxon tongue.” Hickes afterwards calls this glossary of Sotnner’s “incomparable, a truly golden work without which the ten historians luid been imperfect and little useful.” Somner’s friends had still more work for him: they observed it was impossible to cultivate any language, or recommend it to learners, without the help of a dictionary; and this was yet wanting to the Saxon. On him, therefore, they laid the mighty task of compiling one: but, as this work required much time and great expence, it became an object to contrive some competent reward and support, besides affording him their countenance and assistance. Sir Henry Spelman had founded at Cambridge a lecture for “promoting the Saxon tongue, either by reading it publicly, or by the edition of Saxon manuscripts, and other books:” and, this lecture being vacant in 1657, archbishop Usher recommended Somner to the patron, Roger Spelman, esq. srrandson of the founder, that “he would confer on him the pecuniary stipend, to enable him to prosecute a Saxon dictionary, which would more improve that tongue, than bare academic lectures.” Accordingly, Somner had the salary, and now pursued the work, in which he had already made considerable progress; for it was published at Oxford in April 1659, with an inscription to all students in the Saxon tongue, a dedication to his patron Roger Speiman, esq. and a preface.

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

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

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

, founder of the celebrated college called after him, was born October 9, 1201, at Sorbonne, otherwise Sorbon, a little village of Rhetelois in the diocese of Rheinis, whence he had his name. His family was poor and obscure, and not of the blood royal as Dupleix imagined. He distinguished himself as a student at Paris, and after having taken a doctor’s degree, devoted his whole attention to preaching and religious conferences, by which he soon became so celebrated that St. Louis wished to hear him. This prince immediately conceived the highest esteem for Sorbonne, invited him to his own table, took great pleasure in his conversation, and in order to have him more constantly about his person, appointed him his chaplain and confessor. Robert, being made canon of Cambray about 1251, and reflecting on the pains it had cost him to obtain a doctor’s degree, determined to facilitate the acquisition of learning to poor scholars. For this purpose he judged that the most convenient and efficacious plan would be to form a society of secular ecclesiastics, who, living in a community, and having the necessaries of life provided for them, should be wholly employed in study, and teach gratis. All his friends approved the design, and offered to assist him both with their fortunes and their advice. With their assistance, Robert de Sorbonne founded, in 1253, the celebrated college which bears his name. He then assembled able professors, those most distinguished for learning and piety, and lodged his community in the rue des deux portes, opposite to the palace des Thermes. Such was the origin f the famous college of Sorbonne, which proved the model of all others, there having been no society in Europe before that time where the seculars lived and taught in common, 'i he founder had two objects in view wi tins establishment, theology and the arts; but as his predilection was to the former, he composed his society principally of doctors and bachelors in divinity. Some have said that his original foundation was only for sixteen poor scholars (boursiers) or fellows; but it appears by his statutes that from the first establishment, it consisted of doctors, bachelor-fellows, bachelors not fellows, and poor students as at present, or at least lately. The number of fellows was not limited, but depended on the state of the revenues. The number in the founder’s time appears to have been about thirty, and he ordered that there should be no other members of his college than guests and associates (hospites et socii), who might be chosen from any country or nation whaieu-r. A guest, or perhaps as we should call him, a commoner, was required to be a bachelor, to maintain a thesis, tailed, from the founder’s name, Robertine, and was to be admitted by a majority of votes after three different scrutinies. These hospites remained part of the establishment until the last, were maintained and lodged in the house like the rest of the doctors and bachelors, had a right to study in the library (though without possessing a key), and enjoyed all other rights and privileges, except that they had no vote in the assemblies, and were obliged to quit the house on becoming doctors. For an associate, Socius, it was necessary, besides the Robertine thesis, to read a course of philosophical lectures gratis. In 1764, when the small colleges were united with that of Louis-le-grand, the course of philosophy was discontinued, and a thesis substituted in its place, called the second Robertine.

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

, an Egyptian mathematician, whose principal studies were chronology and the mathematics in general, and who flourished in the time of Julius Cxsar, is represented as well versed in the mathematics and astronomy of the ancients; particularly of those celebrated mathematicians, Thales, Archimedes, Hipparchus, Calippus, and many others, who had undertaken to determine the quantity of the solar year; which they had ascertained much nearer the truth than one can well imagine they could, with instruments so very imperfect; as may appear by reference to Ptolomy’s Almagest. It seems Sosigenes made great improvements, and gave proofs of his being able to demonstrate the certainty of his discoveries; by which means he became popular, and obtained repute with those who had a genius to understand and relish such inquiries. Hence he was sent for by Julius Caesar, who being convinced of his capacity, employed him in reforming the calendar; and it was he who formed the Julian year, which begins 45 years before the birth of Christ. His other works are lost since that period.

, a learned Dominican, of great fame under the emperor Charles V. was born at Segovia in 1494. His father, who was a gardener, would have bred him to his own profession, but having learned to write and read, he went to a small town near Segovia, where he performed the office of sacristan. By persevering in study, he fitted himself for the university of Aicala, and proceeded from thence to Paris. It was after his return into Spain that he became a Dominican, and appeared with great distinction in the university of Salamanca. His reputation was now so high, that he was chosen by the emperor Charles V. as arbitrator in some important disputes, and appointed in 1545 his first theologian at the council of Trent. In that assembly he was one of the most active and esteemed members. He spoke frequently, and took the charge of forming the decrees from the decisions which had passed. Every one was fond of consulting him, and this peculiar distinction was the more remarkable, as there were more than fifty bishops, and other theologians, of the same order in the assembly. He refused the bishopric of Segovia, and though he had not been able to decline the appointment of confessor to Charles V. he resigned it as soon as he could with propriety. He died in 1560, at the age of sixty-six. He published, 1. two books “on Nature, and on Grace,” Paris, 1549, 4to, and dedicated them to the-fathers of the council. 2. “Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans,” 1550, folio. 3. “Commentaries on the Master of Sentences,” folio. 4. “De justitia etjure,” two treatises, in folio. 5. “De legend is secretis,” 8vo. 6. “De pauperum causa.” 7.“De cavendo iurarjientorum abusu.” 8. “Apologia contra Ambrosium Catharinum,” &c.

, a contemporary of the preceding, but more connected with this country, was born at Cordova, and educated among the Dominicans of Salamanca. Having distinguished himself in the duties of the cloister, and made an eqiujl progress in learning, especially divinity and the sacred languages, he was called to court, and was successively confessor to the king of Spain, and to Charles V. of Germany, who employed him to write against the Lutherans. When Philip of Spain married our queen Mary, Soto was one of those Spanish divines who attended him to England, and settled at Oxford, where he was professor of divinity, and sometimes read a Hebrew lecture, as Wood supposes, for Dr. Bruerne, the Hebrew professor. This occurred in 1556; and, the year before, Soto had been incorpora; ed D. D. in this university. After the death of queen Mary, he was called to the council of Trent, where be died in April 1563. He published “Institutiones Chris, tiana?,” 1548, and some other works of the controversial kind against John Brentius, or Brent. Dodd says he was a zealous assertor of church discipline, as appears by a letter which he wrote to pope Pius IV. in his last sickness, in which he insists that the residence of bishops should be declared dejure divino.

, a French writer who died in 1746, at the age of fifty-nine, was born at Saint-Amand, near Vendome, and educated by an uncle. Removing to Paris, he gained the applause and esteem of all the learned; and in 1720 was elected into the academy of inscriptions, in whose memoirs his dissertations make a distinguished figure. He was not without preferment also, being canon ofRodez, counsellor to the king, and reader and professor of eloquence in the college royal. The abbe Souchai is said to have formed in himself the rare union of profound knowledge and elegant manners. He wrote, 1. a French translation of Brown’s Vulgar Errors, entitled “Essais sur les Erreurs Populaires,” 2 vols. 12mo. 2. An edition of the works of Peiisson, 3 vols. 12mo. 3. Remarks on d'Audilly’s Josephus, in the edition of Paris, 1744. 4. An edition of Boileau’s works, 1740, 2 vols. 4 to. 5. An edition of the “Astrea” of Honore d'Urfe, in which the language is modernized, and the conversations abridged, 1733, 10 vols. 12mo. 6. An edition of “Ausonius,” in 4to, with copious notes. 7. The dissertations above-mentioned in the Memoirs of the Academy.

Soufflot was much beloved by his relations and friends, who, knowing the excellence of his heart, were not offended by a kind of warmth and roughness of character which was peculiar to him. They called him jocularly “Le bourru bienfaisant,” the benevolent humourist, as we may perhaps translate it; from the title of a comedy then fashionable. He did not live to finish the church of St. Genevieve; but, besides the buildings here mentioned, he was concerned in many others, particularly the beautiful theatre at Lyons.

, an English divine of great parts and learning, but of very inconsistent character, was the son of a merchant in London, and born at Hackney, in Middlesex, 1633. He was educated in Westminster-school, under Dr. Busby, where he acquired an uncommon share of grammatical and philological learning. In 1648 he made himself remarkable by reading the Latin prayers in the school, on the day in which king Charles was beheaded, and praying for that prince by name. He continued four years at Westminster, and in 1651 was elected thence student of Christchurch, Oxford. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1654; and the same year wrote a copy of Latin verses, to congratulate the protector Cromwell upon the peace concluded with the Dutch. They were published in a collection of poems by the university. The year after, he published another Latin poem, entitled “Musica Incantans; sive Poema exprimens Musicse vires juvenem in insaniam abigentis, et?lusici hide periculum.” This was at that time highly appLuded for the beauty of the language, and was printed at the request of Dr. Fell; but it is said that Dr. South, to his dying day, regretted the publication of it, as a juvenile and trifling performance. He commenced M. A. in June 1657, alter performing all the preparatory exercises for it with the highest applause, and such wit and humour, as justly entitled him to represent the Terra: F'dius, in which character he spoke the usual speech at the celebration of the act the same year. He preached frequently, and (as Wood thinks) without any orders. He appeared, at St. Mary’s, the great champion for Calvinism against Sociniuuism and Arminianisir; and his behaviour was such, and his talents esteemed so exceedingly useful and serviceable, that the heads of that party were considering how to give proper encouragement and proportionable preferment to so hopeful a convert. In the mean time the protector Cromwell died and then, the presbyterians prevailing over the independents,South sided with them. He began to contemn, and in a manner to defy, the dean of his college. Dr. Owen, who was reckoned the head of the independent party; upon which the doctor plainly told him, that he was one who “sate in the seat of the scornful.” The author of the memoirs of South’s life tells us, that he was admitted into holy orders according to the rites and ceremonies of the church or England, in 1658. In July 1659, he preached the assize-sermon at Oxford, in which he inveighed vehemently against the independents; and by this greatly pleased the presbyterians, who made him their acknowledgments. The same year, when it was visible that the king would be restored, he appeared someuhat irresolute, yet was still reckoned a member of “the fanatic ordinary,” as Wood expresses it; but, as his majesty’s restoration approached, he began to exercise his pulpittalents, which were very great, as much against the presbyterians, as he had done before against the independents. Such was the conduct and behaviour of this celebrated divine in the earlier part of his life, as it is described by his contemporary in the university, Mr. Anthony Wood; and if Wood was not unreasonably prejudiced against him, he is, doubtless, to be classed among those time-servers, who know no better use of the great abilities God has given them, than to obtain the favour of those who can reward them best .

He seems to have proceeded as he had begun; that is, he pushed himself on by an extraordinary zeal for the powers that were; and he did not succeed amiss. On Aug. 10, 1660, he was chosen public orator of the university , and at the same time “tugged bird,” says Wood, “such was the high conceit of his worth, to be canon of Christcburch, as belonging to that office; but was kept back by the endeavours of the dean. This was a great discontent to him; and not being able to conceal it, he clamoured at it, and shewed much passion in his sermons till he could get preferment, which made them therefore frequented by the generality, though shunned by some. This person, though he was a junior master, and h;id never suffered for the royal cause, yet so great was his conceit, or so blinded he was with ambition, that he thought he could never be enough loaded with preferment; while others, who had suffered much, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, could get nothing.” South’s talents, however, might be of use, and were not to be neglected; and these, together with his ardent zeal, which he was ever ready to exert on all occasions, recommended him effectually to notice and preferment. In 1661 he became domestic chaplain to lord Clarendon, chancellor of England, and of the university of Oxford; and, in March 1663, was installed prebendary of Westminster. On October the 1st following, he was admitted to the degree of D. D.; but this, as Wood relates, not without some commotion in the university. “Letters were sent by lord Clarendon, in behalf of his chaplain South, who was therein recommended to the doctorate: but some were so offended, on account of certain prejudices against South, whom they looked upon as a mere time-server, that they stiffly denied the passing of these letters in convocation.” A tumult arose, and they proceeded to a scrutiny; after which the senior proctor, Nathaniel Crew, fellow of Lincoln-college, and afterwards bishop of Durham, did “according to his usual perfidy, which,” says Wood, “he frequently exercised in his office; for he was born and bred a presbyterian”) pronounce him passed by the major part of the house; in consequence of which, by the double presentation of Dr. John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry, he was first admitted bachelor, then doctor of divinity.

Afterwards he had a sinecure in Wales bestowed upon him by his patron the earl of Clarendon and, at that earl’s retirement into France in 1G67, became chaplain to James duke of York. In 1670, he was made canon of Christ church, Oxibrd. In 1676, he attended as chaplain Laurence Hyde, esq. ambassador extraordinary to the king of Poland; of which journey he gave an account, in a letter to Dr. Edward Pocock, dated from Dantzick the 16th of Dec. 1677; which is printed in the “Memoirs of his Life.” In 167S, iie was nominated by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire; and, in 16SO, rebuilt the chancel of that church, as he did afterwards the rectory-house. He also allowed an hundred pounds per annum to his curate, and expended the rest in educating and apprenticing the poorer children of the parish. Jn I6bl he exhibited a remarkable example of accommodating his principles to those of the times. Being now one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary, he preached before his majesty upon these words, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing of it is of the Lord.” In this sermon he introduced three remarkable instances of unexpected advancements, those of Agathocles, Massaniello, and Oliver Cromwell. Of the latter he says, “And who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the parliament house with a threadbare torn cloak, greasy hat (perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne r” At this, the king is said to have fallen into a violent tit of laughter, and turning to Dr. South’s patron, Mr. Laurence Hyde, now created lord Rochester, said, “Odds fish, Lory, your chaplain must be a bishop, therefore put me in mind of him at the next death!”

Wood observes, that Dr. South, notwithstanding his various preferments, lived upon none of them; but upon his temporal estate at Caversham near Reading, and, as the people of Oxford imagined, in a discontented and clamorous condition for want of more. They were mistaken, however, if the author of the Memoirs of his Life is to be depended on, who tells us, that he refused several offers of bishoprics, as likewise that of an archbishopric in Ireland, which was made him in James the Second’s reign, by his patron the earl of Rochester, then lord lieutenant of that kingdom. But this was only rumour; and there is little reason to suppose that it had any foundation. South’s nature and temper were violent, domineering, and intractable to the last degree; and it is more than probable, that his patrons might not think it expedient to raise him higher, and by that means invest him with more power than he was likely to use with discretion. There is a particular recorded, which shews, that they were no strangers to his nature. The earl of Rochester, being solicited by James II. to change his religion, agreed to be present at a dispute between two divines of the church of England, and two of the church of Rome; and to abide by the result of it. The king nominated two for the Popish side, the earl two for the Protestant, one of whom was South; to whom the king objected, saying, that he could not agree to the choice of South, who instead of arguments would bring railing accusations, and had not temper to go through a dispute that required the greatest attention and calmness: upon which Dr. Patrick, then dean of Peterborough, and minister of St. Paul’s, Covent garden, was chosen in his stead.

, an English dramatic writer, who has been very improperly admitted by Wood into the “Athenae Oxonienses,” and grossly misrepresented in every particular, was born at Dublin in 1659, and was admitted a student of Trinity college, March 30, 1676, where Dr. Whitenhall was his tutor. In his eighteenth year, he quitted Ireland, and removed to the Middle-Temple, London, where he devoted himself to play-writing and poetry, instead of law. His “Persian Prince, or Loyal Brother,” in 1682, was introduced at a time when the Tory interest was triumphant in England; and the character of the Loyal Brother was no doubt intended to compliment James duke of York, who afterwards rewarded him. After his accession to the throne, Southern went into the army, and served as ensign, upon the duke of Monmouth’s landing, in earl Ferrers’s regiment, before the duke of Berwick had it. This affair being over, he retired to his studies; and wrote several plays, from which he is supposed to have drawn a very handsome subsistence. In the preface to his tragedy called “The Spartan Dame,” he acknowledges, that he received from the booksellers as a price for this play 150l. which was thought in 1721, the time of its being published, very extraordinary. He was the first who raised the advantage of play-writing to a second and third night; which Pope mentions in these lines:

The reputation which Dryden gained by the many prologues he wrote, made the players always solicitous to have one of his, as being sure to be well received by the public. Dryden’s price for a prologue had usually been four guineas, with which sum Southern once presentee; him when Dryden, returning the money, said, “Young man, this is too little, I must have six guineas.” Southern answered, that four had been his usual price: “Yes,” says Dryden, “it has been so, but the players have hitherto had my labours too cheap; for the future I must have six guineas.” Southern also was industrious to draw all imaginable profits from his poetical labours. Dryden once took occasion to ask him, how much he got by one of his plays? Southern said, after owning himself ashamed to tell him, 7OO/.; which astonished Dryden, as it was more by 6OO/, than he himself had ever got by his most successful plays. But it appears that Southern was not beneath the arts of solicitation, and often sold his tickets at a very high price, by making applications to persons of quality and distinction; a degree of servility, which Dryden might justly think below the dignity of a poet, and more in the character of an under-player. Dryden entertained a high opinion of Southern’s abilities; and prefixed a copy of verses to a comedy of his, called “The Wife’s Excuse,” acted in 1692. The night that Southern’s “Innocent Adultery” was first acted, which has been esteemed by some the most adocting play in any language, a gentlemnu took occasion to ask Dryden, “what was his opinion of Southern’s genius?” who replied, “that he thought him such another poet as Otway.” Such indeed was Dry den’s opinion of his talents, that being unable to finish his “Cieomenes,” he consigned it to the care of Southern, who wrote one half of the fifth act of that tragedy, and was with reason highly flattered by this mark of the author’s confidence and esteem. Of all Southern’s plays, ten in number, the most finished is “Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave:” which is built upon a real fact, related by Mrs. Beha in a novel. Besides the tender and delicate strokes of passion in this play, there are many shining and manly sentiments; and some have gone so far beyond the truth as to say, that the most celebrated even of Shakspeare’s plays cannot furnish so many striking thoughts, and such a glow of animated poetry. Southern died May 26, 1746, aged eighty-five. He lived the last ten years of his life in Tothill street, Westminster, and attended the abbey service very constantly; being particularly fond of church music. He is said to have died the oldest and the richest of his dramatic brethren. Oldys, in his ms additions to Gildon’s continuation of Langbaine, says, that he remembered Mr. Southern “a grave and venerable old gentleman. He lived near Covent-garden, and used often to frequent the evening prayers there, always neat and decently dressed, commonly in black, with his silver sword and silver locks; but latterly it seems he resided at Westminster.” The late poet Gray, in a letter to Mr. Walpole, dated from Burnham in Buckinghamshire, in Sept. 1737, has also the following observation concerning this author: “We have old Mr. Southern at a gentleman’s house a little way off, who often comes to see us; he is now seventy-seven years old, and has almost wholly lost his memory; but is as agreeable an old man as can be; at least I persuade myself so when I look at him, and think of Isabella and Oroonoko.” Mr. Mason adds in a note on this passage, that “Mr. Gray always thought highly of his pathetic powers, at the same time that he blamed his ill taste for mixing them so injudiciously with farce, in order to produce that monstrous species of composition called Tragi-comedy.” Mr. Southern, however, in the latter part of his life, was sensible of the impropriety of blending tragedy and comedy, and used to declare to lord Corke his regret at complying with the licentious taste of the time. His dramatic writings were for the first time completely published by T. Evans, in 3 vols. 12mo.

, a late worthy divine and antiquary, was born at Alwalton, in Huntingdonshire, March 16, 1729. He was the son of William Southgate, a considerable farmer of that place, and of Hannah, the daughter of Robert Wright, of Castor, in Northamptonshire, a surveyor and civil engineer. He was the eldest of ten children, three of whom died in infancy, and all the rest survived him. He was educated for some time at a private school at Uppingham, but chiefly at the free grammar-school at Peterborough, under the rev. Thomas Marshall, an excellent scholar, who became afterwards his cordial friend. The rapidity of his acquisitions at this school gained him the esteem of many, particularly of Dr. John Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, an intimate friend of his father. Under the patronage of this prelate, and with an exhibition from Peterborough, he removed to Cambridge, where he was entered of St. John’s college in 1745, under Mr. (afterwards the learned Dr.) Rutherforth, to whom he was recommended with great warmth by his friend and late master, Mr. Marshall.

At the university he studied hard, and lived retired, delighted with the opportunities for improvement which a college life affords, and in Easter term, 1749, took his degree of A. B. and was on the list of honours on the first tripos. Some unpleasant occurrences in his family, however, obliged him to leave the university, after a residence of little more than four years; and he now retired to his father’s house at Alwalton, where, by the assistance of books from the library of Dr. Neve, who was rector of the parish, he was enabled to continue his studies. In Sept. 1752, he was ordained deacon, and in the same month, 1754, priest, by his friend and patron, Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, who in the last mentioned year gave him the rectory of Woolley, in Huntingdonshire, worth about 120l. a year. The circumstances attending this preferment are too highly honourable to the character of Mr. Southgate to be omitted in even a short sketch of his life. This living became vacant during the minority of a Mr. Peacock, who was the patron, and was himself intended for the church. His guardians, not being able to agree as to the person they should present, suffered it to lapse to the bishop; who mentioned these circumstances to Mr. Southgate when he presented htm to the living; and although the bishop left him entirely clear of any promise or restraint respecting it; as soon as Mr. Peacock had taken orders, Mr. Southgate went to his lordship, and resigned the living. During the time that he held it, he had to rebuild a considerable part of the premises, and to make such repairs, that he may be said rather to have acted like a faithful steward to Mr. Peacock than the real rector of the parish; so that when he resigned it, after possession for more than five years, he had not saved out of the income one shilling. The bishop, on his resignation, said, “You have done, Richard, what I knew you would do; you have behaved like a Christian and a good man; and I have this additional motive for thinking myself bound to provide for you.”

, an English Jesuit and poet, was born in 1560, and is said to have descended from an ancient family, either in Norfolk or Suffolk. Being sent abroad for education, he became a Jesuit at Rome, Oct. 1578. In 1585, he was appointed prefect of studies in the English college there, and not long after was sent as a missionary into England. His chief residence was with Anne countess of Arundel, who died in the Tower of London. After carrying on his mission for some time, he was, in July 1592, apprehended and examined with the strictest rigour, but having evaded the questions put to him, was imprisoned for three years, and as he affirmed, underwent the torture several times. He owned that he was a priest and a Jesuit, that he came into England to preach the truths of the catholic religion, and was prepared to lay down his life for it. In Feb. 1595, he was tried at the bar of the King’s Bench, Westminster, and executed the next day at Tyburn. He was a man of singular parts, says Dodd, and happy in a peculiar talent of expressing himself in the English language, both in prose and verse. Edmund Bolton, whom Warton calls a sensible critic, speaks of Southwell’s works in the same strain of panegyric “Never must be forgotten St. Peter’s complaint, and those other serious poems said to be father Southwell’s: the English whereof, as it is most proper, so the sharpness and light of wit is very rare in them.” Mr. Headley seems first to have revived the memory of Southwell, as a poet, by some curious specimens, in which he has been followed by Mr. Ellis. “There is a moral charm,” says Headley, “in the little pieces of Southwell, that will prejudice most readers of feeling in their favour.” Unless, however, there were encouragement for republication, which is not very probable, Southwell’s fame must principally rest on these specimens, as his works are rarely to be met with; yet Mr. Ellis remarks that the few copies known to exist, are the remnant of at least twenty-four different editions, of which eleven were printed between 1593 and 1600.

, an ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, was of a good family; and born at Bethelia, a town of Palestine. After being liberally educated, he studied the law at Berytus in Phoenicia; and then going to Constantinople, became a pleader at the bar. Afterwards he applied himself to the writing of ecclesiastical history; and first drew up a compendium of it in two books, from the ascension of Christ to the year 323; but this is lost. Then he continued his history in a more circumstantial and closer manner to the year 440; and this part is extant. He has many particulars relating to him in common with the ecclesiastical historian Socrates: he lived at the same time, was of the same profession, and undertook a work of the same nature, and comprised it within the same period: for his history ends, as it nearly begins, at the same point with that of Socrates. His style is more florid and elegant, says Jortin, in his “Ecclesiastical Remarks,” vol. III. than that of Socrates; but he is by no means so judicious an author. Being of a family which had excessively admired the monks, and himself educated among them, he contracted a superstitious turn of mind, and great credulity for monkish miracles: he speaks of the benefit which himself had received from the intercession of Michael the archangel. He gives an high commendation of a monastic life, and enlarges very much upon the actions and manners of those recluses: and this forms the greater part of what he has added to the “History of Socrates,” who, it is universally agreed, wrote first, and whom he every where visibly copies. His history has been translated and published by Valesius, with Eusebius and the other ecclesiastical historians; and repnblished, with additional notes by Reading, at London, 1720, in 3 vols. folio.

The genius of Spagnoletto naturally inclined him to subjects of horror, which, therefore, he selected from sacred and profane history; such as the martyrdoms of saints, the torments of Ixion and Prometheus, or Cato tearing out his own bowels. He also delighted in designing old men emaelated by mortification, such as saints and hermits, his pictures on which subjects were much admired by the Spaniards and Neapolitans. “St. Jerome was one of his darling subjects; he painted, he etched him, in numerous repetitions, in whole lengths and bait figures. He delighted in the representation of hermits, anchorets, prophets, apostles, perhaps less to impress the mind with gravity of character, and the venerable looks of age, than to strike the eye with the incidental deformities attendant on decrepitude, and the picturesque display of bone, vein, and tendons, athwart emaciated muscle. As in design he courted excrescence or meagreness, so in the choice of historic subjects he preferred to the terrors of ebullient passions, features of horror, cool assassination, and tortures methodized, the spasms of Ixion; and St. Bartholomew under the butcher’s knife.” An extraordinary story is related by Sandrart, of the effect of one of his pictures on the imagination of a pregnant woman, and on her child; but as the possibility of such effects is by no means ascertained, we shall not venture to relate it. The force of his colouring, the extraordinary relief of his figures, and the singular strength of his expression, certainly make his pictures likely to affect the mind as powerfully as those of any master who can be mentioned.

, professor of divinity at Leyden, was born at Amberg in the Upper Palatinate, Jan. 1, 1600, of a good family. His father Wigand Spanheim, doctor of divinity, was a very learned man, and ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector-palatine; he died in 1620, holding in his hand a letter from his son, which had made him weep for joy. Frederic was educated with great care under the inspection of this affectionate parent; and, having studied in the college of Amberg till 1613, was sent the next year to the university of Heidelberg, which was then in a very flourishing condition. He there made such progress both in languages and philosophy, as to justify the most sanguine hopes of his future success. After paying a visit to his father in 1619, he went to Geneva to study divinity. In 1621, after his father’s death, he went into Dauphine, and lived three years with the governor of Ambrun, as tutor in his family. He then returned to Geneva, and went afterwards to Paris, where he met with a kind relation, Samuel Durant, who was minister of Charenton, and dissuaded Spanheim from accepting the professorship of philosophy at Lausanne, which the magistrates of Berne then offered him. In April 1625, he paid a visit of four months to England, and was at Oxford; but the plague having broke out there, he returned to Paris, and was present at the death of his relation Durant, who, having a great kindness for him, left him his whole library. He had learned Latin and Greek in his own country, French at Geneva, English at Oxford; and the time which he now spent at Paris, was employed in acquiring the oriental tongues. In 1627, he disputed at Geneva for a professorship of philosophy, and was successful; and about the same time married a lady, originally of Poitou, who reckoned among her ancestors the f;unous Budtrus. He was admitted a minister some time after; and, in 1631, succeeded to the chair of divinity, which Turretin had left vacant. He acquitted himself of liis functions with such ability, as to receive the most liberal offers from several universities: but that of Leyden prevailed, after the utmost endeavours had been used to keep him at Geneva. He left Geneva in 1642; and taking a doctor of divinity’s degree at Basil, that he might conform to the custom of the country to which he was going, he arrived at Leyden in October that year. He not only supported, but even increased the reputation he had brought with him but he lived to enjoy it only a short time, dying April 30, 1649. His great labours shortened his days. His academical lectures and disputations, his preaching (for he was minister of the Walloon church at Leyden), the books he wrote, and many domestic cares, did not hinder him from keeping up a great literary correspondence. Besides this, he was obliged to pay many visits he visited the queen of Bohemia, and the prince of Orange and was in great esteem at those two courts. Queen Christina did him the honour to write to him, assuring him of her esteem, and of the pleasure she took in reading his works. It was at her request that he wrote some memoirs of Louisa Juliana, electress palatine. He was also the author of some other historical as well as theological works the principal of which are his “Dubia evangelica discussa et vindicata,” Genev. 1634, 4to, but afterwards thrice printed in 2 vols. 4to, with large additions; “Exercitationes de Grafla universali,” Leyden, 1646, 8vo. This involved him in a controversy with Amyraut; and “Epistolae ad Davidem Bu chananum super controversies quibusdam, quse in ecclesiis Anglicanis agitantur,” ibid. 1645, 8vo. Some other of his works were published with those of his son, and his funeral oration on Henry prince of Orange, pronounced at Leyden in 1647 may be seen in Bates’s “Vitas selectorupi aliquot virorum.” He was a correspondent of, and highly esteemed by archbishop Usher.

In 1649, he lost his father; and soon after returned to Geneva, where he was honoured with the title of professor of eloquence, but never performed the functions of that place. "When his reputation extended into foreign countries, Charles Louis, elector-palatine, sent for him to his court, to be tutor to his only son: which employment he not only discharged with great success, but with much prudence and address, contrived to preserve the good opinion of the elector and electress, who did not live on terms of mutual regard and affection. While here he employed his leisure hours in perfecting his knowledge of the Greek and Roman learning; and also studied the history of the later ages, and examined all those books and records which relate to the constitution of the empire, and contribute to explain and illustrate the public law of Germany. The first produce of this department of science was a French tract, published in 1657; in which he asserted the right of the elector-palatine to the post of vicar of the empire, in opposition, to the claims of the duke of Bavaria. Skill and acuteness in disputes of this kind have always been a sure foundation for preferment in the courts of Germany; and there is no doubt, that it opened Spanheim’s way to those great and various employments in which he was afterwards engaged.

Upon his return to Heidelberg in April 1665, he was received by the elector his master with every proof of esteem; and was afterwards employed by him in various negociations at foreign courts. The same year, he went to that of Lorrain; the year following, to that of the elector of Mentz; then to France; afterwards, in 1668, to the congress of Breda; and then to France again. He then returned to Heidelberg, whence, after being for some time confined by a dangerous illness, he was sent by his master first to Holland, and then to England. In 1679, the elector of Brandenburg, having recalled his envoy at the court of England, gave his employment to Spar.'neim, wiih the consent of the elector-palatine and, though h:? was charged at the same time with the affairs of these two princes, yet he acquitted himself so well, that the elector of Brandenburg desired to have his exclusive services, to which the elector-palatine at last consented. In 16KO, he went to France, by order of his new master, with the title of envoy extraordinary; and, during nine years’ residence at Paris, never left that city but twice. In 1684, he went to Berlin, to receive the post of minister of state; and the year after to England, to compliment James II. upon his accession to the throne. Upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, he rendered important services to many of the reformed, who found a place of refuge in his house, when they durst not appear abroad, for fear of their persecutors. Though he performed his master’s business at the French court with the greatest ability and exactness, yet he led a life of much study, wrote various works, and maintained a correspondence with the learned all over Europe, with the utmost punctuality.

After this long embassy, he spent some years at Berlin, in retirement and among books; but, after the peace of Ilyswick, was again obliged to quit his study, and was sent on an embassy to France, where he continued from 1697 to 1702. The elector of Brandenburg, having during that interval assumed the title of king of Prussia, conferred on him the title and dignity of baron. In 1702, he quitted France, and went ambassador to England; where he spent the remainder of his days, dividing his time between business and study. He died Oct. 28, 17jO, aged eighty-one, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He left one daughter, who married in England the marquis de Montandre. It is surprising, that Spanheim, who seems to have been moving from one European court to another all his life, and to have been continually engaged in negotiations and state-affairs, which he always discharged with the utmost exactness, could find time to compose so many works of learning and labour, which could only be written in his study and among his books. It was said of him, that he negotiated and did business like a man who had nothing else in his thoughts, and that he wrote like a man who had spent his whole time by himself. He never appeared the man of letters but when it was proper to do so; yet be conversed no more frequently with the unlearned than was necessary for his business.

, brother of Ezekiel Spanheim, and also a man of great learning, was born at Geneva in 1632, and, at ten years of age, carried by his father to Leyden. He studied philosophy under Hereboord, and was admitted doctor July 12, 1651. He had lost his father two years before; and, as he had been designed for the ministry, he applied himself vigorously to the study of divinity and the languages. Boxhorn was his master in Greek and Latin; and Golius in Arabic. He was a candidate for the ministry in 1652, and soon after preached in several parts of Zealand. He discharged the functions of a minister at Utrecht for one year with a reputation that raised some jealousy in the mind of Alexander Morus, whose name was then famous in the United Provinces. He received soon after an invitation from Charles Louis elector-palatine, who had resolved to re-establish his university at Heidelberg, and gave him the professorship of divinity, though he was then but twenty-three. Before he went to take possession of that post, he was admitted doctor of divinity at Leyden in!655. He gained great reputation at Heidelberg; and the elector palatine always shewed him the highest marks of his esteem and confidence; but these favours did not prevent him from opposing the elector with great freedom, when heattempted to divorce himself from the princess his wife, in order to marry another. His merit procured him, during the time he lived in the palatinate, several invitations from other universities; but he only accepted that from Leyden, where he was admitted professor of divinity and sacred history, with general applause, in 1670. Here his reputation was raised to the greatest height. He was four times rector of the university of Leyden, and had also the post of librarian. Many years before hisdeath, he was excused from reading public lectures, that he might have the more leisure to apply himself to several works which he published. In 1695, he was attacked by a palsy, which affected half his body: of which, however, he afterwards appeared to be tolerably well recovered. He did not indeed enjoy a perfect state of health from that time; and not being able to restrain himself from his studies and labours, which was absolutely necessary, he relapsed, and died May 18, 1701. He was thrice married, and had several children; but only one, whose name was Frederic, survived him.

His writings are extremely numerous. They were printed at Leyden, in 3 vols. folio; the first in 1701, and the two last in 1703. They are chiefly, if not altogether, upon subjects of theology. Among them is a treatise, entitled “Judicium expetitum super dissidio Anglicano, et capitibus, quce ad unionem seu comprehensionem faciunt.” This he bad originally sent in 1690 to queen Mary, who submitted it to Dr. Tillotson, who acknowledged its merit in a polite letter to the author, stating the difficulties that prevented that union between the church and the dissenters which the learned professor wished.

, editor of Lactantius, &c. the son of Archibald Spark, minister of Northop in Flintshire, was born in 1655, and was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1672. After taking his degrees in arts, and being ordained, he was appointed chaplain to sir George Jeffries, who promoted him when he became chancellor, to what benefices, or at what times, Wood has not discovered; but at his death, which took place at Bath, Sept. 7, 1692, he was rector of Ewehurst in Surrey, to which he had been instituted in 1687, and of Norton, or Hogsnorton, near Bosworth, in Leicestershire, a prebendary of Lichfield and of Rochester; and D. D. Wood says, he “left behind him the character of a learned man, but confident and forward without measure; and by his excesses, and too much agitation in obtaining spiritualities, he brought himself into an ill disposition of body, which, contrary to his expectation, brought him, in the prime of his years, to his grave.” He published a good edition of “Lactantii Firmiani opera quae extant, ad fidem Mss. recognita, et commentariis illustrata,” Oxon. 1684, 8vo; and “Notae in libros sex novae historic Zozini comitis,” ibid. 1679, 8vo; dedicated to his old master Dr. Busby, and translated into English in 1684, by another hand.

, a puritan divine of considerable note, was born at South-Somercote in Lincolnshire in 1548. Of his early education we have no account until he became a fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, in 1570, in whicli year he was admitted bachelor of arts. Soon after he was presented, by Arthur lord Grey, to the parsonage of Bletchley in Buckinghamshire, where he was held in great esteem for his piety. He was also chaplain to Cooper, bishop of Lincoln, who, in 1575, bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Stow. In 1581 he proceeded in his divinity degrees, being then, Wood says, in great esteem for his learning. In 1582, h'ncling that he could not attend to his archdeaconry, from its distance from his cure, he resigned it, and retained Bletchley only; but in Sept. 1582 he was installed into the prebend of Sutton in Marisco in the church of Lincoln. In 1603 he was called to the conference at Hampton-court, as one of the representatives of the puritans, as he had been one of their champions in 1584 at the dispute at Lambeth; but the issue of the Hampton-court conference was, that he inclined to conformity, and afterwards expressed his sentiments in “A brotherly persuasion to unity and uniformity in judgment and practice, touching the received and present ecclesiastical government, and the authorized rites and ceremonies of the church of England,” Lond. 1607, 4to. This brought on a controversy, his book being answered by two anonymous writers. During queen Elizabeth’s reign he had written on the subject of the succession to the crown, the title of which we are not told. This brought him into some trouble, but in a conversation with king James he so satisfied him that his majesty ever after countenanced him. He died at Bletchley Oct. 8, 1616, and was buried in the chancel of that church, with a long epitaph on a plate of brass.

Wood says, he “was a learned man, a solid divine, well read in the fathers, and so much esteemed for his profoundness, gravity, and exemplary life and conversation, that the sages of the university thought it fit, after his death, to have his picture painted on the wall in the schoolgallery among the English divines of note there.” His works, besides what we have mentioned, were, “A comfortable treatise for a troubled conscience,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. 2. “Brief Catechism,” printed with the former, and a treatise on catechising, Oxon. 1588, 4to. 3. '“Answer to Mr. Job. deAlbine’s notable discourse against heresies,” ibid. 1591, 4to, 4. “The Highway to Heaven, &c. against Bellarmine and others, in a treatise on the 37, 38, and 39 verses of the 7 John,” Lond. 1597, 8vo; also a funeral sermon on the earl of Bedford, and another on lord Grey. Dr. Sparke left three learned sons, Thomas, fellow of New-college, Oxford, Andrew of Peterhouse in Caiiibridge, and William of Magdalen-college, Oxford, who succeeded his father in the living of Bletchley. He wrote “Vis naturae, et Virtus Vitae explicata, ad universum doctrine ordinem constituendum,” Lond. 1612, 8vo; and “The Mystery of Godliness,” Oxon. 1628, 4to. He was living at Bletchley in 1630.

He died July 28, 1629, and was buried in the church of St Giles, Cripplegate, London, where a monument was erected to his memory. By his wife Susanna, with whom he lived fifty-seven years, and who died almost a year before him, he had twelve sons, and six daughters. One of his sons, named John, was an eminent physician; of whom we shall give some account. As to Speed himself, “he must be acknowledged,” says Nicolson, “to have had a head the best disposed towards history of any of our writers; and would certainly have outdone himself, as far as he has gone beyond the rest of his profession, if the advantages of his education had been answerable to those of his natural genius. But what could be expected from a taylor? However, we may boldly say, that his chronicle is the largest and best we have hitherto extant.” In another place, “John Speed was a person of extraordinary industry and attainments in the study of antiquities; and seems not altogether unworthy the name of `summus & eruditus antiquarius,' given him by Sheringham, who was certainly so himself”

His son John Speed was born at London in 1595, and educated at Merchant-taylors’ school, whence he was elected a scholar of St. John’s-college in Oxford, in 1612, of which he afterwards became a fellow, and took the degree of master of arts, and bachelor and doctor of physic. He wrote “Sjwaetoj utriusque sexus Toxtwsvrof,” a manuscript in Latin, dedicated to archbishop Laud, and preserved in the library of St. John-college. This piece relates to two skeletons, one of a man, another of a woman, made by Dr. Speed, and given by him to that library. He wrote likewise “Stonehenge, a Pastoral,” acted before Dr. Rich. Baylie, and the president and fellows of St. John’s-college in 1635. It is extant in manuscript. He died in May 1640, and was buried in the chapel of that college. He married a daughter of Bartholomew Warner, M. D. and had by her two sons. One of them, Samuel, was a student of Christ-church in Oxford, and was installed canon of that church May the 6th, 1674, and died at Godalmin in Surrey, of which he was vicar, January the 22d, 1681. The other, John, was born at Oxford, and elected scholar of St. John’s-coliege there about 1643, but ejected thence by the parliament-visitors in 1648, he being then bachelor of arts and fellow. At the restoration he was restored to his fellowship, and in 1666 took the degree of physic, and afterwards quitting his fellowship, he practised that faculty at Southampton, where he was living in 1694. He wrote “Batt upon Batt; a Poem upon the parts, patience, and pains of Bartholomew Kempster, clerk, poet, and cutler of Holy-rood parish in Southampton;” and also “The Vision, wherein is described Batt’s person and ingenuity, with an account of the ancient and present state and glory of Southampton.” Both these pieces were printed at London in two sheets in fol. and afterwards in 4to. The countess de Viri, wife of a late Sardinian ambassador, was lineally descended from our historian. Such was the friendship between lord Cobham and colonel Speed, her father, that upon his decease, he esteemed her as his own child, brought her up in his family, and treated her with paternal care and tenderness. Her extraordinary merit recommended her to the viscountess Cobham, who left her the bulk of her fortune. This lady, who was eminent for her wit and accomplishments, is celebrated by Gray in his “Long Story,” which indeed was written in consequence of a visit from her.

, an eminent English antiquary, was descended from an ancient family of his name, which flourished in the time of Henry III. at Bekington in Hampshire, and in the fifteenth century was settled in Norfolk, where our author’s great-grandfather was possessed of a considerable estate. This great-grandfather married the heiress of the Narborough family, by whom he had a son who became sir John Spelman, knt. of Narborough, and our author’s father, Henry, was the fourth son of sir John, and lived at Conghata near Lynn-regis in Norfolk. He married Frances, daughter of William Sanders of Ewell in Surrey, by whom he had our author, his eldest son, who was born in 1562, and educated at the school of Walsinghatn in the neighbourhood. In his fourteenth year, when according to his own modest account he was scarcely ripe for academical studies, he was entered of Trinity-college, Cambridge. Here he applied with great diligence for two years ana a half, but upon the death of his father, he was obliged to return home, and assist his mother, in managing the affairs of the family.

In 1604 he served as high sheriff of Norfolk, of which county he furnished Speed with a description, and being now distinguished for his abilities, he was sent by king James three several times into Ireland as one of the commissioners for determining the unsettled titles to lands and manors in that country; and at home was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the oppression of exacted fees in all the courts and offices of England, as well ecclesiastical as civil; which bishop Hacket calls “a noble examination and full of justice.” This gave rise to his learned treatise “De Sepultura,” or of “Burial Fees,” in which he proved the existence of very exorbitant exactions. These employments, however, having tended to the injury of his fortune, the government was so sensible of his services, that a present of 300l. was made him, not as a full recompence“(for so it is expressed in the king’s writ), but only” as an occasional remembrance," till something more equal to his merit could be done for him. He was also knighted by James I. who had a particular esteem for him; as well on accountof hisknown capacity for business, as his extensive learning, especially in the laws and antiquities of our nation, which were the constant subjects of his researches. With a view to pursue those researches with more advantage than was possible in a country residence, he determined to remove to London. Accordingly in 1612, he sold his stock upon the farms, let out his estate to tenants, and removed with his family to the metropolis, where he had a house in Barbican.

While here employed in investigating “the grounds of the law from original records,” which engaged him in a perusal of the fathers, councils, and ancient historians, he was for some time diverted from this pursuit by a conversation with his uncle, Mr. Francis Sanders, who complained to him of the many crosses and disappointments he had met with in a building he had then in hand upon the glebe of his appropriated parsonage at Congham. Sir Henry, who had a profound veneration for church-property, told his uncle that this was a judgment upon him for defrauding the church, and that it was utterly unlawful to keep appropriated parsonages in lay hands; and finding him somewhat impressed with what he had said, he expatiated more fully on the subject in a written paper, which, owing to Mr. Sanders’s death, never reached him. It was, however, published under the title “De non temerandis Ecclesiis,” or, “Churches not to be violated.” He reprinted it in 1615, 8vo, and about the same time a defence of it against an anonymous writer, with a Latin epistle to Mr. Richard Carew, who had made some objections to his treatise. The effect of sir Henry’s arguments was very extraordinary; for several persons actually parted with their impropriations. That he was sincere himself is sufficiently obvious, for being possessed of the impropriation of Middleton in Norfolk, he disposed of it for the augmentation of the vicarage, and also some additions to Congham which lies near it. It is said likewise that during the whole of his life, almost at every law-term in London, he was consulted by various lay-impropriators as to the mode by which they might restore their unlawful possessions of this kind; and some are reported to have thanked him for his book, declaring that they would never purchase any appropriate parsonages to augment their estates.

The meetings of the society of antiquaries which had been liscontinued for twenty years, were revived, in 1614, by sir Henry Spelman and others, who now drew up his “Discourse concerning the original of the four Law Terms of the year,” in which the laws of the Jews, Grecians, Romans, Saxons, and Normans, relating to this subject are fully explained. This treatise does not appear to have been published until 1684, 12mo, and then from a very incorrect copy, yet was printed from the same in Hearne’s “Curious Discourses,” along with others on the same subject, by Mr. Joseph Holland and Mr. Thomas Thynn. In 1621, an apology for archbishop Abbot, respecting the death of a park-keeper, (see Abbot) was answered by sir Henry, who endeavours to prove, not only that the archbishop was guilty of an irregularity by that act, but also intimates that he could not be effectually reinstated without some extraordinary form of new consecration. He even goes so far as to assert that by the canons hunting is unlawful in a clergyman; and he also advances many other positions to which no very cordial assent will now perhaps be given.

About the time that he disposed of the unsold copies of his “Glossary,” sir William Dugdale acquainted sir Henry Spelman, that many learned men were desirous to see the second part published, and requested of him to gratify the world with the work entire. Upon this, he shewed sir William the second part, and also the improvements which he had made in the first; but told him, at the same time, the discouragement he had met with in publishing the first part. Upon his death, all his papers came into the hands of sir John Spelman, his eldest son; a gentleman, who had abilities sufficient to complete what his father had begun, if death had not prevented him. After the restoration of Charles II. archbishop Sheldon and chancellor Hyde inquired of sir William Dugdale, what became of the second part, and whether it was ever finished; and, upon his answering in the affirmative, expressed a desire that it might be printed. Accordingly it was published by sir William in 1664; but, as Gibson says, “the latter part in comparison of the other is jejune and scanty; and everyone must see, that it is little more than a collection, out of which he intended to compose such discourses, as he has all along given us in the first part, under the words of the greatest import and usefulness.” It was surmised, for it never was proved, that because sir William Dugdale had the publishing of the second part, he inserted many things of his own, which were not in sir Henry Spelman’s copy; and particularly some passages, which tend to the enlargement of the prerogative, in opposition to the liberties of the subject. This- is noticed by Mr. Atwood, in his “Jus Anglorum ab antique” and the authenticity of it is vindicated, and some curious particulars are related concerning it, by Dr. Brady, in his “Animadversions on Jani Anglorum f'acies nova,” Bishop Gibson also assures us, that the very copy from which it was printed, is in the Bodleian library in sir Henry’s own hand, and exactly agrees with the printed book; and particularly under the word “Parlamentum,” and those other passages, upon which the controversy was raised. So far then as the copy goes, for it ends at the word “Riota,” it is a certain testimony, that sir William Dugdale did no more than mark it for the printer, and transcribe here and there a loose paper; and, though the rest of the copy was lost before it carne to the Oxford library, on which account there is not the same authority for the Glossary’s being genuine of the letter R; yet it is not likely, that sir William had any more share in these last letters of the alphabet, than he had in any of the rest. There was a third edition in 1687, illustrated with commentaries, and much enlarged. In 1627, sir Henry compiled a history of the civil affairs of the kingdom, from the conquest to Magna Charta, taken from the best historians, and generally in their own words. This was printed by Wilkins at the end of his edition of the Saxon laws. His next great work was his “Collection of the Councils, Decrees, Laws, and Constitutions of the English church from 1066 to 1531.” In this he was particularly encouraged by the archbishops Abbot, Laud, and especially Usher. The deceased bishop Andrews had suggested this scheme to Dr. Matthew Wren, who had made some progress, but desisted when he heard that sir Henry Spelman was engaged in the same design. Archbishop Abbot lived to see some part of the copy, and greatly approved of it. He branched his undertaking into three parts, assigning an entire volume to each division: I. “From the first plantation of Christianity to the coming in of the Conqueror in 1066.” 2. “From the Norman conquest to the casting off the pope’s supremacy, and the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII.” 3. “The History of the Reformed English Church, from Henry VIII. to his own time.” The volume, which contained the first of these heads, was published in 1639, about two years befoiv death, with his own annotations upon the more difficult places. The second volume of the “Councils,” was put into the hands of sir William Dugdale, by the direction of Sheldon and Hyde. Sir William made considerable additions to it ont of the archbishop’s registers and the Cottonian library; and it was published in 1664, but with abundance of faults, occasioned by the negligence of either the copier, or corrector, or both. His revival of Saxon literature was of great importance to the study of antiquities. He had found the excellent use oi" that language in the whole course of his studies, and much lamented the neglect of it both at home and abroad; which was so very general, that he did not then know one man in the world, who perfectly understood it. This induced him to found a Saxon lecture in the university of Cambridge, allowing lOl. per annum to Mr. Abraham Wheelocke, presenting him to the vicarage of Middleton in the county of Norfolk, and giving him likewise the profits of the impropriate rectory of the same church; both which were intended by him to be settled in perpetuity as an endowment of that lecture: but sir Henry and his eldest son dying in the compass of two years, the civil wars breaking forth, and their estate being sequestered, the family became incapable of accomplishing his design.

On the death of sir Henry, his papers became the property of his eldest son, sir John Spelman, whom he calls “the heir of his studies.” Sir John, whom, by the way, Wood erroneously calls sir Henry’s youngest son, received great encouragement and assurance of favour from Charles I. That king sent for sir Henry Spelman, and offered him the mastership of Sutton’s hospital, with some other advantages, in consideration of his good services both to church and state; but sir Henry, thanking his majesty, replied, “that he was very old, and had one foot in the grave, but should be more obliged, if he would consider his son” on which, the king sent for Mr. Spelman, and conferred that and the honour of knighthood upon him at Whitehall in 1611. After the rebellion commenced, his majesty, by a letter under his own hand, commanded him from his house in Norfolk, to attend at Oxford where he resided in Brazennose college, and was often called to private conncii, and employed to write several p.ipers in vindication of the proceeding of the court. He wis the author of “A view of a pretende book, entitled, ' Observations upon his Majesty’s late Answers and Epistles,” Oxford, 1642, 4to. His name is not to it; but Dr Barlow, who ha i received a copy from him, informed VVood that it was composed bv him. Si: John wi“'e also” The case of our affairs in law, religion, and other circumstances, briefly ex mined and presented to the cmisc ence,“1643, 4to. While he vva^ thus attending the aduirs of the public, and his own private studies, as those ' >uld iiive him leave, he died July 25, 1643. His funeral sermon, by his majesty’s special order, was preached by archbishop Usher. He published the Saxon Psalter under the title of” Phaltenum Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus,“1641, 4to, from an old manuscript in his father’s library, collated with three other copies. He wrote also the” Life of king Alfred the Great" in English, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, 1709, 8vo. It had been translated into Latin by Mr. Wise, and was published by Obadiah Walker, master of University college at Oxford in 1678, fol.

After sir John’s death, his father’s papers came into the hands of his son-in-law, sir Ralph Whitfield. In 1647, the rev. Jeremiau Stevens, who had assisted sir Henry in preparing the first volume of the “Councils,” printed from sir Henry’s Mss. a work entitled “Sir Henry Spelman’s larger Treatise concerning Tithes,” &c. in which the author shews the danger of changing tythes for any other kind of' maintenance, as of a pecuniary stipend, which the alteration in the value of money might affect. He observes, that any change of the laws, which have existed above a thousand years, and of a right settled by common law, will produce wany mischiefs, especially to the crown, in the payment of tenths and first-fruits; and he proves the propriety of this kind of support above all others, from this circumstance, that it puts the clergy on the same tooting with the people, feeing equally gainers or losers according to the prices in times of plenty and scarcity.

In 1656, a volume was published, entitled “Villare Anglicum; or a view of the towns of England, collected by the appointment, at the charge, and for the use, of that learned antiquary sir Henry Spelman.” Bishop NicolsbH thinks this wasjointly composed by sir Henry and Mr. Dodsworth. In 1663, Mr. Stevens, before mentioned, who appears to have been particularly entrusted with such of sir Henry’s Mss. as might be thought fit for the press, began to print his “History of Sacrilege,” a very singular attempt under the existing government, for as sir Hemy makes the alienation of church property by our former monarchs to be sacrilege, his arguments must have had a very powerful effect on those who had now overturned the whole property and constitution of the church. Accordingly we are told that the printing was interrupted until the fire of London, and then the whole was destroyed in that calamity. Gibson, however, published it afterwards from the manuscript copy given by bishop Barlow to the Bodleian library.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

1747. Of this work of acknowledged taste and learning“, Mr. Gray has been thought to speak too contemptuously in his Letters. His chief objection is, that the author has illustrated his subject from the Roman, and not from the Greek poets; that is, that he has not performed what he never undertook; nay, what he expressly did not undertake. A third edition appeared in folio in 1774, and the abridgment of it by N. Tindal has been frequently printed in 8vo. There is a pamphlet with Spence’s name to it in ms. as the author, called” Plain Matter of Fact, or, a short review of the reigns of our Popish Princes since the Reformation; in order to shew what we are to expect if another shouKl happen to reign over us. Part I.“1748, 12mo. He was installed prebendary of the seventh stall at Durham, May 24, 1754; and published in that year” An account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy at Edinburgh,“8vo, which was afterwards prefixed to his poems. The prose pieces which he printed in” The Museum“he collected and published, with some others, in a pamphlet called” Moralities, by sir Harry Beaumont,“1753. Under that name he published,” Crito, or a Dialogue on Beauty,“and” A particular account of the emperor of China’s Gardens, near Pekin, in a letter from F. Attiret, a French missionary now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris;“both in 1752, Hvo, and both reprinted in Dodsley’s” Fugitive Pieces.“He wrote” An Epistle from a Swiss officer to his friend at Rome,“first printed in” The Museum,“and since in the third volume of” Dodsley’s Collection.“The several copies published under his name in the Oxford Verses are preserved by iNichols, in the” Select Collection,“1781. In 175S he published” A Parallel, in the manner of Plutarch, between a most celebrated Man of Florence (Magliabecchi), and one scarce ever heard of in England (Robert Hill, the Hebrew Taylor),“12mo, printed at Strawberry Hill. In the same year he took a tour into Scotland, which is well described in an affectionate letter to Mr. Shenstone, the collection of several letters published by Mr. Hull in 1778. In 17c3 he communicate i to Dr. Wartun several excellent remarks on Virgil, which he had made when he wasbroad, and some few of Mr. Pope’s. West Finchale Priory (the scene of the holy Godric’s miracles and austerities, who, from an itinerant merchant, turned hermit, and wore out three suits of iron cloaths), was now become Mr. Spence’s retreat, being part of his prebendal estate. In 1764 he was well pourtrayed by Mr. James Ridley, in his admirable” Tales of the G nil,“under the name of” Pbesoi Ecnep> (his name rrad backwar l>) iervise of the groves,“and a panegyrical letter from nim to that ingenious moralist, under the same signature, is inserted i-i 4k Lexers of Emi'-eni Persons,” vol. III. p. 139. In 1764 he paid the last kind office to the remains of his friend Mr. Dodsley, who died on a visit to him at Durham. He closed his literary labours with “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil with some other classical observations; by the late Mr. Holdsworth. Published, with several notes and additional remarks, by Mr. Speutv,” 4to. This volume, of which the greater part was printed off in 1767, was published in February 1768; and on the iiOth of August following, Mr. Spence was unfortunately drowned in a caiidl in his garden at Byrieet in Surrey. Being, when the accident inppened, quite alone, it could only be conjectured in what manner it happened but it was generally supposed to have been occasioned by a fit while he was standing near the brink of the water. He was found flat upon his face, at the edge, where the water was too shallow to cover his head, or any part of his body. He was interred at Byfleet church, where is a marble tablet inscribed to his memory. The duke of Newcastle possesses some ms volumes of anecdotes of eminent writers, collected by Mr. Spence, who in his lifetime communicated to Dr. Warton as many of them as related to Pope; and, by permission of the noble owner, Dr. Johnson has made many extracts from them in his “Lives of the English Poets.” These have lately been announced for publication. Mr. Spence’s Explanation of an antique marble at Ciandon place, Surrey, is in “Gent. Mag.” 1772, p. 176 “Mr. Spence’s character,” says a gentleman who bad seen this memoir before it was transplanted into the present work, " is properly delineated and his Polymetis is justl vindicated from the petty criticisms of the; fastidious Gray *. In Dr. Johnson’s masterly preface to Dry den,

bury was the first who bionsjhi in o llmd II.K. point' <l out, by example as

vognc, and Mr. ^neiu-e, (if we except well as precept, wherein the true beati­* few Scotch writers) the last who prac- ty of dialogue- writing consists.“Matjsed it. As it has now been laid aside son’s Life of Gray, vol. II. p. 5-0, oi 1 ­somc years, we may hope, for the sake tavo edition. he observes, that ‘we do not always know our own motives.* Shall we then presume to attribute the frigid mention of the truly learned and ingenious Mr. Spenr.e, in the preface to Pope, to a prejudice conceived against him on account of his preference of blank verse to rhyme in his ’ Essay on Mr. Pope’s Odyssey' a work, which for sound criticism, and candid disquisition, is almost without a parallel The judicious Dr. Warton’s seutiiue: > with respect to it may be seen in his admirable” Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope:“and bishop Loath, whose learning and genius are indisputable, expresses himself in the following manner in a note on his twelfth prelection on Hebrew poetry:” Hasc autem vide accurate et scienter explicata a viro doctissimo Josepho Spence in Opere erudito juxta atque eleganti cui titulus Polymetis."

, a learned divine, was a native of Bocton under Biean, in Kent, where he was baptised, Oct. 31, 1G30. While an infant he lost his father, who, leaving him in very narrow circumstances, the care and expence of his education was undertaken by an uncle. By bin) he was sent to the free school at Canterbury, where he made great proficiency, and became a king’s scholar. At the age of fourteen he was recommended by Mr. Thomas Jackson, then the onry prebendary of that church, t a Parker scholarship in Corpus college, Cambridge, of which he was admitted, March 25, 1645. Under Mr. Richard Kennet, an excellent tutor, an ancestor of the bishop of Peterborough, he applied with great assiduity to his studies, and having taken his degrees in arts, that of A. B. in 164-8, and of A. Jvj. in 1652, he was chosen fellow of his college in 1655. About this time his uncle, who had hitherto supported his education, died, and having kept an xact account of what he had expended, left the same tincancelled, and his executors and sons immediately sued Mr. Spencer for the debt, which he was totally unable to ;niy. In this perplexity he found friends i- it college, among w.,om was Dr. Tenison, afterwards achbishop of Canterbury, who raised a loin among the suthcit-nt to extricate him from the rigour of his unworny relations. He now also became a tutor, and entering int. holy orders was appointed one of the university preacher-, -Ik. served the cures, first of St. Gyles’s, and then of St. Benedict, in Cambridge. In 1659 he proceeded B. D. As he was not ciisuJrhed in his fellowship, it has been supposed that he acquiesced in the measures taken during the usurpation, without approving them. He was soon, however, released from this painful restraint by the restoration, on which event he preached a sermon before the university, June 2tf, 1660, which was printed the same year, under the title of “The Righteous Ruler.” He published about three years after, a preservative against the prophecies in which the fanatics of that day dealt very largely. This he entitled “A discourse concerning Prodigies, wherein the vanity of presages by them is reprehended, and their true and proper ends asserted and vindicated.” A second edition of this seasonable and learned work, corrected and enlarged, was published at London, 1665, 8vo; when was added to it, “A discourse concerning vulgar Prophecies; wherein the vanity of receiving them, as the certain indications of any future event, is discovered; and some characters of distinction between true and pretended prophets are laid down.” In this last- mentioned year he proceeded D. D. and in 1667 was presented by his college to the rectory of Landbeach, in Cambridgeshire, and Aug. 3, was elected master of the college. In this office he shewed himself not only a lover of learning, but a great encourager of it in others, as the many salutary regulations made in ­his time concerning the discipline and exercises of the college amply testily and the society had such an opinion of liis judgment an1 integrity, that he was generally made the arbiter of their differences.

Tho. Caii." Mr. Masters mentions it as somewhat singular, that Dr. Spencer, while holding the high office of head of a hoiuse, was suspended bv Dr. Borcle, surrogate to the official, lor tun appearing at the archdeacon’s visitation, but what the issue was he has not discovered. Dr. Spencer had c ntr.ieie.lA:I early and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Thomas Hill, ah<> was admitted of Corpus about the same time vvuh himself, which, notwithstanding their differing in their opinions, Hill being a non-conformist, continued to the end of the life of the latter. This appears by a correspondence, referred to by Calamy, in which the doctor expresses a high regard and affection for hirn, and made him some kind and generous offers whenever he should have a son fit to send to the university. His charity, indeed, to 'non-conformist ministers, if goo! and pious men, seems to have bt-en so extensive, that he, with the learned Dr. Henry More, made one of them, Mr. Robert Wilson, their almoner in this branch of it. And so greai a respect had he for his tutor, Mr Kennet, who was a sufferer in this cause, that he not only frequently visited him as long as he lived, but was kind to his poor widow for his sake.

About a month after being elected master of Corpus, he was preferred by the king to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, in 1672 to a prebend of Ely, and in 1677 to the deanery of that church. In 1669 he published a Latin dissertation concerning Urim and Thummim, reprinted in 1670, In 1683 iie resigned the rectory of Landbeach in favour of his kinsman, William vSpencer, A. M. fellow of the collage; and 1685 published at Cambridge, in 2 vols. folio, his celebrated work, “De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus et etiruiu rationibus libri tres.” His professe<i view in explaining the reasons of the Mosaic ritual, was to vindicate the ways of God to men, and clear the Deity, as he tells in his preface, from arbitrary and fantastic humour; with which some, not discerning these reasons, had been ready to charge him, and thence had fallen into unbelief. But this attempt very much displeased all those, who think the divinity of any doctrine or institution weakened, in prOTportion as it is proved to be rational; and one great objection to it, even among some who are not irrationalists, is, the learned author’s having advanced, that many rites and cen monies of the Jewish nation are deduced from the practices of their heathen and idolatrous neighbours. This position uuve no small offence, as greatly derogatory from the aivine institution of those rites; and many writers attacked it both at home and abroad, particularly Herman Wit>iiis 1:1 his “^gyptiaca,” sir John Marsham, Caimet, and Shi.ckford. His position has been, since their time, shortU and ably refuted in a treatise by Dr. Woodward, entitled “A Discourse on the worship of the ancient Egyptians,” communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by Dr. Lort in 1775, and more recently (1799) by the late Rev. William Jones, in his“Considerations on the religious worship of ttie Heainens.” Mr. Jones says, that Dr. Spencer, “preposterously deduced the rites of the Hebrews from therites of the Heathens; and so produced a work of learned appearance, and composed in elegant Latin, but disgraceful to Christian divinity, dishonourable to the church of England, and affording a very bad example to vain scholars who should succeed him.” Others, however, saw no ill consequences from admitting it; and the work upon the whole has been highly valued, for extensive erudition and research. The author afterwards greatly enlarged it, particularly with the addition of a fourth book; and his papers, being committed at his death to archbishop Tenison, were bequeathed by that prelate to the university of Cambridge, together with the sum of 50l. to forward the printing of them. At length Mr. Leonard Chappelow, fellow of St. John’s-college, and professor of Arabic, being deputed by the university, and offered the reward, undertook a new edition of this work, with the author’s additions and improvements; and published it at Cambridge, in 1727, in 2 vols. folio. It was also previously reprinted at the Hague in 1686, 4to and at Leipsic in 1705.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of Frankfort on the Maine, but born in Alsatia, Jan. 1J, 1635, was one of those who first endeavoured to free divinity from scholastic subtleties, and captious questions, and to introduce a more plain and popular method of teaching theology. He succeeded, in a great measure, though not universally and, about 1680, became the founder of a new sect, style1 Pietists It originated in certain private societies forme >j nim at Frankfort, with a design to rouse the lukewarm from their indifference, and excite a spirit of vigour and resolution in those who before had silently lamented the progress of impiety. The effect of these pious* meetings was greatly increased by a book published by this able am! wt it -meaning man, entitled “Pious Desires,” in which he exhibited a striking -view of the disorders of the church, and proposed the suitable remedies. His work was approved; but the remedies he proposed fell into unskiliul hands, and were administered without sugacity and prudence.

, a justly celebrated English-poet, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Spenser, was born in London, in East Smithfield by the Tower, probably about 1553 In what school he received the first part of his education, has not been ascertained. He was admitted, as a sizer, of Pembroke-hall in Cambridge, May 10, 1569, proceeded to the degree of bachelor of arts, January 16, 1572-3, and to that of master of arts June 26, 1576. Of nis proficiency during this time, a favourable opinion may be drawn from the many classical allusions itv his works, while their moral tendency, which, if not uniform, was more general than that of the writings of his contemporaries, incline us to hope, that his conduct was irreproachable. At Cambridge he formed an intimacy with Gabriel Harvey, first of Christ’s-college, afterwards of Trinity-hall, who became doctor of laws in 1585, and survived his friend more than thirty years Harvey was a scnolar, and a poet of no mean estimation in his own time. He appears also as a critic, to whose judgment Spenser frequently appeals, looking up to him with a reverence for which it is not easy to account. We are, however, much indebted to his correspondence with Spenser, for many interesting particulars; relating to the life and studies of the latter, although some of them afford little more than probable conjecture?. It is now fully disproved that Spenser was an unsuccsssful candidate for a fellowship in Pembroke-hall, in competition with Andrews, afterwards successively bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester. Hie rival of Andrews was Thomas Dove, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. But from one of Harvey’s letters to Spenser it appr;,rs that some disagreement had taken place between our poet and the master or tutor of the society to which he belonged, which terminated his prospects of farther advancement in it, without lessening his veneration for the university at large, of which he always speaks with filial regard.

When he left Cambridge he is supposed to have gone to reside with some friends in the North of England, probably as a tutor. At what time he began to display his poetical powers is uncertain, but as genius cannot be concealed, it is probable that he was already known as a votary of the Muses among his fellow-students. There are several poems in the “Theatre for Worldlings,” a collection published in the year in which he became a member of the university, which are thought to have come from his pen. The “Visions,” in this work, were probably the first sketch of those which now form a part of his acknowledged productions. Absolute certainty, however, cannot be obtained in. fixing the chronology of his early poems; but it may be conjectured, with great probability, that his muse would not be neglected at an age when it is usual to court her favours, and at which he had much leisure, the scenery of nature before his eyes, and no serious cares to disturb his enthusiasm. His “Shepheard’s Calender” was published in 1579. The tenderness of complaint in this elegant poem, appears to have been inspired by a mistress whom he has recorded under the name of Rosalind; and who, after trifling with his affection, preferred his rival. He is supposed also to allude to the cruelty of this same lady in book VI. of the “Faerie Queene,” under the name of Mirabella.

After holding this situation about two years, lord Grey returned to England, and was probably accompanied by his secretary. Their connection was certainly not dissolved, for in 1586, Spenser obtained, by his lordship’s interest, and that of Leicester and Sidney, a grant of three thousand and twenty-eight acres in the county of Cork, out of the forfeited lands of the earl of Desmond. As far as sir Philip Sidney was concerned, this was the last act of his kindness to our poet, for he died in October of the same year. Such were the terms of the royal patent, that Spenser was now obliged to return to Ireland, in order tO cultivate the land assigned him. He accordingly fixed his residence at Kilcolman, in the county of Cork, a place which topographers have represented as admirably accommodated to the taste of a poet by its romantic and diversified scenery. Here he was visited by sir Walter Raleigh, with whom he bad formed an intimacy on his first arrival in Ireland, who proved a second Sidney to his poetical ardour, and appears to have urged him to that composition which constitutes his highest fame. In 1590 he published “The Faerie Qneene disposed into Twelve Books, fashioning XII Morall Vertues.”

It is necessary, however, in this place, to notice a question which has been started, and contested with much eagerness by Spenser’s biographers and critics, namely, whether any part of the “Faerie Queene” has been lost, or whether the author did not leave the work unfinished as we now have it. Sir James Ware informs us that the poet finished the latter part of the “Faerie Queene” in Ireland, “which was soone after unfortunately lost by the disorder and abuse of his servants, whom he had sent before him into England.” The authority of sir James Ware, who lived so near Spenser’s time, and gave this account in 1633, seems entitled to credit, but it has been opposed by Fenton, who thinks, with Dryden, that “upon sir Philip Sidney’s death, Spenser was deprived both of the means and spirit to accomplish his design,” and treats sir James Ware’s account as a hearsay or a fiction. Dr. Birch, on the other hand, contends that the event of sir Philip Sidney’s death was not sufficient to have prevented Spenser from finishing his poem, since he actually gave the world six books of it after his patron’s death. The author of Spenser’s life in the “Biographia Britannica,” after gaining some advantage over Dr. Birch’s inferences from incorrect dates, argues against the probability of a manuscript of the last six books, principally from the shortness of the poet’s life after the year 1596. The late Dr. Farmer is of the same opinion, but appears perhaps somewhat too hasty in asserting that the question may be effectually answered by a single quotation. The quotation is from Brown’s “Britannia’s Pastorals,” 1616, and merely amounts to this—that Spenser died

It does not appear what became of Spenser’s wife and children. Two sons are said to have survived him, Sylvanus and Peregrine. Sylvanus married Ellen Nangle, or Nagle, eldest daughter of David Nangle of Moneanymy in the county of Cork, by whom he had two sons, Edmund and William Spenser. His other son, Peregrine, also married and had a son, Hugolin, who, after the restoration of Charles II. was replaced by the court of claims in as much of the lands as could be found to have been his ancestor’s. Hugolin, however, attached himself to the cause of James II. and after the Revolution was outlawed for treason and rebellion. Some time after, his cousin William, son of Svlvanus, became a suitor for the forfeited property, and recovered it by the interest of Mr. Montague, afterwards earl of Halifax, who was then at the head of the Treasury. He had been introduced to. Mr. Montague by Congreve, who, with others, was desirous of honouring the descendant of so great a poet. Dr. Birch describes him as a man somewhat advanced in years, but unable to give any account of the works of his ancestor which are wanting. The family has been since very imperfectly traced.

Hume was among the first who endeavoured to depreciate the value of the “Faerie Queene,” by asserting that the perusal of it was rather a task than a pleasure, and challenging any individual to deny this. Pope and lord Somers are two who might have accepted the challenge with hope of success. But in fact Spenser will not lose much if we admit the assertion. That the perusal of the Faerie Queene must be at first a task, and a very irksome one, will be confessed by all who are unacquainted with any English words but what are current. If that difficulty be surmounted, the reader of taste cannot fail to relish the beauties so profusely scattered in this poem. With respect to the objections that have been made to the allegorical plan, it is sufficient to refer to its antiquity; it was one of the earliest vehicles of pleasure blended with instruction, and although modern critics object to a continued allegory, which indeed it is extremely difficult to accomplish without falling into inconsistencies, yet specimens of it, detached personifications, aiming at the sublimity of Spenser, still continue to be among the efforts by which our best writers wish to establish their fame. Perhaps the same remark may be extended to the stanza of Spenser, which critics have censured, and poets, praised by those critics, have imitated. After all it is to the language of Spenser that we must look for the reason why his popularity is less than that of many inferior poets. Spenser, Chaucer, and indeed all the early poets can be relished, not by common readers, but by students, and not separately but as connected with times, characters, and manners, the illustration of which demands the skill and industry of the antiquary.

, an Italian scholar of great eminence in the sixteenth century, was born at Padua April 12, 1500, of noble parents. After finishing his studies at Bologna, under the celebrated Pomponatius, he returned to Padua, and took a doctor’s degree in philosophy and medicine. He also was made professor of logic, and afterwards of philosophy in general; but soon after he had obtained the chair of philosophy, he was so diffident of his acquirements that he returned to Padua for farther improvement under his old master, and did not return to hi% professorship until after the death of Pomponatius. In 1528, however, the death of his father obliged him to resign his office, and employ his time on domestic affairs. Yet these, a marriage which he now contracted, the lawsuits which he had to carry on, and some honourable employments he was engaged in by^the government, did not prevent him from cultivating his literary talents with such success, that there were few men in his time who could be compared with him in point of learning, eloquence, and taste. In 1560 he was deputed to go to Rome by the duke of Urbino, under the pontificate of Pius IV. and there obtained the esteem of the learned of that metropolis, and received marks of high favour from the pope and his nephew Charles Borromeo, who invited him to those literary assemblies in his palace, which were called “Vatican nights.” On his departure, after four years residence, the pope gave him the title and decorations of a knight. When he returned home he was equally honoured by the dukes of Urbino and Ferrara, but certain lawsuits, arising from his family affairs, induced him to remove again to Rome, about the end of 1573, and he did not return until five years after, when he took up his final residence at Padua. He had flattering invitations to quit his native city from various princes, but a private life had now more charms for him. He died June 12, 1588, having completed his eighty- eighth year. His funeral was performed with every circumstance of respect and magnificence. His works form no less than 5 vols. 4to, elegantly printed at Venice in 1740; but there had been editions of individual parts printed and reprinted often in his life-time. His range of study was extensive. He was equally conversant in Greek and Latin, sacred and profane literature, and displayed on every subject which employed his pen, great learning and judgment. Among his works, are dialogues on morals, the belles lettres, rhetoric, poetry and history. He wrote also both serious and burlesque poetry. His prose style is among the best of his age, and has fewer faults than arc to be found among the Italian writers o! the sixteenth century. He wrote a tragedy, “Canace et Macareus,” which had its admirers and its critics, and occasioned a controversy on its merits.

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

, an atheistical philosopher, was the son of a merchant, who was originally a Portuguese; and was born at Amsterdam about 1633. He learned Latin of a physician, who taught it at Amsterdam; and who is supposed to have been but loose in the principles of religion. He also studied divinity for many years; and afterwards devoted himself entirely to philosophy. He was a Jew by birth; but soon began to dislike the doctrine of the Rabbins; and discovered this dislike to the synagogue. It is said that the Jews offered to tolerate him, provided he would comply outwardly with their ceremonies, and even promised him a yearly pension, being unwilling to lose a man who was capable of doing such credit to their profession; but he could not comply, and by degrees left their synagogue; and was excommunicated. Afterwards he professed to be a Christian, and not only went himself to the churches of the Calvin i>t., or Lutherans, but likewise frequently exhorted others to go, and greatly recommended some particular preachers. His tirst apostacy was to Mennonism, on embracing which, he exchanged his original name, Baruch, for that of Benedict. He removed from Amsterdam, whither he had gone to avoid the Jews, to the Hague, where he subsisted as an optical-instrument-maker, and led a frugal and retired life, the leisure of which he devoted to study. While known only as a deserter from Judaism, he was invited by the elector Palatine to fill the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg; but from an apprehension that his liberty would, in that situation, be abridged, he declined the proposal. He lived in retirement, with great sobriety and decency of manners, till a consumption brought him to an early end, in 1677.

Spinoza, in his life-time, published “Tractatus theologico-politicus,” “A Treatise theological and political,” which was reckoned his great work; and after his death were published five treatises: 1. Ethics demonstrated geometrically. 2. Politics. 3. On the Improvement of the Understanding. 4. Epistles and Answers. 5. A Hebrew Grammar. The impieties contained in these treatises excited general indignation; and refutations were sent forth from various quarters, by writers of all religious persuasions, in which the empty sophisms, the equivocal definitions, the false reasonings, and all the absurdities of the writings of Spinoza are fully exposed. The sum of his doctrine, according to Brucker, is this: The essence of substance, is to exist. There is in naaire only one substance, with two modifications, thought and extension. This substance is infinitely diversified, having within its own essence the necessary causes of the changes through which it passes. No substance can be supposed‘ td’ produce or create another; therefore, besides the substance of the universe there can be no other, but all things are comprehended in it, and are modes of this substance, either thinking or extended. This one universal substance, Spinoza calls God, and ascribes to it divine attributes. He expressly asserts, that God is the immanent, not the transitive, cause of all things. His doctrine is, therefore, not to be confounded with that of those ancient philosophers, who held God to be To Trar, “The Universal Whole;” lor, according to them, the visible and intellectual worlds are produced by emanation from the eternal fountain of divinity; that is, by an expanding, or unfolding, of the divine nature, which was the effect of intelligence and design; whereas, in the system of Spinoza, all things are immanent, and necessary modifications of one universal substance, which, to conceal his atheism, he calls God. Nor can Spinozism be with any propriety derived, as some have imagined, from the Cartesian philosophy; for, in that system, two distinct substances are supposed; and the existence of Deity is a fundamental principle.

It may seem very surprising, that a man who certainly was not destitute of discernment, abilities, and learning, should have fallen into such impieties. And this could not have happened, had he not confounded his conceptions with subtle and futile distinctions concerning the nature of substance, essence, and existence, and neglected to attend to the obvious, but irrefragable, argument for the existence of God, arising from the appearances of intelligence and design in all the productions of nature.

The impious system of Spinoza was maintained with so much ingenuity, that it found many patrons in the United Provinces, among whom were Lewis Meyer, who republished Spinoza’s works, and himself wrote a work entitled, “Philosophy the Interpreter of Scripture” and Van Leenhof, an ecclesiastic of Zwoll, who wrote a piece entitled “Heaven in Earth,” of the doctrine of which he was obliged to make a public recantation. Others, under the pretence of refuting Spinoza, secretly favoured his system. But, against the poison of their impious tenets sufficient antidotes were soon provided by many able defenders of religion, whose writings are well known, particularly in Cudwortb’s “Intellectual System,” the professed object of which is, the refutation of atheism. In this country Spinoza does not appear to have had many followers. Few have been suspected of adhering to his doctrine; and among those who have been suspected, few have studied it: to which we may add, with Bayle, that of those who have studied it few have understood it. Toland seems to have approached the nearest to his system of any modern freethinker: and indeed the doctrines inculcated in his “Pantheisticon,” are much the same with those of Spinoza. Abroad, a German professor, E. G. Paulns, of Je;ia, lias lately attempted to revive the memory, at le;':-.t, of Spinoza, by a new edition of his works published in 1302; and at the Hague, was edited, about the same time, by C. T. de Murr, a manuscript of Spinoza’s, never before printed, containing annotations on his “Tractatum theologico-politicum.”

, a learned Lutheran divine, descended from a grandfather who had been ennobled by the emperor Ferdinand II. was born Sept. 11, 1639. His father dying when he was about seven years of age, the care of him devolved on a mother whose affection repaired that loss. In 1654 he began his academical studies at Leipsic, and was honoured with the degree of M. A. in 1658. He afterwards, as was much the custom in those days with men destined for literarylife, visited other eminent schools or colleges, at Wittemberg, Leyden, Cologne, Mentz, &c. and lastly Basil, where he formed a friendship with John Buxtorf. He had not quite completed his intended excursions, when in 1661 he was recalled to Augsburgh, to be deacon of the church of St. James. This office he filled until 1682, when he was made pastor of the same church, and iti 1690 was appointed elder. This, however, he did not long enjoy, as he died Jan. 7, 1691, in the fifty-second year of his age. He was a laborious student, and seems particularly to have studied literary history and biography, and his works on these subjects are noticed with respect by Morhoff, whose opinion, we confess, we are inclined to prefer to that of either Moreri or Baillet. He wrote some few books against infidelity, and some sermons: but among those of the classes we have mentioned, are, 1. “De re literaria Sinensinm commentarius,” Leyden, 16*60, 12mo. 2. “Sacra Bibliothecarum illustrium arcana retecta, sive Mss. theologicorum, in præcipuis Europie bibliothecis extantium de^signatio cum preliminari dissertatione, speciniine Uovib Bibliotbecae un'iversalis, et coronide philologica,” Augsburgh, 1668, 8vo. 3. “Templum honoris reseratum, in quo quinquagVnta illustrium hujus at-vi orthodoxorum theologarum, pbilologorumque imagines exhibentur,” ibid. 1673, 4to. It has beeu objected to these lives, which are accompanied with weltengraven portraits, that the author deals too much in generalities, and too little in facts; but this was a common fault with the early biographers. On the other hand, we have found him very correct in what he has given, and particularly in the lists of the works of the respective authors. 4. “Felix Litteratus,” ibid. 1673, “Infelix Litteratus,” ibid. 1630, and “Litteratus felicissimus,” are three works which Spizelius wrote on a subject that has lately engaged theingeniouspen of Mr. D'Israeli, in the “Calamities of Authors.” Mr. D‘Israeli blames our author’s ponderosity, but allows that he is not to be condemned because he is verbose and heavy; and he has reflected more deeply than Valerianus, his predecessor on the subject, by opening the moral causes of those calamities which he describes. Spizelius wrote a life of himself under the title of; ’ Ad Litteratos homines autor felicis, infelicis, felicissimique litterati de seipso.“We know not whether this was printed separately, but it was inserted in Pipping’s collection, entitled” Sacer decadum Septenarius memoriam Theologorum nostrae setatis renovatam exhibens," Leipsic, 1705, 8vo, a work which we have not seen.

Beam, tie was made by him master of the requests at Navarre. In the mean time, he read with much eagerness the controversial works of Beiiarmine and Perron; and these made such an impression on him, that, after the example of his brother John, he embraced the popish religion, at Paris in 1505. In 1600, he went to Rome, where he took priest’s orders in 1606, and tiiat year returned to Paris; but some time after went again to Rome, and was employed in an official capacity by pope Paul V. who had a great esteem for him. The general respect indeed which he met with in Italy would have determined him to spend the remainder of his days there; but, in 1626, he was recalled into France, and made bishop of Pamiers by Louis XIII. He hesitated at first about accepting this bishopric; but pope Urban Viu. commanding him, he went and entered upon it in 1626. Soon after his installation, the duke of Rohan, who was commander of the protestants, took Pamiers, when Spondanus escaped by a breach in the walls; and the year after, when the town was retaken by the prince of Conde, received letters of congratulation upon his safety from Urban VIII. He quitted Pamiers in 1642, and went toToulonse; where he died May 16, 1643.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family in that country. His grandfather was killed in the battle of Floddon-field with his king, James IV.* He was born in 1565; and the writer of his life telU us, as something very important, that among the rest r were present at his birth, “not ordinary gossipers,” says he, “but women of good note,” there was one who, in a sober, though prophetic fit, taking the child in her arms, called aloud to the rest in these or the like terms, “You may all very well rejoice at the birth of this child-, for he will become the prop and pillar of this church, and the main and chief instrument in defending it.” He shewed from his childhood a very ready wit, great spirit, and a good memory; and, being educated in the university of Glasgow, arrived so early to perfection, that he received his degree in his sixteenth year. Having made himself a thorough master of profane learning, he applied himself to sacred; and became so distinguished in it, that at eighteen he was thought fit to succeed his father, who was minister of Calder.

introduced to archbishop Cranmer, who A full account, of his life is give:

and fco-opcraU-il with the other reform- rev. Jamesr. ft gyo. became primate and metropolitan of all Scotland. The year following-, he presided in the assembly of Aberdeen: as he did likewise in other assemblies for restoring the ancient discipline, and bringing the church of Scotland to some degree of uniformity with that of England. He continued in high esteem with James I. during his whole reign; nor was he less valued by Charles I. who in 1633 was crowned by him in the abbey church of Holyrood-house. In 1635, he was made chancellor of Scotland; which post he had not held full four years, when the popular confusions obliged him to retire into England. Being broken with age and grief, and sickness, he went first to Newcastle; and continued there, till, by rest and the care of the physicians, he had recovered strength enough to travel to London; where he no sooner arrived, than he relapsed, and died in 1639. He was interred in Westminster abbey, and an inscription upon brass fixed over him. He married a daughter of David Lindsay, bishop of Ross; by whom he had several children. Sir Robert Spotsvvood, his second son, was eminent for his abilities and knowledge in the laws; was preferred by king James, and afterwards by king Charles; but was put to death for adhering to the marquis of Montrose. Clarendon calls him “a worthy, honest, loyal gentleman, and as wise a man as the Scottish nation had at that time.”

In 1655, was published at London, in folio, his “History of the Church of Scotland, beginning the year of our Lord 203, and continued to the end of the reign of king James VI.” In his dedication of this history to Charles I. dated Nov. 15, 1639, only eleven days before his death, he observes, that “there is not among men a greater help for the attaining unto wisdom, than is the reading of history. We call Experience a good mistress,” says he, “and so she is; but, as it is in our Scottish proverb, ‘ she seldom quits the cost.’ History is not so: it teacheth us at other men’s cost, and carrieth this advantage more, that in a few hours reading a man may gather more instructions out of the same, than twenty men living successively one after another can possibly learn by their own experience.” This history was begun at. the influence and command of king James, who, as already observed, had a high opinion of the author’s abilities. It is a work composed from scanty materials, but with great impartiality. There is throughout the whole an air of probity and candour, which is said to have been the peculiar character of the writer. Upon expressing a diffidence to king James about that part of it which relates to his mother, and which had been the stumbling-block of former historians, he replied, “Speak the truth, man, and spare not.” With regard to the archbishop’s political conduct and principles, historians have given very opposite accounts. We shall refer to two of the most recent and most candid.

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

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1636, at Tallaton in Devonshire, the son of a clergyman; and having been educated, as he tells of himself, not at Westminster or Eton, but at a little school by the church-yard side, became a commoner of Wadham college, in Oxford, in 1651; and, being chosen scholar next year, proceeded through the usual academical course, and in 1657 became M. A. He obtained a fellowship, and commenced poet. In 1659, his poem on the death of Oliver was published, with those of Dryden and Waller. In his dedication to Dr. Wilkins he appears a very willing and liberal encomiast, both of the living and the dead. He implores his patron’s excuse of his verses, both as falling so “infinitely below the full and sublime genius of that excellent poet who made this way of writing free of our nation,” and being “so little equal and proportioned to the renown of the prince on whom they were written; such great actions and lives deserving to be the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies.” He proceeds “Having so long experienced your care and indulgence, and been formed, as it were, by your own hands, not to entitle you to any thing which my meanness produces, would be not only injustice but sacrilege.” He published the same year a poem on the “Plague of Athens;” a subject recommended to him doubtless by the great success of Lucretius in describing the same event. To these he added afterwards a poem on Cowley’s death. After the Restoration he took orders, and by Cowley’s recommendation was made chaplain to the witty and profligate duke of Buckingham, whom he is said to have helped in writing “The Rehearsal,” and who is said to have submitted all his works to his perusal . He was likewise chaplain to the king. As he was the favourite of Wilkins, at whose house began those philosophical conferences and inquiries which in time produced the royal society, he was consequently engaged in the same studies, and became one of the fellows and when, after their incorporation, something seemed necessary to reconcile the public to the new institution, he undertook to write its history, which he published in 1667. This is one of the few books which selection of sentiment and elegance of diction have been able to preserve, though written upon a subject flux and transitory *. The “History of the Royal Society” is now read, not with the wish to know what they were then doing, but how their transactions are exhibited by Sprat. They have certainly been since exhibited far better by Dr. Birch, and more recently by Dr. Thomson. In the next year he published “Observations on Sorbiere’s Voyage into England, in a letter to Mr. Wren.” This is a work not ill performed; but was rewarded with at least its full proportion of praise. In 1668 he published Cowley’s Latin poems, and prefixed in Latin the life of the author, which he afterwards amplified, and placed before Cowley’s English works, which were by will committed to his care. Ecclesiastical dignities now fell fast upon him. In 166S he became a prebendary of Westminster, and had afterwords the church o*f St. Margaret, adjoining to the abbey. He was in 1680 made canon of Windsor, in 1683 dean of Westminster, and in 1684 bishop of Rochester. The court having thus a claim to his diligence and gratitude, he was required to write the “History of the Rye-house Plot;” and in 1685 published “A true account and declaration of the horrid Conspiracy against the late King, his present Majesty, and the present Government;” a performance which he thought convenient, after the revolution, to ex­* This work was attacked by Mr. ing betwixt H. and Dr. Merret;"

royal society, and an apology against More relating unto Henry Sttibbe, physome of their cavils. With- a post- sician at Warwick.“script concerning the quarrel dependtenuate and excuse. The same year, being clerk of the closet to the king, he was made dean of the chapel-royal; and the year afterwards received the last proof of his master’s confidence, by being appointed one of the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs. On the critical day, when the Declaration distinguished the true sons of the church of England, he stood neuter, and permitted it to be read at Westminster, but pressed none to violate his conscience; and, when the bishop of London was brought before them, gave his voice in his favour. Thus far he suffered interest or obedience to carry him; but farther he refused to go. When he found that the powers of the ecclesiastical commission were to be exercised against those who had refused the Declaration, he wrote to the lords, and other commissioners, a formal profession of his unwillingness to exercise that authority any longer, and withdrew himself from them. After they had read his letter, they adjourned for six months, and scarcely ever met afterwards. When king James was frighted away, and a new government was to be settled, Sprat was otxe of those who considered, in a conference, the great question, whether the crown was vacant, and manfully spoke in favour of his old master. He complied, however, with the new establishment, and was left unmolested; but, in 1692, a strange attack was made upon him by one Robert Young and Stephen Blackhead, both men convicted of infamous crimes, and both, when the scheme was laul, prisoners in Newgate. These men drew up an Association, in which they whose names were subscribed, declared their resolution to restore king James; to seize the princess of Orange, dead or alive; and to be ready with thirty thousand men to meet kingJam.es when he should land. To this they put the name of Sancroft, Sprat, Marlborough, Salisbury, and others. The copy of Dr. Sprat’s name was obtained by a fictitious request, to which an answer” in his own hand“was desired. His hand was copied so well, that he confessed it might have deceived himself. Blackhead, who had carried the letter, being sent again with a plausible message, was very curious to see the house, and particularly importunate to be let into the study; where, as is supposed, he designed to leave the Association. This, however, was denied him, and he dropt it in a flower-pot in the parlour. Young now laid an information before the privy-council; an.d May 7, 16.92, the bishop was arrested, and kept at a 01 essenger’s, under a strict guard, eleven days. His house was searched, and directions were given that the flower-pots should he inspected. The messengers, however, missed the room in which the paper was left. Blackhead went therefore a third time; and, rinding his paper where he had left it, brought it away. The bishop, having been enlarged, was, on June the 10th and I 3th, examined again before the privy-council, and confronted with his accusers. Young persisted with the most obdurate impudence, against the strongest evidence; but the resolution of Blackhead bydegrees gave way. There remained at last no doubt of the bishop’s innocence, who, with great prudence and diligence, traced the progress, and detected the characters of the two informers, and published an account of his own examination and deliverance; which made such an impression upon him, that he commemorated it through lii'e by a yearly day or thanksgiving. With what hope, or what interest, the villains had contrived an accusation which they must know themselves utterly unable to prove, was never discovered. After this, the bishop passed his days in the quiet exercise of his function. When the cause of Sacheverell put the public in commotion, he honestly appeared among the friends of the church. He lived to his seventyninth year, and died May 20, 1713. Burnet is not very favourable to his memory; but he and Burnet were old rivals. On some public occasion they both preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days an indecent custom: when the preacher touched any favourite topic in a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the like animating hum but he stretched out his hand to the congregation, and cried,” Peacf, peace, I pray you, pet;ci -.“” This,“says Dr. Johnson,” I was told in my youth by an old man, who had been no careless observer of the passages of those times.“”Burnet’s sermon,“says Salmon,” was remarkable for sedition, and Sprat’s for loyalty. Burnet had the thanks of the house; Sprat had no thanks, but a good living from the King; which,“he said,” was of as much value as the thanks of the Commons.“Sprat was much admired in his day for the elegance of his prose style, but that is not to be measured by the standard of modern times. In his political sentiments he changed so often, and so easily accommodated himself to the varied circumstances of the times in which he lived, that the praise of consistency cannot be given. Yet we have seen that on some occasions he stood almost alone in vindication of conduct which did him honour. The works of Sprat, besides his few poems, are, 2.” The History of the Royal Society.“3.” The Life of Cowley.“4.” The Answer to Sorbiere.“5.” The History of the Rye-house Plot.“6.” The relation of his own Examination.“And, 7. a volume of” Sermons.“Dr. Johnson says,” I have heard it observed, with great justness, that every book is of a different kind, and that each has its distinct and characteristical excellence.“In his poems he considered Cowley as a model; and supposed that as he was imitated, perfection was approached. Nothing therefore but Pindaric liberty was to be expected. There is in his few productions no want of such conceits as he thought excellent; and of those our judgment may be settled by the first that appears in his praise of Cromwell, where he says that Cromwell’s” fame, like man, will grow white as it grows old.“According to Spence, in his Anecdotes, Pope used to call Sprat” a worse Cowley."

, known first by the name of mademoiselle de Launai, was thedaughter of a painter of Paris, who being obliged to quit the kingdom, left her exposed to poverty while yet a child. Chance occasioned her receiving a distinguished education in the priory of St. Louis, at Rouen; but on the death of the superior of that monastery, who was her friend, she was again reduced to extreme indigence, and finding no other resource, engaged herself as a waiting-woman to the duchess of Maine. Unfit, however, for the duties of such an office, she lived in obscurity and sorrow, till a singular event, in which she seemed totally unconcerned, made her known much to her honour. A beautiful young lady of Paris., named Tetard, was persuaded by her mother to counterfeit being possessed. All Pans flocked to see this pretended wonder, not excepting the court; and this becoming the universal topic of conversation, mademoiselle de Launai wrote a very witty letter on the- occasion to M, de Fontenelle, which was universally admired. The duchess having discovered the writer in the person of her waiting-woman, employed he:­from that time in all the entertainments given at Sceaux, and made her her confidant. M. de Launai wrote verses for some of the pieces acted at Sceaux, drew up the plans of others, and was consulted in all. She soon also acquired the esteem of mess, de Fontenelie, de Tourreii, de Valincourt, de Chaulieu, de Malezieu, and other persons of merit, who frequented the court. This lady was involved in the duchess of Maine’s disgrace, during the regency of the duke of Orleans, and confined in the Bastile near two years; but being set at liberty, the duchess married her to M. de Staal, lieutenant of the Swiss guards, afterwards captain and marechal de camp. It is said she had refused to marry the celebrated M. Dacier. She died in 1750, and some “Memoirs of her Life,” written by herself, were soon after published in 3 vols. 12mo. They contain nothing very important, but are very amusing, and very well written, their style being pure and elegant. A fourth volume has since appeared, consisting of two pleasing plays, one entitled L'Engouement, the other La Mode, which were acted at Sceaux.

The earliest of his publications, or at least the first which Brought him into notice was, l. “The miseries and great hardships of the Inferior Clergy in and about London; and a modest plea for their rights and better usage; in a letter to a right rev. prelate,” 1722, 8vo. 2. “Memoirs of' bishop Atterbury, from his birth to his banishment,” 1723, 8vo. 3. “A Funeral Sermon on the death of Dr. Brady,” 172G, 8vo. 4. “A complete body of Divinity,” 1729, folio. 5. “A fair state of the Controversy between Mr. Woolston: his adversaries containing the substance of what he asserts in his discourses against the literal sense of our blessed Saviour’s miracles; and what Bp. Gibson, Bp. Chandler, Bp. Smalbroke, Bp. Sherlock, Dr. Pearce, Mr. Ray, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Chandler, &c. have advanced against him,” 1730, 8vo. This, which Leland calls a <' clear account,“is not a mere; compilation, but shows the author intimately acquainted with the controversy, and fully able to strengthen the cause for which Woolston was opposed. As this work was soon out of print, he incorporated its principal contents in a larger volume, entitled, 6.” A Defence of the Christian Religion from the several objections or' Antiscripturists,“&c. 1731, 8vo. 7.” Reflections on the nature and property of Languages,“1731, 8vo. 8.” The Book-binder, Book-printer, and Book-seller confuted, or the Author’s vindication of himself from the calumnies in a paper industriously dispersed by one Edition. Together with some Observations on the History of the Bible, as it is at present published by the said Ediin. By the rev. Mr. Stackhouse, curate of Finchley,“17.'J2, 8vo. This v scarce pamphlet, of which but one copy is known (now in the curious collection of James Bindley, esq.) relates to a squabble Mr. Stackhouse had with Ediin (who appears to have been a mercenary bookseller of the lower order, and a petty tyrant over his poor authors), respecting Mr. Stackhouse’s” History of the Bible.“Stackhouse, however, engaged afterwards with more reputable men, and produced, 9. his” New History of the Bible, from the beginning of the world to the establishment of Christianity,“1732, 2 vols. folio. This has always been considered as a work of merit, and has been often reprinted the best edition is said to be that of 1752, of which the engravings are of a very superior cast to what are usually given in works published periodically. 10.” A Sermon on the 30th of January.“1736, 8vo. 11.” A Sermon on the Decalogue,“1743, 8vo. 12.” A new and practical Exposition oo the Creed,“1747, folio. 13.” Vana doctrinae emolumenta,“1752, 4to. This is a poem, and his last publication, in which he deplores his miserable condition in the language of disappointment and despair. Besides these, he had been, we know not at what period, the author of, 14.” An Abridgment of Burnet’s Own Times,“8vo. 15.” The art of Short- hand,“4to. 16.” A System of Practical Duties,“8vo. Long after his death, if they were not re-publications, appeared, under his name, a” Greek Grammar,“and” A general view of Ancient History, Chronology, and Geography, &c." 4to. There was a rev. Thomas Stackhouse, styled minister of St. Mary Magdalen at Bridgnorth in Shropshire, who communicated to the Royal Society som-e extracts from a topographical account of Bridgnorth (Phil. Trans, vol. XLIV.) but whether this was our author does not appear.

, a brave naval officer in the seventeenth century, was commander of a ship of war during the protectorate of Cromwell, and distinguished himself by some actions of singular gallantry. In 1G56, having three frigates under his command, he fell in with the Spanish flota, consisting of eight sail; notwithstanding the disproportion of numbers, he attacked them, and with such success, that in the space of a few hours he burnt one, sunk a second, captured two, and drove two others on shore. The treasure on board of his prizes amounted to 600,000l. sterling. The next year, in company with admiral Blake, who had the chief command, he attacked and destroyed the Spanish flota in the bay of Santa Cruz; “an act so miraculous,” says Clarendon, “that all who knew the place wondered how any men, with what courage soever endued, could have undertaken it; indeed, they could hardly persuade themselves to believe what they had done; whilst the Spaniards comforted themselves with the belief that they were devils, and not men, who had destroyed their ships.” For his share in this gallant exploit, captain Stainer was knighted by Cromwell at Whitehall, June 11, 1657; and soon afterwards made a vice-admiral. Sir Richard Stainer was one of the commanders who went with admiral Montague to bring over Charles II. He was knighted by the king, and made rear-admiral of the fleet, but did not long enjoy his honours, as his death took place in Nov. 1662. He was buried at Greenwich, where his lady died the preceding year. Leaving no issue, he bequeathed his large property to his brother, who, by involving himself in a law suit with the salt-company at Droitwich, lost the greater part of his fortune, and grew distressed. His son, the nephew and representative of the gallant sir Richard Stainer, was a few years ago in a workhouse at Birmingham.

Among his elementary treatises are, 1. “Embryon relimatum, sive Vocabularium Metricum,” printed first in 1500, and often reprinted as far as 1636. 2. “Parvulorum institutiones,” which appears to have been a collection of grammatical precepts from other publications of Stanbridge, 1521, 4to, &c. 3. “De ordine constructionum.” 4. “Vulgaria Stanbridgiana,” 4to, without date, but reprinted in 1536. 5. “The accidence of mayster Stanbrydge’s owne makynge.” 6. “Accidentia Stanbridge,” 4to, without date, reprinted in 1534. 7. “Gradus comparationum, &c.” 4to, without date, reprinted in 1526, 1527, 1530. 8. “Sum, es, fui, of Stanbridge,” 4to. 9. “Hexasticon,” addressed to Whittington, who had been one of his scholars, and printed in the “Syntaxis” of the latter, 1521. This John Stanbridge had a kinsman (Warton says, a brother), Thomas Stanbridge, a noted schoolmaster of Banbury in Oxfordshire, and the tutor of sir Thomas Pope. He died in 1522.

, dean of Canterbury, a divine of eminent talents and personal worth, was born March 5, 1660, at Hertishorn in the county of Derby. Of this parish his father, the rev. Thomas Stanhope, was rector, as well as vicar of St. Margaret in the town of Leicester, and chaplain to the earls of Chesterfield and Clare. His mother, whose name was Allestree, was of an ancient family in Derbyshire. His grandfather, Dr. George Stanhope, precentor of York, and rector of Wheldrake in that county, was one of those persecuted ecclesiastics who, for their loyalty to Charles I. experienced the greatest distress; he was dispossessed of his preferments, and (as dean Stanhope told Mr. Walker himself) was driven to the doors with eleven children, and died in 1644.

The mild and friendly temper of dean Stanhope rendered him the delight of all. To the misfortunes of others he was remarkably attentive, and that concern which he expressed, conveyed at once consolation to the heart, and improvement to the understanding. His care as a parish priest, and as a dean, was exemplary. That advice which he gave to others, was the rule of his own practice. In an excellent letter from him to a young clergyman, printed in the Gent. Mag. 1792, he says, “You will do well to demean yourself in all the offices of your function, that people may think you are in very good earnest, and so to order your whole conversation *, that they may be sure you are so.” While he benefited mankind, as a writer, he was no less edifying as a preacher. To a plain and clear style he added the most becoming action, and his manner was peculiarly his own. In his will, among other benevolent legacies, he left the sum of 250l. to found an exhibition for a king’s scholar of Canterbury school. He had been twice married, first to Olivia, daughter of Charles Cotton of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. by whom he had one sun and five daughters; and secondly to Miss Parker, half-sister of sir Charles Wager, who survived him, dying in 1730, aged about fifty-four. He was buried in the church of Lewisham, where is a memorial on a grave-stone, within the rails of the communion-table.

officers, who were much addicted to quite so becoming: for one of his cloth

, was descended from an ancient and honourable family of that name, which flourished for many ages in the county of Nottingham, and was son of Alexander Stanhope, esq. by Catharine his wife, daughter of Arnold Bnrghill, of Thinge-hill Parva, Herefordshire, esq. He was born in 1673. His father, who was very instrumental in the revolution in 1688, being in the beginning of king William’s reign sent envoy extraordinary to the court of Spain, Mr. Stanhope accompanied

Upon the change of administration, a new parliament being called, he was proposed candidate for the City of Westminster, together with sir Henry Dutton-Colt, but being unsuccessful, was chosen again for Cockermouth. He continued prisoner in Spain till 1712, when his imperial majesty made an exchange for the duke of Escalone, formerly viceroy of Naples; and in July the general set out on his return home by the way of France, and on the 16th of August arrived in England. In parliament he now opposed vigorously the measures of the court, and particularly the Bill of Commerce between Great Britain and France. Upon the calling a new parliament in 1713, he lost his election at Cockermouth by a small majority, but was soon after chosen unanimously for Wendover in Bucks; and opposed the Schism-bill with great spirit. Upon the arrival of king George I. in England, he was received by his majesty with particular marks of favour; and on the 27th of September 1714, appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and October the 1st sworn one of the privy- council. On the 20th of the same month, the day of his majesty’s coronation, he, with the lord Cobham, set out with a private commission to the emperor’s court; where having succeeded in his negotiations, he returned to England in the latter end of December. A new parliament being summoned to meet at Westminster on the 17th of March 1714-15, he was unanimously chosen for Cockermouth, as he was likewise for Aldborough in Yorkshire. In July 1716 he attended his majesty to Germany, and was principally concerned in the alliance concluded at that time with France and the States-general, by which the Pretender was removed beyond the Alps, and Dunkirk and Mardyke demolished. He returned with his majesty in 1716, and the following year was appointed first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer. He was afterwards created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of baron Stanhope of Elvaston, in the county of Derby, and viscount Stanhope of Mahon in the island of Minorca. In March 1718, he was appointed principal secretary of state, in the room of the earl of Sunderland, who succeeded lord Stanhope in the Treasury: and soon after was created earl Stanhope. The Spanish power growing more formidable, an alliance was set on foot between his Britannic majesty, the emperor, and the king of France, for which purpose earl Stanhope set out in June for Paris, and thence to Madrid, but finding nothing could be done with that court, he returned to England in September. In December following, he introduced a bill into the House of Lords “for strengthening the protestant interest in these kingdoms,” in which he proposed a repeal of the occasional-conformity bill, and the schism bill, and it passed by a majority of eighteen.

, fourth earl of Chesterfield, was born in London, on the 22d of September 1694. He was the son of Philip third earl of Chesterfield by his wife lady Elizabeth Savile, daughter of George marquis of Halifax. He received his first instructions from private tutors, under the care of his grandmother, lady Halifax and, at the age of eighteen, was sent to Trinity- hall, Cambridge. $ere he studied assiduously, and became, according to his own account, an absolute pedant. “When I talked my best,” he says, “I talked Horace; when I aimed at being facetious, I quoted Martial; and when I had a mind to be a fine gentleman, I talked Ovid. I was convinced that none but the ancients had common sense; that the classics contained every thing that was either necessary, or useful, or ornamental to men: and I was not without thoughts of wearing the toga virilis of the Romans, instead of the vulgar and illiberal dress of the moderns.” He was, however, only two years exposed to this danger, for in the spring of 1714, lord Stanhope left the university for the tour of Europe, but without a governor. He passed the summer of that year at the Hague, among friends who quickly laughed him out of his scholastic habits, but taught him one far more disgraceful and pernicious, as he himself laments, which was that of gaming. Still his leading object was that of becoming an eminent statesman, and of this, among all his dissipations, he never lost sight. From the Hague he went to Paris, where, he informs us, he received his final polish, under the tuition of the belles of that place.

On the accession of George I. general Stanhope, (afterwards earl Stanhope,) his great uncle, being appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, young lord Stanhope was sent for, and though he had intended passing the carnival at Venice, returned early in 1715, and was appointed one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber to the prince of Wales. In the first parliament of this reign he was elected for the borough of St. Germain’s in Cornwall; and soon became distinguished as a speaker. His ambition would not let him rest till he obtained this object; and Re tells his son, in one of his letters, that from the day he was elected, to the day that he spoke, which was a month after, he thought and dreamt of nothing but speaking. He formed about this time a friendship with lord Lumley, afterwards earl of Scarborough, which no conflicts of parties ever could impair. When he made his first speech in parliament, which was a violent one, he was actually under age, and receiving a hint of this from one of the opposite party, thought proper to give up his attendance for a time, and return to Paris. His biographer surmises that he might there be engaged in political services, as well as in pleasure, which was his apparent object. Having returned to England in 1716, he spoke in favour of the septennial bill, and from time to time came forward on other occasions. The division between the court and the prince of Wales soon after threw lord Stanhope, who was attached to the latter, into opposition, from which all the influence and offers of the general, now in the height of power and favour, could not recall him. The second borough for which he sat, was Lestwithiel in Cornwall; but in January 1726, the death of his father removed him into the House of Lords.

On the accession of George II. in 1727, whom he had served with steadiness for thirteen years, lord Chesterfield seemed to have a right to expect particular favour. In this he was disappointed, owing to his having paid his court to the king’s mistress lady Suffolk, instead of applying to the queen, which her majesty, as well as the king, who always preserved a high respect for the queen, resented; but in 1728 he was appointed ambassador to Holland, in which station he was determined to distinguish himself, and his efforts were perfectly successful. Mr. Slingeland, then the grand pensionary of Holland, conceived a friendship for him, and much advanced his diplomatic education. Having by his address preserved Hanover from a war, he received high marks of his majesty’s favour in being made high steward of the household, and knight of the garter. He came over in the summer of 1730, to be installed at Windsor, and then returned to his embassy. He was recalled in 1732, on the plea of health; and when he recovered, began again to distinguish himself in the House of Lords; and in the same year, on the occasion of the excise-bill, went into strong opposition against sir Robert Walpole. He was immediately obliged to resign his office of high steward, and so ill received at court that he desisted from attending it; He continued in opposition, not only to the end of sir Robert’s ministry in 1742, but even against the men with whom he had acted in the minority. It was not till the coalition of parties in 1744, by what was called “the broad-bottomed treaty,” that he was admitted into the cabinet, and then very much against the will of the king, who now had long considered him as a personal enemy. In the course of this long opposition he had frequently distinguished himself by his speeches; but particularly on the occasion of the bill for putting the theatres under the authority of a licenser, which he opposed in a speech of great animation, still extant in his works. During the same period we find him engaging in marriage with Melosina de Schulenburg, countess of Walsingham, to whom he was united in September 1733; but still constantly attentive to the education of his natural son by a former connection at the Hague. By his wife he had no children. In 1741 and 1742 he was obliged to pay temporary visits to the continent on account of his health, at which time it appears that he wrote regularly to his son, then only ten years old.

On the llth of January, 1745, he was again sent ambassador and plenipotentiary to Holland, and succeeded in the purposes of his embassy, beyond the hopes of those who had employed him. He took his leave of the statesgeneral eight days after the battle of Fontenoy, and hastened to his office of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to which he had been nominated before he went to Holland. That he filled this difficult office at a very critical time, with the greatest dignity and ability, is well known, and few viceroys have succeeded so completely in conciliating the esteem and confidence of the Irish nation. He left it, however, in April 1746. His services there and in Holland had succeeded in removing the prejudices of the king, at whose express desire he accepted the place of principal secretary of state in November the same year, and returned no more to Ireland. He retired from this office on the 6th. of January 1748, even more to the regret of the king, whom he had conciliated by his manners as well as his services, than he had entered at first into administration. He was, however, determined to the step, by finding that he could not carry measures in the cabinet, which appeared to him of the highest political importance. His health also had greatly declined, he was troubled by frequent attacks of vertigo, and appears from this time to have determined to preserve himself free from the fatigues of office. His retirement was amused and dignified by literature and other elegant pursuits; and the chief part of his miscellaneous works bear date after this period. Deafness corning upon him, in addition to his other complaints, he did not often take an active part in the business of the House of Lords, but in the debates concerning the alteration of the style, which took place in February 1751, he distinguished himself by an eloquent speech in favour of the measure. Of this he speaks with modesty in one of his letters to his son. Every one complimented him, and said that he had made the whole very clear to them, “when, God knows,” says he, “I had not even attempted it. I could as soon have talked Celtic or Sclavonian to them as astronomy, and they would have understood me full as well. Lord Macclesfield,” he adds, “who had the greatest share in forming the bill, and is one of the greatest mathematicians and astronomers in Europe, spoke afterwards with infinite knowledge, and all the clearness that so intricate a matter would admit of; but as his words, his periods, and his utterance were not near so good as mine, the preference was most unanimously, though most unjustly, given to me.”

Anxious to support a literary character, lord Chesterfield wished also to be considered as a patron of literature, but, occupied by other cares, and not willing to make any great sacrifices for that object, he managed his advances to Dr. Johnson on the subject of his Dictionary so ill, that they procured for him only a rebuff, accompanied by that letter of dignified severity, which, though he affected to despise, he could not but feel at the time. It must be owned, however, that the two papers which he published on the occasion, in the World (No. 100 and 101), gave an honourable and useful recommendation to the work. In November, 1768, he lost that son whose education and advancement had been, for many years, the principal objects of his care; and, his own infirmities increasing very fast upon him, the remainder of his life wore a cast of melancholy and almost of despondency. He represents himself, in some letters at that period, as “totally unconnected with the world, detached from life, bearing the burthen of it with patience, from instinct rather than reason, and, from that principle alone, taking all proper methods to preserve it.” This, indeed, was not uniform; his natural vivacity still occasionally displayed itself; but in his moments of seriousness he presents a melancholy picture, of a mind destitute of the only effectual supports under natural decay and pain. He lived, with increasing infirmities, to the 24th of March 1773. His character is thus briefly summed up by Dr. Maty. “A nobleman unequalled in his time for variety of talents, brilliancy of wit, politeness, and elegance of conversation. At once a man of pleasure ancl of business; yet never suffering the former to encroach upon the latter. His embassy in Holland marks his skill, dexterity, and address as an able negotiator. His administration in Ireland, where his name is still revered by all ranks and orders of men, indicates his integrity, vigilance, and sound policy as a statesman. His speeches in parliament fix his reputation as a distinguished orator, in a refined and uncommon species of eloquence. His conduct in public life was upright, conscientious, and steady: in private, friendly and affectionate; in both, pleasant, amiable, and conciliating.” He adds, “these were his excellencies; let those who surpass him speak of his defects.” This friendly artifice to close the mouths of objectors, ought not, however, to prevent an impartial biographer from saying, for the benefit of mankind at large, that the picture he has exhibited of himself in hisLetters to his Son,“proves him to have been a man in whose mind the applause of the world was the great, and almost the sole governing principle. No attack of an enemy could have degraded his character so much as the publication of these letters; which, if they do not quite deserve the severe reprehension of Johnson, that they” inculcate the morals of a strumpet, with the manners of a dancing-master," certainly display a relaxation of principle, for which no talents can make amends.

Having spent some time in foreign travel, he took up his residence, during the usurpation, in the Middle Temple, where he formed a friendship and community of studies with his first cousin, E'iward Sherburne, afterwards sir Edward, the poet and translator, who dedicated his poems to Stanley. These ingenious men arrived at the Temple about the same time, from the unfortunate surrender of Oxford to the parliament forces. Stanley, as Wood says, now “became much deserving of the commonwealth of learning in general, aad particularly for the smooth and genteel spirit in poetry, which appears not only in his genuine poems, but also from those things he hath translated out of the ancient Greek and Latin, as the modern Italian, Spanish, and French poets.”

Mr. Stanley died at his lodgings, in Suffolk-street, in the parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, April 12, 167S, and was buried in the church there. He married Dorothy daughter and co-heir of sir James Enyon, of Flower, in Northamptonshire, bart. By this lady he had a son of both his own names, who was educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, and, when very young (Aubrey says at fourteen), translated Ælian’s “Various Histories,” which he dedicated to his aunt, the lady Newton, wife of sir Henry Puckering Newton, knt. and bart. to whom his father had dedicated his jÆschylus.

Mr, Stanley’s “Poems” and “Translations” were printed in 1649, 8vo, and reprinted in 1651 with additions; and correct editions of both were lately published in 1814 and 1815, under the fostering hand of sir E. Brydges, bart. who has prefixed a biographical memoir to the “Poems,” to which we are greatly indebted in this sketch, especially for corrections of the preceding erroneous accounts of Mr. Stanley.

But the work to which Mr. Stanley deservedly owed his high reputation as a scholar, was his “History of Philosophy, containing the Lives, Opinions, Actions, and Discourses of the Philosophers of every Sect.” This he dedicated to his uncle John Marsham, esq. the well-known author of the “Canon Chronicus,” who first suggested the design; and in the dedication Mr. Stanley mentions the learned Gassendus as his precedent; “whom,” he adds, “nevertheless I have not followed in his partiality. For h<? though limited to a single person, yet giveth himself liberty of enlargement; and taketh occasion, from this subject, to make the world acquainted with many excellent disquisitions of his own. Our scope, being of a greater latitude, affords less opportunity to favour any particular, while there is due to every one the commendation of their own deserts.” This very elaborate and useful work has gone through four editions in English, the first in parts, 1655 1660, the second in 1687, the last and best in 1743, 4to. It was also translated into Latin, and published at Leipsic in 1711, by Fritch, in quarto, with considerable additions and corrections. The account of the Oriental learning and philosophy, with which it concludes, appeared so valuable to Le Clerc, that he published a Latin translation of it in 1690, 8vo, with a dedication to bishop Burnet, and placed it at the end of the second volume of his “Opera Philosophic*.”

Richard had some classical education at Dublin, under Peter White, a celebrated school-master, whence he was sent to Oxford in 1563, and admitted of University-college. After taking one degree in arts, he left Oxford, and undertook the study of the law with diligence, first at FurnivaPsnn, and then at Lincoln’s-inn, where he resided for some time. He then returned to Ireland, married, and turned Roman Catholic. Removing afterwards to the continent, he is said by A. Wood to have become famous for his learning in France, and the Low Countries. Losing his wife, while he was abroad, he entered into orders, and was made chaplain, at Brussels, to Albert archduke of Austria, who was then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. At this place he died in 1618, being universally esteemed as an excellent scholar in the learned languages, a good divine, philosopher, historian, and poet. He kept up a constant correspondence with Usher, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, who was his sister’s son. They were allied, says Dodd, “in their studies as well as blood; being both very curious in searching after the writings of the primitive ages. But their reading had not the same effect. The uncle became a catholic, and took no small pains to bring over the nephew.” Stanyhurst published several works, tke first of which was written when he had been only two years at Oxford, and published about five years after. Ic was a learned commentary on Porphyry, and raised the greatest expectations of his powers, being mentioned with particular praise, as the work of so young a man, by Edmund Campion, the Jesuit, then a siudent of St. John’seollege. It is entitled “Harmonia, seu catena dialectics in Porphyrium,” Lond. 1570, folio. 2. “De rebus in Hibernia gestis, lib, iv.” Antwerp, 1584, 4to. According t*v Keating, this work abounds, not only in errors, but misrepresentations, which Stanyhurst afterwards acknowledged. 3. “Descriptio Hiberniac,” inserted in Holinshed’s Chronicle. 4. “De vita S. Patricii, Hiberniae Apostoli, lib. ii.” Antw. 1587, 12mo. 5. “Hebdotnada Mariana,” Antw. 1609, 8vo. 6. “Hebdomacla Euclmristiea,” Douay, 1614, 8vo. 7. “Brevis prsemonitio pro futura concertatione cum Jacobo Usserio,” Douay, 1615, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of the Catholic Religion.” 9. “The four first books of Virgil’s Æneis, in English Hexameters,” 1583, small 8vo, black letter. To these are subjoined the four first Psalms the first in English Iambics, though he confesses, that “the lambical quantitie relisheth somwhat unsavorly in our language, being, in truth, not al togeather the toothsomest in the Latine.” The second is in elegiac verse, or English hexameter or pentameter. The third is a short specimen of the asclepiac verse; thus “Lord, my dirye foes, why do they multiply.” The fourth is in sapphics, with a prayer to the Trinity in the same measure. Then follow, “certayne poetical conceites,” in Latin and English: and after these some epitaphs. The English throughout is in Roman measures. The preface, in which he assigns his reasons for translating after Phaer, is a curious specimen of quaintness and pedantry. Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, seems not to have attended to these reasons, such as they are; but thus speaks of the attempt of Stanyhurst: “After the associated labours of Phaier end Twyne, it is hard to say what could induce Robert [Richard] Stanyhurst, a native of Dublin, to translate the four first books of the Æneid into English hexameters, which he printed at London, in 15S3, and dedicated to his brother Peter Plunket, the learned baron of Dusanay [Dunsanye], in Ireland. Stanyhurst was at that time living at Leyden, having left England for some time, on account of the [his] change of religion. In the choice of his measure he is more unfortunate than his predecessors, and in other respects succeeded worse. Thomas Naishe, in his Apology of Pierce Pennilesse, printed in 1593, observes, that * jltany hurst, the otherwise learned, trod a foul, lumbring, boistrcus, wallowing measure, in his translation of Virgil. He had never been praised by Gabriel Harvey for his labour, it therein he had not been so famously absurd.' Harvey, Spenser’s friend, was one of the chief patrons, if not the inventor of the English hexameter here used by Stanyhurst.” His translation, opens thus:

to the cathedral; on each hand he was accompanied by a person of distinction, while sir Hugh Courtney, who claimed the honour of being steward on this occasion, walked before him. At Broadgate he was received by the chapter and choir. After the accustomed ceremonies, a grand feast was given, of such expence as the revenues of the bishopric, according to Godwin’s estimation, would not have been sufficient to defray, yet in Henry IVth’s time it was valued at 7000l. per annum, a sum scarcely credible, as the expence of an entertainment.

All the steps of his political life were marked with honours. He was chosen one of the privy-council to Edward II. appointed lord treasurer, and employed in embassies, and other weighty affairs of state, in which his abilities and integrity would have been acknowledged, had he not lived in a period of remarkable turbulence and injustice. In 1325 he accompanied the queen to France in order to negociate a peace, but her intentions to depose her husband were no longer to be concealed, and the bishop, whose integrity her machinations could not corrupt, continued to attach himself to the cause of his unfortunate sovereign, and fell an early sacrifice to popular fury. In 1326 he was appointed guardian of the city of London during the king’s absence in the west, and while he was taking measures to preserve the loyalty of the metropolis, the populace attacked him, Oct. 15, as he was walking the streets, and beheaded him near the north door of St. Paul’s, together with sir Richard Stapledon, his brother. Godwin informs us that they buried the bishop in a heap of sand at the back of his house, without Temple-l>ar. Walsingham says they threw it into the river; but the former account seems most consistent with popular malevolence and contempt. Exeter house was founded by him as a town residence for the bishops of the diocese, and is said to have been very magnificent. It was afterwards alienated from the see, and by a change of owners, became first Leicester, and then Essex house, a name which the scite still retains. It appears that the queen soon after ordered the body of the murdered bishop to be removed and interred, with that of his brother, in Exeter cathedral. In the 3d Edward III. 1330, a synod was held at London before Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, to make inquiry into bishop Stapledon’s death; and his murderers, and all who were any way privy or consenting to the crime, were executed. His monument, in the north aile of Exeter cathedral, was erected by the rector and fellows of Exeter college. Among the mu,niments of the dean and chapter of Exeter, there is an account of the administration of his goods, by Richard Braylegh, dean of Exeter, and one of his executors; by which it appears that he left a great many legacies to poor scholars, and several sums of money, from twenty to sixty shillings, for the repairing of bridges in the county, and towards building Pilton churc.i, &c.

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

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

, an ancient Roman poet who flourished in the first century, was born at Naples, and descended of a good family by his father’s side. His father was a rhetorician, a man of probity and learning, and also a poet, although none of his works are now extant. Our author discovered an early inclination for poetry, which was so much improved by his father’s instructions, that he soon was introduced to the first geniuses of the age, and afterwards to the emperor himself, by his friend Paris, the player, at that time one of the chief court-favourites. His literary merit gained him so large a share of the emperor’s esteem, that he was permitted to sit at table with him among his ministers and courtiers of the highest quality, and was often crowned for his verses, which were publicly recited in the theatre. And, although he once lost the prize in the capitol, the frequent determination of the judges in his favour created him the envy of Martial; who piqued himself much on his extempore productions, and has therefore never mentioned Statius in his account of the poets, his contemporaries. The “Thebaid,” finished at Naples, and dedicated to Domitian, was received at Rome with the greatest applause, as Juvenal has told us in a celebrated passage, which, however, is thought bv some to have been nothing more than a sneer. In this passage, which begins

“Curritur ad vocem jucundatn et carmen amicie, c.” Dr. Warton thinks it cannot be doubted that Juvenal meant to be satirical, and to insinuate obliquely that Statius was the favourite poet with the vulgar, who are easily captivated with a wild and inartificial tale, and an empty magnificence of numbers. Statius had, however, no sooner finished his “Thebaid,” than he formed the plan of his “Achilleid,” a work, in which he intended to take in the whole life of Achilles, and not one single action, as Homer has done in the Iliad. This he left imperfect, dying at Naples, about A. D. 96, before he had well finished two books of it.

Statins, by the general verdict of modern critics, is ranked among those authors, who, by their forced conceits, violent metaphors, swelling epithets, and want of just decorum, have a strong tendency to dazzle, and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity, and nature. Dr. Warton, in his “Essay on Pope,” who trarislatec part of the “Thebaid,” has many just remarks on authors of this cast, but allows that Statius has passages of true sublimity, and had undoubtedly invention, ability, and spirit. We must not confound Publius Papinius Statius, as some have done, with another Statius, whose surname was Surculus; or, as Suetonius calls him, Ursulus. This latter was, indeed, a poet, as '.veil as the other; but he lived at Tolosa in Gaul, and taught rhetoric in the reign of Nero.

, secretary and historian of an embassy to China, was son of a gentleman of small fortune in the county of Galway, in Ireland; and sent early to study physic at Montpelier, where he proceeded M. D. On his return to London, he translated Dr. Stb'rck’s treatise on hemlock, and drew up for the “Journal Etranger” in France a comparison between the literature of England and France. About the year 1762, Dr. Staunton embarked for the West Indies, as we find from a farewell letter written to him by Dr. Johnson, given by Mr. Boswell in his life of that great man. This epistle is replete with excellent advice, and does equal credit to the writer, and the person to whom it is addressed. Dr. Staunton resided, for several years, in the West Indies, where he acquired some addition to his fortune by the practice of physic purchased an estate in Grenada which he cultivated; and had the good fortune to obtain the friendship of the late lord Macartney, governor of that island, to whom he acted as secretary, and continued in that capacity until the capture of it by the French, when they both embarked for Europe. Having studied the law, while in Grenada, Dr. Staunton filled the office of attorney-general of the island. Soon after lord Macartney’s arrival in England, he was appointed governor of Madras, and took Mr. Staunton with him (for he seems now to have lost the appellation of doctor) as his secretary. In this capacity, Mr. Staunton had several opportunities of displaying his abilities and intrepidity, particularly as one of the commissioners sent to treat of peace with Tippoo Sultaun, and in the seizure of general Stuart, who seemed to have been preparing to act by lord Macartney as had been before done by the unfortunate lord Pigot. The secretary was sent with a small party of seapoys to arrest the general, which he effected with great spirit and prudence, and without bloodshed. On his return to England, the India Company, as a reward for his services, settled on him a pension of 500l. per annum; the king soon after created him a baronet of Ireland, and the University of Oxford conferred on him the degree of LL.D. It having been resolved to send an embassy to China, lord Macartney was selected for that purpose, and he took his old friend and countryman along with him, who was not only appointed secretary of legation, but had also the title of envoy-extraordinary and minister-plenipotentiary bestowed on him, in order to be able to supply the place of the ambassador in case of auy unfortunate accident. The events of this embassy, which, on the whole, proved rather unpropitious, are well known, and were given to the public in two quarto volumes, written by sir George. This account is rather to be considered as a proof of learning and observation than of genius and reflection. The subject itself was highly interesting, but it is certainly not rendered very much so in the relation. However, it is on the whole a valuable work, and creditable to his character for knowledge and diligence. And when we consider the short time he took to compile these volumes^ added to the severe illness he actually laboured under, and with which he was attacked soon after his return, we cannot withhold our praise and approbation. As a proof of tha esteem in which the India Company held sir George Staunton, they appointed his son, who accompanied him in the former voyage, a writer to China; and had the father’s health permitted, he would, probably, again have attended lord Macartney in some honourable and confidential station to his government at the Cape of Good Hope. The memoirs of sir George, if drawn up at full length, would exhibit many instances of a strong and ardent mind, labouring occasionally under difficulties, and surmounting dangers by patience, talents, and intrepidity. His conduct in the seizure of general Stuart, demonstrated his resolution and presence of mind; and when treating with Tippoo, he had the address to induce M. Suffrein to suspend hostilities, even before he had received advice from his court of the treaty of peace being signed between Great Britain and France.

a learned gentleman, of Cussington, Leicestershire, after having completed his academical education at Peter- house, Cambridge, was admitted of the Inner Temple, July 2, 1647, and called to the bar June 12, 1654. In 1656, he married Mary the youngest daughter of John Onebye, esq. of Hinckley, and steward of the records at Leicester, and succeeded his father-in-law in that office in 1672. In 1674, when the court espoused the cause of popery, and the presumptive heir to the crown openly professed himself a Catholic, Mr. Staveley displayed the enormous exactions of the court of Rome, by publishing in 1674, “The Romish Horseleech.” This work was reprinted in 1769. Some years before his death, which happened in 1683, he retired to Belgrave near Leicester, and passing the latter part of life in the study of English history, acquired a melancholy habit, but was esteemed a diligent, judicious, and faithful antiquary. His “History of Churches in England: wherein is shown, the time, means, and manner of founding, building, and endowing of Churches, both, cathedral and rural, with their furniture and appendages,” was first published in 1712, and reprinted 1773. It is a work of considerable research and learning, the result of having carefully examined many books and records; and contains a complete account of the sacred furniture of churches from the earliest origin. In one respect, however, he has too hastily adopted the notion that the Saxons had no stone buildings among them, while he is forced to acknowledge that Bede’s Candida casa was one of them. Besides this work, Mr. Staveley left a curious historical pedigree of his own family, drawn up in 1682, the year before he died, which is preserved at large in the work which furnishes this article; and also some valuable collections towards the “History and Antiquities of Leicester,” to which he had more particularly applied his researches. These papers, which Dr. Farmer, the late learned master of Emanuei-college, Cambridge, intended once to publish, were, by that gentleman’s permission, put into the hands of Mr. Nichols, who gave them to the world in the “Bibliotheca Topographia Britannica,” and since in his more elaborate “History of Leicestershire.” The younger Mr. S. Carte (an able antiquary, and an eminent solicitor), who had a copy of Mr. Staveley’s papers, says of them, in a ms letter to Dr. Ducarel, March 7, 1751: “His account of the earls of Leicester, and of the great abbey, appears to have been taken from Dugdale’s” Baronage,“and” Monasticon;“but as to his sentiments in respect to the borough, I differ with him in some instances. By the charter for erecting and establishing the court of records at Leicester, the election of the steward is granted to the mayor and court of aldermen, who likewise have thereby a similar power, in respect to a bailiff” for executing their writs. But afterwards, viz. Dec. 20, 7 Jac. I. the great earl of Huntingdon bavins: been a considerable benefactor to Leicester, the corporation came to a resolution of granting to him and his heirs a right of nominating alternately to the office of steward and bailiff, and executed a bond under their common seal, in the penalty of one thousand pounds, for enforcing the execution of their grant. And as John Major, esq. was elected by the court of aldermen to succeed Mr. Staveley, in December, 1684, I infer that Staveley was nominated by the earl of Huntingdon, and confirmed by the aldermen, in pursuance of the grant above-mentioned.

, the first of a class of writers called the British Essayists, which is peculiar to this country, was born at Dublin in 1671. Mis family, of English extraction, was genteel. His father, who was a counsellor at law, and private secretary to James, the first duke of Ormond, sent his son, then very young, to London, where he was placed in the Charter-house by the duke, who was one of the governors of that seminary. From thence he was removed to Merton college, Oxford, and admitted a postmaster in 1691. In 1695 he wrote a poem on the funeral of queen Mary, entitled the “Procession.” His inclination leading him to the army, he rode for some time privately in the guards. He became an author first, as he tells us himself, when an ensign of the guards, a way of life exposed to much irregularity; and, emg thoroughly convinced of many things, of which he often repented, and which he more often repeated, he wrote for his own private use a little book called “The Christian Hero,” with a design principally to fix upon his own mind a strong impression of virtue and religion, in opposition to a stronger propensity towards unwarrantable pleasures. This secret admonition was too weak; and therefore, in 1701, he printed the book with his name, in hopes that a standing testimony against himself, and the eyes of the world upon him in a new light, might curb his desires, and make him ashamed of understanding and seeming to feel what was virtuous, and yet of living so contrary a life. This, he tells us, had no other effect, but that, from being thought a good companion, he was soou reckoned a disagreeable fellow. One or two of his acquaintance thought fit to misuse him, and try their valour upon him; and every body, he knew, measured the least levity in his words or actions with the character of “The Christian Hero.” Thus he found himself slighted, instead of being encouraged, for his declarations as to religion; so that he thought it incumbent upon him to enliven his character. For this purpose he wrote the comedy, called u The Funeral, or Grief a- la- Mode,“which was acted in 1702; and as nothing at that time made a man more a favourite with the public than a successful play, this, with some other particulars enlarged upon to -advantage, obtained the notice of the king; and his name, to be proTided for, was, he says, in the last table-book ever worn by the glorious and immortal William the Third. He had before this obtained a captain’s commission in lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, by the interest of lord Cutts, to whom he had dedicated his” Christian Hero,“and who likewise appointed him his secretary. His next appearance as a writer, as he himself informs us, was in the office of Gazetteer; where he worked faithfully, according to order, without ever erring, he says, against the rule observed by all ministries, to keep that paper very innocent and very insipid. He received this appointment in consequence of being introduced by Addison to the acquaintance of the earls of Halifax and Sunderland. With Addison he had become acquainted at the Charter-house. His next productions were comedies;” The Tender Husband“being acted in 1703, and” The Lying Lover“in 1704. In 1709 he began” The Taller;“the first number of which was published April 12, 1709, and the last Jan. 2, 1711. This paper greatly increased his reputation and interest; and he was soon after made one of the commissioners of the Stamp-office. Upon laying down” The Tatler,“he b'egan, in concert with Addison,” The Spectator,“which began to be published March 1, 1711 after that,” The Guardian,“the first paper of which came out March 12, 1713; and then,” The Englishman,“the first number of which appeared Oct. 6, the same year. Besides these works, he wrote several political pieces, which were afterwards collected, and published under the title of” Political Writings," 1715, 12mo. Oneofthes6 will require to be mentioned particularly, because it was attended with remarkable consequences relating to himself.

Vol. XXVIII. A A of both parliaments of the late kingdoms of England and Scotland, and confirmed by the parliament of Great-Britain. With some seasonable remarks on the danger of a popish successor.“He explains in his” Apology for himself,“the occasion of his writing this piece. He happened one day to visit Mr. William Moore of the Inner-Temple; where the discourse turning upon politics, Moore took notice of the insinuations daily thrown out, of the danger the Protestant succession was in; and concluded with saying-, that he thought Steele, from the kind reception the world gave to what he published, might be more instrumental towards curing that evil, than any private man in England. After much solicitation, Moore observed, that the evil seemed only to flow from mere inattention to the real obligations under which we lie towards the house of Hanover: if, therefore, continued he, the laws to that purpose were reprinted, together with a warm preface, and a well-urged peroration, it is not to be imagined what good effects it would have. Steele was much struck with the thought and prevailing with Moore to put the law- part of it together, he executed the rest; yet did not venture to publish it, till it had been corrected by Addison, Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and others. It was immediately attacked with great severity by Swift, in a pamphlet published in 1712, under the title of,” The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of the author of the Crisis:“but it was not till March 12, 1715, that it fell under the cognizance of the House of Commons. Then Mr. John Hungerford complained to the House of divers scandalous papers, published under the name of Mr. Steele; in which complaint he was seconded by Mr. Auditor Foley, cousin to the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Auditor Harley, the earl’s brother. Sir William Wyndham also added, that” some of Mr. Steele’s writings contained insolent, injurious reflections on the queen herself, and were dictated by the spirit of rebellion.“The next clay Mr. Auditor Harley specified some printed pamphlets published by Mr. Steele,” containing several paragraphs tending to sedition, highly reflecting upon her majesty, and arraigning her administration and government.“Some proceedings followed between this and the 18th, which was the day appointed for the hearing of Mr. Steele; and this being come, Mr. Auditor Folejr moved, that before they proceed farther, Mr. Steele should declare, whether he acknowledged the writings that bore his name? Steele declared, that he” did frankly and ingenuously own those papers to he part of his writings; that he wrote them in behalf of the house of Hanover, and owned them with the same unreservedness with which he abjured the Pretender.“Then Mr. Foley proposed, that Mr. Steele should withdraw; but it was carried, without dividing, that he should stay and make his defence. He desired, that he might be allowed to answer what was urged against him paragraph by paragraph; but his accusers insisted, and it was carried, that he should proceed to make his defence generally upon the charge against him. Steele proceeded accordingly, being assisted by his friend Addison, member for Malmsbury, who sat near him to prompt him upon occasion; and spoke for near three hours on the several heads extracted from his pamphlets. After he had withdrawn, Mr. Foley said, that,” without amusing the House with long speeches, it is evident the writings complained of were seditious and scandalous, injurious to her majesty’s government, the church and the universities;“and then called for the question. This occasioned a very warm debate, which lasted till eleven o'clock at night. The first who spoke for Steele, was Robert Walpole, esq. who was seconded by his brother Horatio Walpole, lord Finch, lord Lumley, and lord Hinchinbrook: it was resolved, however, by a majority of 245 against 152, that” a printed pamphlet, entitled l The Englishman, being the close of a paper so called,‘ and one other pamphlet, entitled * The Crisis,’ written by Richard Steele, esq. a member of this House, are scandalous and seditious libels, containing many expressions highly reflecting upon her majesty, and upon the nobility, gentry, clergy, and universities of this kingdom; maliciously insinuating, that the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover is in danger under her majesty’s administration; and tending to alienate the good affections of her majesty’s good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them:“it was resolved likewise, that Mr. Steele,” for his offence in writing and publishing the said scandalous and seditious libels, be expelled this House.“He afterwards wrote” An Apology for himself and his writings, occasioned by his expulsion,“which he dedicated to Robert Walpole, esq. This is printed among his” Political Writings/' 1715, I2i“. He had no'v nothing to do till the death of the queen, but to indulge himself svith his pen; and accordingly, in 1714, he published a treatise, entitled” The Romish Ecclesiastical History of late years.“This is nothing more than a description of some monstrous and gross popish rites, designed to hurt the cause of the Pretender, which was supposed to be gaining ground in England: and there is an appendix subjoined, consisting of particulars very well calculated for this purpose. In No. I. of the appendix, we have a list of the colleges, monasteries, and convents of men and women of several orders in the Low Countries; with the revenues which they draw from England. No. II. contains an extract of the” Taxa Cameroe,“or” Cancellariat Apostolicse,“the fees of the pope’s chancery; a book, printed by the pope’s authority, and setting forth a list of the fees paid him for absolutions, dispensations, indulgencies, faculties, and exemptions. No. 111. is a bull of the pope in 1357, given to the then king of France; by which the princes of that nation received an hereditary right to cheat the rest of mankind. No. IV. is a translation of the speech of pope Sixtus V. as it was uttered in the consistory at Rome, Sept. 2, 1589; setting forth the execrable fact of James Clement, a Jacohine friar, upon the person of Henry III. of France, to be commendable, admirable, and meritorious. No. V. is a collection of some popish tracts and positions, destructive of society and all the ends of good government. The same year, 1714, he published two papers: the first of which, called” The Lover;“appeared Feb. 25; the second,” The Reader," April 22. In the sixth number for May 3, we have an account of his design to write the history of the duke of Marlborough, from the date of the duke’s commission of captain general and plenipotentiary, to the expiration of those commissions: the materials, as he tells us, were in his custody, but the work was never executed.

away, to make room for the company 28, 17tJ. chamberlain of his majesty’s household and the governor of the royal company of comedians.“He tells us, in this pamphlet, that a noble lord, without any cause assigned, sends a message, directed to sir Richard Steele, Mr. Wilks, and Mr. Booth, to dismiss Mr. Gibber, who for some time submitted to a disability of appearing on the stage, during the pleasure of one who had nothing to do 'with it; and that, when this lawless will and pleasure was changed, a very frank declaration was made, that all the mortification put upon Mr. Gibber was intended only as a prelude to remote evils, by which the patentee was to be affected. Upon this, sir Richard wrote to two of the ministers of state, and likewise delivered a petition to the king, in the presence of the lord chamberlain: but these had no effect, for his patent was revoked, though it does not appear for what reason; and the loss he sustained upon this occasion is computed by himself at almost 10,000l. In 1722, his comedy, called” The Conscious Lovers," was acted with great success; and published with a dedication to the king, for which his majesty made him a present of 500l.

Some years before his death, he retired to his seat at Llangunnor, near Caermarthen, in Wales, with a view to (economise for the benefit of his creditors. Here he was seized with a paralytic disorder, of which he died Sept. I, 1729, and was privately interred according to his own desire. He had been twice married: his first wife was a lady of Barbadoes, with whom he had a valuable plantation upon the death of her brother; his second was the daughter of Jonathan Scurlock, of Llangunnor, esq. by whom he had one daughter and two sons; the latter both died young, but the daughter, Elizabeth, was in 1732 married to the hon. John Trevor, afterwards baron Trevor of Bromham. Steele was a man of quick and excellent parts, accomplished in all branches of polite literature; -and would have passed for a better writer than he does, though he is allowed to be a very good one, if he had not been so connected in literary productions, as well as in friendship, with Addison. He speaks himself of their friendship in the following terms: “There never was a more strict friendship than between these gentlemen; nor had they ever any difference, but what proceeded from their different way of pursuing the same thing. The one with patience, foresight, and temperate address, always waited and stemmed the torrent f while the other often plunged himself into it, and was as often taken out by the temper of him who stood weeping on the bank for his safety, whom he could not dissuade from leaping into it. Thus these two men lived for some years last past, shunning each other, but still preserving the most passionate concern for their mutual welfare. But when they met, they were as unreserved as boys, and talked of the greatest affairs; upon which they saw where they differed, without pressing (what they knew impossible) to convert each other.”

, an eminent painter, was born at Leyden, in 1636, and was successively the disciple of Knufter, Brower, and Van Goyen, who had such a high opinion of him, that he thought he disposed of his daughter prudently when he gave her in marriage to Jan Steen. Jan Steen, however, was not prudent, for, although he had many opportunities of enriching himself, by other occupations as well as by his profession, he frequently was reduced, by an idle, intemperate, and dissipated course of life, to work for the subsistence of himself and his family. He had a strong manly style of painting, which might become even the design of Raphael, and he showed the greatest skill in composition, and management of light and shadow, as well as great truth in the expression and character of his figures. One of his capital pictures is a mountebank attended by a number of spectators, in which the countenances are wonderfully striking, full of humour, and uncommon variety. Houbraken mentions another remarkable picture painted by this master, representing a wedding, consisting of the old parents, the bride, the bridegroom, and a lawyer or notary. The notary is described as thoroughly engaged in attending to the words which he was to write down; the bridegroom appears in a violent agitation, as if dissatisfied with the match; and the bride seems to be in tears every character evidencing the ready and humorous invention of the artist. Houbraken also mentions a third picture, equally excellent, representing the funeral of a quaker; in which each face is distinguished by a peculiarly humorous cast of features, and the whole has a wonderful air of nature and probability. In designing his figures he preserved a proper distinction of the ranks and conditions of the persons introduced in his subject, by their forms, their attitudes, their air of expression; and in this respect appears worthy of being studied by other painters. His works did not bear an extraordinary price during his life, as he painted only when he was necessitous, and sold his pictures to answer his immediate demands. But after his death they rose amazingly in their value, and are rarely to be purchased, few paintings bearing a higher price, as well on account of their excellence as of their scarcity. He died in 1689, aged fifty-three, but Houbraken fixes his death in 1678, aged forty-two, eleven years earlier than other writers.

, a celebrated commentator on the works of Shakspeare, was the only son of George Steevens, esq. of Stepney, many years an East India captain, and afterwards a director of the East India company, who died in 1768. He was born at Stepney, May 10, 1736, and was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, about 1751 or 1752. He seems to have left the university without taking a degree, although not without accumulating a considerable degree of classical knowledge, and exhibiting that general acuteness and taste which he afterwards more fully displayed, particularly on subjects of ancient English literature. His attention, probably very early in life, was by some means attracted to the works of our great dramatic bard Shakspeare, who furnished Mr. Steevens throughout the whole of his life with constant employment. Shakspeare was the property which he thought himself bound to cultivate, improve, protect, and display to the best advantage; and it must be allowed that in illustrating this author, he stands unrivalled. His first appearance as an editor of Shakspeare was in 1766, when he was about thirty years old. At this time he published twenty of Shakspeare’s plays in 4 vols. 8vo, about a year after Dr. Johnson’s edition of the whole works had appeared. In this edition Mr. Steevens performed chiefly the office of a collator of these twenty plays with the quarto and subsequent editions; but about the same time he published, in the newspapers, and probably otherwise, a circular address, announcing his intention of an edition of all the plays with notes and illustrations. In this address, which we believe is not now generally known, he requests assistance from the public, which he says “is not desired with a lucrative view to the editor, but to engage the attention of the literary world. He will no more trust to his own single judgment in the choice of the notes he shall admit or reject, than he would undertake the work in confidence of his own abilities. These shall in their turn be subjected to other eyes and other opinions; and he has reason to hope, from such precautions, that he shall bici fairer for success than from any single reliance. He is happy to have permission, to enumerate Mr. Garrick among those who will take such a trouble on themselves; and is no less desirous to see him attempt to transmit some part of that knowledge of Shakspeare to posterity, without which, he can be his best commentator no longer than he lives.”

He then proceeds to assure those who may think proper to assist him, that their contributions shall appear with or without their names, as they shall direct; and that he will gladly pay those whose situation in life will not admit of their making presents of their labours, in such proportion as Mr. Tonson (his bookseller) shall think to be adequate to their merits. What follows is the language of a man who knew not himself, or who concealed his real character and intent, and who was at no very distant period to prove himself, unquestionably a most acute, yet at the same time a most arrogant, supercilious, and malignant critic on his fellow-labourers.

“The characters of living or dead commentators,” says Mr. Steevens in his present real or assumed humility, “shall not be wantonly traduced, and no greater freedom of language be made use of, than is necessary to convince, without any attempts to render those ridiculous, whose assertions may seem to demand a confutation. An error in a quotation, or accidental misrepresentation of a fact, shall not be treated with the severity due to a moral crime, nor as the breach of any other laws than those of literature, lest the reputation of the critic should be obtained at the expence of humanity, justice, and good manners; and by multiplying notes on notes we should be reduced at last, * to fight for a spot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause.' The ostentation of bringing in the commentaries of others, merely to declare their futility, shall be avoided; and none be introduced here, but such as tend to the illustration of the author.” He concludes with signing his name, and requesting that letters may be addressed to him at Mr. Tonson’s. About the same time he opened a kind of correspondence in the St. James’s Chronicle, then the principal literary newspaper, the object of which was to obtain hints and remarks on any passages of Shakspeare which individuals might think themselves able to illustrate. What returns were made to these applications, we know not, but it appears that he became acquainted about this time with Dr. Johnson, and in 1770 they were both employed in that edition of the whole of Shakspeare’s plays which was first called “Johnson and Steevens’s edition,” and which was published in 1773, 10 vols. 8vo. In 1778 it was again reprinted, with the same names, but entirely under the care and with the improvements of Mr. Steevens; and again in 1785, when he availed himself of the assistance of Mr. Isaac Reed, although merely as superintendant of the press. It was a work of which Mr. Steevens would never surrender the entire care to any one, and his jealousy, as an editor of Shakspeare, was the cause of those many splenetic effusions for which he has been so justly blamed, and his character disgraced. This kind of hostility, in which Mr. Steevens unfortunately delighted, was not confined to the commentators on Shakspeare. He had from the earliest period that can be remembered a disposition to display his talents for ridicule at the expence of those who were, or whom he thought, inferior to himself. He was never more gratified than when he could irritate their feelings by anonymous attacks in the public journals, which he would, in their presence, affect to lament with all the ardour of friendship. Nor was he content to amuse himself with the sufferings of those who were candidates for literary fame, a species of inhumanity in which he had some contemporaries, and has had many successors, but would even intrude into the privacies of domestic life, and has been often, we fear too justly, accused of disturbing the happiness of families, by secret written insinuations, the consequences of which he could not always know, and must therefore have enjoyed only in imagination. But as such artifices long practised could not escape detection, his character for mischievous duplicity became known, and not long after the publication of the second edition of his Shakspeare, in conjunction with Dr. Johnson, he lived, in the language of that great man, “the life of an outlaw.” He was scarcely respected even by those who tasted his bounty (for he could at times be bountiful), and was dreaded as a man of great talents and great powers both of pen and tongue, with whom nevertheless it was more dangerous to live in friendship than in hostility.

Previous to the publication of the edition of 1773, he had become acquainted with Mr. Malone, a gentleman who had either formed for himself, or had adopted from Mr. Steevens that system of criticism and illustration by which alone the text of Shakspeare could be improved, and Mr. Steevens very soon discovered that Mr. Malone might be a very useful coadjutor. A friendship too-k place which appeared so sincere on the part, of Mr. Steevens, that having formed a design of quitting the office of editor, he most liberally made a present to Mr. Malone of his valuable collection of old plays; and probably this friendly intercourse might have continued, if Mr. Malone conld have been content to be the future editor of “Johnson and Steevens’s Shakspeare,” and to have contributed his aid as the junior partner in the firm. But unfortunately for their friendship, Mr. Malone thought himself qualified to become ostensible editor, and his first offence seems to have been the publication, in 1780, of two supplementary volumes to the edition of 1778; and having entered on the same course of reading our ancient English authors, which Mr. Steevens had pursued with so much benefit in the illustration of Shakspeare, he determined to appear before the public as an editor in form. To this design Steevens alludes with characteristic humour, in a letter to Mr. Warton, dated April 16, 1783: “Whatever the vegetable spring may produce, the critical one will be prolific enough. No less than six editions of Shakspeare (including CapelTs notes, with Collins’s prolegomena) are now in the mash-tub. I have thrown up my licence. Reed is to occupy the old red lattice, and Malone intends to froth and lime at a little snug booth of his own construction. Ritson will advertise sour ale against his mild.” In this notice of Mr. Malone there is nothing very offensive but the final breach between them was occasioned by a request on the part of Mr. Steevens which cannot easily be justified. To the edition of Shakspeare, published in 1785, Mr. Malone had contributed some notes in which Mr. Steevens’s opinions were occasionally controverted. These Mr. Steevens now desired he would retain in his new edition, exactly as they stood before, that he iniirht answer them and Mr. Malone refusing what was so unreasonable (see Malone), the other declared that all communication on the subject of Shakspeare was at an end between them. Malone’s edition appeared in 1790, and Mr. Steevens’s being reprinted in 1793, 15 vols. 8vo, he at once availed himself of Mr. Malone’s labours, and took every opportunity to treat his opinions with most sarcastic contempt. This edition of 1793, however, has always been reckoned the most complete extant, and although it has been twice reprinted, with some additions which Mr. Steevens bequeathed to Mr. Reed, the demand for the 1793 is still eager with the collectors, partly, we presume, on account of its being the last which Mr. Steevens superintended; partly on account of the accuracy of the printing, in which he had the assistance of Mr. Reed and Mr. Harris, librarian of the Royal Institution; and partly because the additions to the subsequent one are not thought of sufficient value to induce the possessors to part with a monument to Mr. Steevens’s merit erected by his own hands.

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

, a Danish anatomist, was born at Copenhagen, Jan. 10, 1C38. His father was a Lutheran, and goldsmith to Christian IV. He himself studied under Bartholin, who considered him as one of the best of his pupils. To complete his knowledge he travelled in Germany, Holland, France, and Italy, and in the latter place obtained a pension from Ferdinand II. grand duke of Tuscany. In 1669 he abjured the protestant persuasion, having been nearly converted before by Bossuet at Paris. Christian V. who wished to fix him at Copenhagen, made him professor of anatomy, and gave him permission to exercise the religion he had adopted. But his change produced disagreeable effects in his own conntry, and he returned to Italy: where, after a time, he became an ecclesiastic, and was named by the pope his apostolical vicar for the North, with the title of bishop of Titiopolis in Greece. He became now a missionary in Germany, and died at Swerin in 1686. He made several discoveries in anatomy, and his works that are extant are chiefly on medical subjects, as 1. “EJementorum Myologist; Specimen,” Leyden, 1667, 12mo. 2. “A Treatise on the Anatomy of the Brain,” in Latin, Paris, 1669; and Leyden, 1671. He also wrote a part of the Anatomical Exposition of Winslow, to whom he was great uncle.

, called The Old, was born at Steenwyck, in 1550, and was the disciple of John de Vries, who excelled in painting architecture and perspective. In imitation of the style of his master, Stenwyck chose the same subjects; but surpassed him and all his contemporaries, in the truth, neatness, transparence, and delicacy, of his pictures. His subjects were the insides of superb churches and convents, of Gothic architecture, and generally views of them by night, when they were illuminated by flambeaux, tapers, or a number of candles fixed in magnificent lustres, or sconces. He was a thorough master of the true principles of the chiaroscuro, and distributed his lights and shadows with such judgment, as to produce the most astonishing effects; but as he was not expert at designing figures, those that appear in any of his compositions were inserted by Brueghel, Van Tulden, and other eminent artists. The genuine pictures of this master, who died in 1603, aged fifty -three, are extremely scarce, and very highly prized in ev ry part of Europe.

, the Young, son of the preceding, was born about 1589, and, by studying the works of his father from his infancy, and also receiving excellent directions from him, he adopted the same manner and style; and, by some very competent judges, was thought to have often equalled, if not surpassed, his father. Vaudyck, who admired his works, introduced him. to the court of ki'ig Charle^ I. where he met with such a degree of encouragement as was due to his extraordinary talents, and found employment in England for several years. His usual subjects were the insides of churches and grand edifices; but at last he quitted the dark manner, which he had originally acquired by imitating the manner of his father. He sometimes painted the back grounds of Vandyck’s portraits, as often as they required ornamental architecture; and it is the portrait of the younger Stenwyck which was painted by Vandyck, and perpetuated by his hand among the distinguished artists of his time. He died at London, but when is not known; and his widow, who practised perspective painting during the life of her husband, retired after his death to Amsterdam, where she followed that profession, and painted in the style of her husband and his father with great credit; and as her works were generally esteemed, she was enabled to live in affluence and honour.

Hermolaus’s Abridgment was first printed at the Aldine press in 1502, folio; and other editions followed of the Greek only. Pinedo, a Portuguese Jew, was the first who published a Greek and Latin edition, Amst. 1678, folio; but some copies have a new title-page with the date 1725. In the mean time, Berkelius had begun his labours on this author, and had published at Leyden in 1674, 8vo, the fragment above mentioned, which Ternulius had printed in 1669, 4tu; and to this Berkelius added a Latin translation and commentary, the Periplus of Hanno, and the monument of Adulis. In 1681 James Gronovius published a new edition of this fragment, with a triple Latin version and notes, reprinted, and somewhat more correctly, by Montfaucon in his “Bibliotheca Cosliniana.” Ryckius also published the posthumous remarks of Lucas Holsteniuson Stephanusof Byzantium, at Leyden, 1684, folio. At length Berkelius closed his labours by sending to the press at Leyden his Greek and Latin edition in 1688, folio. In this he gave a new translation, an amended text, and a very learned commentary; but dying before the work was printed, Gronovius undertook the task, and made some valuable additions. It was reprinted in 1694.

, or familiarly in this country Stephens, and in France Estienne, the first of an illustrious family of printers, was born at Paris in 1470; and began the business of printing about 1503, in which year appeared the abridgment of the Arithmetic of Boethius, which is the first work known to have issued from his press. His printing-house was in the rue de Tecole de Droit, and his mark the old arms of the university, with the device, plus olei quam vini. His great object was correctness, and besides reading the proofs himself with the greatest care, he submitted them to the learned men who visited him. If, notwithstanding these pains, any mistakes occurred, he informed the reader, by an “errata,” an attention which he is said to have been the first who paid. He died at Paris, according to his biographers, July 24, 1520; but this has been doubted, as not agreeing with the date of the last work he printed. He left three sons, all printers, Francis, Robert, and Charles. His widow married Simon de Colines, or Colinseus, his partner. Among the works he executed^ which are in greatest request, are the “Psalterium quintuplex,” 1509 and 1513 the “Itinerarium” of Antoninus, 1512, and Mara “De Tribus fugiendis,” &c.

, the eldest son of the preceding, was employed in printing with his step-father de Colines. The “Vinetum” of Charles Stephens, 1537, is the first work to which we see his name and the last is the “Andria” of Terence, in 1547. He sometimes used his father’s mark, but occasionally one of his own, a golden vase placed on a book, and surmounted by a vine-branch with fruit. He never was married, and Maittaire is mistaken in saying he had a son of the same names, who was a printer in 1570. That Francis was the son of Robert, and nephew to the subject of this short article.

, the most celebrated printer of this family, was the second son of Henry, and born at Paris in 1503. He had a liberal education, and made very great progress in learning, particularly in the classical languages, and in the Hebrew. After his father’s death he worked for some years in partnership with De Colines, who entrusted him with the care of the business. It was during these years (in 1522) that he published an edition of the New Testament, more correct, and in a more convenient size, than any which had preceded it. It had a very quick sale, which alarmed the doctors of the Sorbonne, who could not be reconciled to the circulation of a work from which the reformers drew their most powerful arguments; but still they could not find even a plausible pretext for requiring that it should be suppressed, and there-fore concealed their indignation until a more favourable opportunity .

Robert Stephens married Petronilla, the daughter of the celebrated printer Jodocus Badius, a lady of learned accomplishments. She herself taught Latin to her children and servants, and with such success that there was not a person in Robert’s house who did not understand and speak that language. In 1526, Robert dissolved partnership with de Colines, and set up a printing- establishment of his own in the same part of the city where his father had lived. The first work which issued from his press was Cicero “De Partitionibus Oratoriis,” in 1527; and from that year to his death, there seldom passed a year in which he did not produce some new editions of the classics, superior to all that had preceded, and for the most part enriched with notes and valuable prefaces. So attentive was he to the business of correction, that he used to fix up his proof sheets in some conspicuous place, with offers of reward to those who could detect a blunder. For some time he used the same types with his father and his late partner, but in 1532 he had a new and elegant fount cast, which he first used for his edition of the Latin Bible, dated that year. He, indeed, neglected nothing that could make this a chef-d'oeuvre of the art; and not only collated the text most carefully with two manuscripts, one at St. Germain-des-Pres, and the other at St. Denis, but consulted the ablest divines, sought their advice, and obtained their approbation. But this edition gave his old enemies, the doctors of the Sorbonne, an opportunity to renew their bigoted opposition to the circulation of the Scriptures; and if the king, Francis I. who had a great value for Robert, had not protected him against their violence, he would probably at this time have been obliged to quit his native country. Still the love of peace, and of a quiet life, to execute his undertakings, induced him to submit so far to these gentlemen, that he promised to print no work in future without the consent of the Sorbonne. He soon after published the first edition of his “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,” on which he had been employed many years, aided by various learned men; but although he had great success, he never ceased to improve each edition until he made it the first and most correct work of the kind. In 1539 he was appointed king’s printer of Latin and Hebrew; and it was at his suggestion that Francis I. caused those beautiful types to be cast by Garamond, which are still in the royal printing-office of Paris.

These favours, however honourable to the king’s taste and discernment, were ultimately of disadvantage to Robert, by exciting the jealousy of the Sorbonnists, who could not endure that his majesty should bestow his confidence on a man whom they suspected of being unsound in the faith, and therefore sought occasion to convict him of heresy. Grounds for this they thought were to be found in the new edition of the Bible which Robert published in 1545, and which had a double Latin version, and the notes of Vatablus. Leo Juda, well known to be a Zuinglian, was the translator of one of these versions; and they farther alleged that Robert had corrupted the notes of Vatablus. This was, in those days, a serious accusation, and the king had again to interpose between him and his enemies. His majesty died about this time, and Robert, as a mark of gratitude, printed with particular care, Duchatel’s funeral oration on Francis L in which that orator happened to say that the king was “translated from the present life to eternal glory.” This expression, although common in every eulogium of the kind, was now made the subject of an accusation by the Sorbonnists, who asserted that it was contrary to the doctrine of the church respecting purgatory. Robert, therefore, soon perceived that he could no longer depend on the protection he had hitherto received, and after some years struggling against the machinations of his enemies, determined to remove to Geneva with his family. He accordingly took his leave of Paris, and arrived at Geneva in the beginning of 1552. There he printed the same year, in partnership with his brother-in-law Conrad Radius, the New Testament in French. He afterwards set up a printing-house of his own, from which some valuable works issued. He was chosen a burgher of Geneva in 1556, and died there Sept. 7, 1559. Robert is said to have been a man of a firm and decided character; but it has been objected by his popish biographers, that he did not allow that liberty to other* which he had taken himself, and that he disinherited one of his children for not embracing the reformed religion. Beza, Dorat, and St. Marthe, have given him the highest character. Thuanus places him above Aldus Manutius, and Froben, and asserts that the Christian world was more indebted to him than to all the great conquerors it had produced, and that he contributed more to immortalize the reign of Francis I. than all the renowned actions of that prince. His mark was an olive with branches, and the device, Noli altum sapere, to which sometimes were added the words sed time. The works he executed as King’s printer, are marked with a lance, round which a serpent is entwined, and a branch of olive, and underneath a verse of Homer, “B<nXi raya&ia xgaltfjca r‘ai%/*>iV’” to the good king and the valiant soldier.“All the printers who afterwards were permitted to use the royal Greek types adopted the same emblems. The works which he printed at Geneva are marked only with the olive, and these words, Oliva Roberti Stephani. It was not Robert, however, as has been commonly said, who first divided the Bible into verses, which he is said to have done inter equitandum, while riding from Paris to Lyons. That mode of division had been used in the Latin Bible of Pagninus in 1527, 4to, in the” Psalterium quintuples," 1509, and in other works. Another report concerning him is untrue, namely, that when he left Paris, he carried with him the Greek types belonging to the royal printing-house. The fact seems to have been that the matrices employed in casting those types were already at Geneva, and were the property of the family of Robert, and probably given to him by Francis I.; for when the French clergy in 1619 were about to reprint the Greek fathers, they requested that the king would demand of the state of Geneva the matrices used in casting the Greek types for Francis I. The answer was, that they might be bought for the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid either to the state of Geneva, or to the heirs of Robert Stephens.

Among the finest editions from the press of Robert are, 1. His Hebrew Bibles, 4 vols. 4to, and 8 vols. 16mo. 2. The Latin Bible, 1538 — 40, fol. of which the large paper copies are principally valued. 3. The Greek New Testament, 1530, fol. one of the most beautiful books ever printed; to which may be added the small editions of 1546 and 1549, usually called the O mirifcam, the first two words of the preface. That of 1549 is the most correct. 4. “Historiae ecclesiastics scriptores, Eusebii preparatio et demonstratio evangelica,” Gr. 1544, 2 vols. fol: this is the first work published with Garamond’s new Greek types. 5. The works of Cicero, Terence, Plautus, &c. &,c. Besides the prefaces and notes with which Robert introduced or illustrated various works, he is deemed the author of the following: 1. “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,” before mentioned, which has been often reprinted. One of the best of the modern editions is that of London, 1734 5, 4 vols. fol. and the last is Gessner’s, Leipsic, 1749, 4 vols, fol. 2. “Dictionarium Latino-Gallicum,” Paris, 1543, 2 vols. fol. He published an abridgment of this for young people. 3. “Ad censuras Theologorum Parisiensium quibus Biblia a Roberto Stephano excusa calumniose notarunr, responsio,” Geneva, 1552, 8vo. The same year a French edition of this was published; it forms a very able answer to the calumnies of his enemies the Sorbonnists. 4. “Gallicae grammatices libellus,” ibid. 1558, 8vo, and a “Grammaire Frangaise,” 1558, 8vo. He intended to have published a commentary on the Bible, and had engaged the assistance of the celebrated divine Marlorat; he also had projected a Greek Thesaurus, but the honour of that work was reserved for his son Henry, to whom he gave what materials he had collected. Robert had several sons, of whom Henry, Robert, and Francis, will be noticed hereafter, and a daughter, Catherine, who was married to Jacquelin, a royal notary of Paris.

, brother to the preceding, and third son of Henry, the founder of the family, received also a liberal education, and afterwards studied medicine, and was received as a doctor of the faculty of Paris. Lazarus Baif engaged him to be tutor to his son. >nrJ likewise to accompany him in his embassies to Germany and Italy, that he might continue to instruct his pupil. During his being at Venice, he formed a friendship wit a Pnul Manutius, who speaks of him in some of his letters, in very honourable terms. It was not until 1551 that he began the business of printing, and his rirst w>rk was an edidition of “Appian” from manuscripts in the royal iib r ary, and executed with Garamond’s types. He appears also to have been honoured with the 'itle of king’s printer John Maumont, in a letter to Scaliger, represents Charles Stephens as an avaricious man, jealous of his brethren and even of his nephews, whom he endeavoured to injure on every occasion. He was, however, unsuccessful in business, and was imprisoned for debt in the Chatelet in 1561, and died there in 1564. Maittaire says that the fine editions of Charlt-s Stephens have never been surpassed, that in point of erudition he was not inferior to the most learned printers, and that in his short space few of them printed more books. Among the most valuable are, 1. “De re vesiiaria, de vasculis ex Bayfio excerpt.” Paris, 1535, 8vo. 2. “Abrege de l'Histoire des vicomtes et dues de Milan,” 1552, 4to, with portraits. 3. “Paradoxes ou propos contre la commune opinion, debattus en forme de declamations forenses, pour exciter les jeunes esprits en causes difficiles,” Paris, 155 4-, 8vo, a very rare work and an imitation of the “Paradossi” of Ortensio Lando. 4. “Dictionarium Latino-Graecum,” ibid. 1554, 4to, compiled, as the author allows, for the most part, from the notes of G. Buddseus. 5. “Dictionarium Latino-Galhcum,” ibid. 1570, fol. the best and most complete edition, but not a work in much demand. 6. “Preedium rusticum, &c.” ibid. 1554, 8vo. Of this he published a French translation under the title of “Agriculture et Maison rusti^ue, de M. Charles Estienne,” and it has been since translated into Italian, German, English, &c. 7. “Thesaurus Ciceronis,” ibid. 1556, fol. This work, whatever its merit, was a most unfortunate speculation, as the expences attending it obliged him to borrow large sums, for which he was at last arrested. 8. “Dictionarium Historico-geographico-poeticum,” Geneva, 1566, 4to. This did not appear until after his death. It was much improved by subsequent editors to a large folio, whence it was translated into English by Lloyd, and twice published at Oxford in 1670, and at London in 1686.

Charles Stephens was the author also of some professional treatises, and had the credit of making some discoveries in anatomy. He had a learned daughter, who was married to John Liebaut, who published an improved edition of the “Pnedium Rusticum.” She spoke and wrote well in several languages, and was celebrated for her poetical talents, but none of her productions have been published.

, the second of the name, and the eldest son of Robert, was born at Paris in 1528, and froiii his inf-mcy gave every promise of perpetuating the honours of the family. His tatuer, uoi having it in his power to superintend his education as he wished, entrusted that care to an able tutor, who was to instruct him in the elements of grammar. At this time his tutor, in his ordinary course, was teaching his other pupils the Medea of Euripides, and Henry was bo captivated with the sweetness and harmony of the Greek language, that he resolved immediately to learn it. His tutor, however, objected to this, as he thought that the Latin should always precede the Greek, in a course of education; but Henry’s father being of a different opinion, he was allowed to foilow his inclination, and his progress corresponded to the enthusiasm with which he entire < on this language. A few days were sufficient for the Greek grammar, and Euripides being then put into his hands, he read it with avidity, and could repeat most of the plays, even before he had become a thorough master of the language. He afterwards perfected himself in Greek under Turnebus and other eminent scholars, and at the same time did not neglect to make himself acquainted with the Latin, as may appear by the notes he published on Horace, when he was only twenty years of age. He also studied arithmetic, geometry, and even judicial astrology, then very fashionable, but he is said to have very soon discovered its absurdity.

In our account of Robert Stephens, we mentioned his intention of publishing a Greek Thesaurus: this was now accomplished by his son, after twelve years incessant labour, and is alone a sufficient monument of his erudition. The learned bestowed the highest commendation, but the great price which he was obliged to fix upon it to indemnify himself is said to have retarded the sale, and he was still a more serious sufferer by the plagiarism of Scapula (See Scapula), which indeed completed his ruin. He was not, however, without friends or resources. He went after this affair into Germany, and although he had been neglected by his countrymen, did not cease by his writings to do honour to France in foreign countries. This conduct recommended him to the favour of Henry III. who gave him a present of 3000 livres for his work on the excellence of the French language, and a pension of 300 livres to assist him in collating manuscripts. He also invited him to reside at his court, often admitted him into his councils, and gave him grants for considerable sums; but these sums were either ill-paid, or not sufficient to extricate our author from his difficulties, and he resolved therefore to leave the court. He now commenced a kind of wandering life, residing for short spaces of time at Orleans, Paris, Francfort, Geneva, and Lyons, and exhausting his poor finances. During the last journey he made to Lyons, he was seized with sickness, and carried to the hospital, where he died in the month of March, 1598, after having been for some time in a state of derangement.

Such was the melancholy end of one of the most learned men of his time, and one of the greatest benefactors to literature. The unfortunate circumstances of his life prevented him from bestowing the same attention which his father had to the typographical beauty of the works which issued from his press; but he published a great many which do not yield to Robert’s in point of correctness. To all his editions he prefixed learned prefaces, illustrated them by short and judicious notes, and they have generally formed the basis of all future reprints. Some modern critics, of Germany chiefly, have attacked his fidelity as an editor, and accused him of having introduced readings not justified by the authority of manuscripts; but he has been very ably defended against this charge by Wyttembach, in the preface to his edition of Plutarch’s morals. Henry had great facility in writing Latin poetry, which he often composed almost extempore, while walking, riding, or conversing with his friends. He had a correspondence with all the learned of Europe; but had seme little alloy in his character. He was rather impatient of contradiction, and too frequently indulged his epigrammatic turn at the expence of those who could not accede to his opinions. Among the ancient authors which he published, with notes, we may mention the “Poet. Gracci, principes heroici carminis,” 1566, fol. a magnificent collection, which is every day rising in price; “Pindari et casterorum octo Grfficorum carmina,” 1560, 1566, 1586, 24mo: to these we may add Maximus Tyrius, Diodorus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Hefodotus, Sophocles, ^schylus, Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, Apollonius Rhotlius, Callimachus, Plato, Herodian, and Appian; Horace, Virgil, the younger Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, and a collection of the Latin historians; but his taste most inclined to Greek literature, and from that language he has furnished us with Latin translations of Anacreon, Theocritus, Bion and Moschus, Pindar, Sextus Empiricus; Æschylus, Sophocles, &c. &e. and all his translations, extensive as they are, are allowed to be excellent.

The most valued of his own works, original or compiled, are, 1. “Ciceronianum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” Paris, 1557, 8vo. 2. “In Ciceronis quamplurimos locos castigationes,” ibid. 1557, 8vo; this is usually printed with th former. 3. “Admonitio de abusu linguae Graecae in quibusdam vocibus quas Latina usurpat,” 1563, 8vo; of this there was a new edition by Koloff and Kromayer, Berlin, 1736, 8vo. 4. “Fragmenta poetarum veterum Latinorum, quorum opera non extant,” 1564, 8vo. 5. “Dictionarium medicum,” 1564, 8vo. 6. “Introduction au traite de la conformite des merveilles anciennes avec les modernes, ou Traite preparatif a l'apologie pour Herodote,” 1566, 8vo, of great rarity and value, and the only edition in which the text was not altered, as was the case in the subsequent ones, of which there were about twelve before 1607. Duchet published a new edition at the Hague in 1733, 3 vols. 8vo. We have mentioned the author’s fears respecting his being known to have written it, but in fact he never was discovered, nor is there any truth in the story of his having been obliged to fly from the city, and take refuge in the mountains of Auvergne. 7. “Traite de la conformite du langage Francois avec le Grec,” 8vo, without date. The second edition, of Paris, 1569, was cancelled in some places, which makes the other the more valuable. 8. “Artis typographicae querimonia de illiteratis quibusdam typographis,” 1569, 4to. This little poem, for such it is, has been added to those published by Almeloveen and Maittaire, and there is a recent edition by Lottin, printed at Paris in 1785, 4to, with a French translation, and the genealogy of the Stephani, from 1500. 9. “Epistola qua ad multas multorum amicorum respondet de suas typographic statu, nominatimque de suo Thesauro linguae Graecoe,” 1569, 8vo, reprinted also by Almeloveen and Maittaire. 10. “Comicoruin Graecorum sententiae,” 1569, 12mo. 11. “Epigrammata Graeca selectaex Anthologia interpretata ad verbum et carmina,” 1570, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Grsecae linguae,” 1572, 4 vols. fol. with which is connected the “Glossariaduo,” &C.1573, fol. Of this celebrated work it is unnecessary to say much, as it is so well known to the learned in Europe, and to others information vvoxild be unnecessary. Maittaire was of opinion that Henry published a second edition, but has not discovered the date. Niceron thinks he only printed a new title for the unsold copies, with an epigram on Scapula. But Brunet, after examining a great many copies, both with the first and second titles, inclines to the existence of a second edition. Of late a spirited invitation has been held out to public taste and liberality by Messrs. Valpy, who have undertaken a nevr edition, with improvements and every lover of literature, every scholar anxious for the honour of his country must wish them success. 13. “Virtutum encomia, sive gnomas de virtutibus,” 1575, 12mo. 14. “Francofordiense emporium, sive Francofordienses nundinse,” 1574, 8vo. This collection of prose and verse pieces, which he calls “merchandize,” is but little known. 15. “Discours merveilleux de la vie et deportments de la reine Catherine de Medecis,” 1575, 8vo. This satire, translated in 1575, by a protestant writer, into Latin, with the title of “Legenda sanctae Catharinae JMediceas,” is attributed to Henry Stephens, and has been often reprinted. 16. “De Latinitate falso suspecta expostulatio, necnon de Plauti Latinitate dissertatio,” 1576, 8vo. This is a hit at the Ciceronians, or those who undervalue all Latin that is not borrowed from Cicero. 17. “Pseudo-Cicero, dialogus in quo de multis ad Ciceronis sermonem pertinentibus, de delectu editionum ejus, et cautione in eo legendo,” 1577, 8vo. 18. “Schediasmatum variorum, id est, observationum, &c. libri tres,” 1578, 8vo. These three books of critical remarks bear the names of the first three months of the year, and three others were added in 1589, but this second part is very rare. Gruter, however, has inserted it in the supplement to vol. V. of his “Thesaurus criticus.” 19. “ Nizolio-Didascalus, sive monitor Ciceronianorum-Nizoliandrum dialogus,” 1578, 8vo. (See Nizolius). 20. “Deux dialogues du nouveau Frangois Italianize” et autrement deguise entre les courtesans de ce temps,“3vo, no date, but printed, as Brunet thinks, in 1579, by Patisson, and reprinted at Antwerp the same year in 12mo. 21.” Projet de livre intitule de la precellence du langage Frangois,“1579, 8vo, a curious and very rare work, for which, as we have noticed, the king rewarded him. 22.” Paralipojnena grammaticarum GrEecae linguae institutionum,“1581, 8vo. 23.” Hypomneses de Gallica lingua,“1582, 8vo, and inserted also in his father’s French grammar. 24.” De criticis veteribus Grsecis et Latinis, eorumque variis apud poetas potissimurn reprehensionibus dissertatio,“1587, 4to. 25.” Les premices, ou le premier livre des proverbes epigrammatises, ou des epigrammes proverbiales rangees ea lieux communs,“1593, 8vo. 26.” De Lipsii Latinitate palestra," Francfort, 1595, 8vo.

, the second of that name, and brother to the preceding, was born at Paris in 1530. Remaining attached to the Roman catholic religion, he refused to accompany his father when he went to Geneva, on which account his father disinherited him; but by his talents and labours he was soon enabled to provide for himself. From 1556 he had a printing-office with many founts of beautiful types, as we may see from his edition of Despauter’s “Rudimenta,” the first book he printed. William Morel was his partner in the publication of some works, and among the rest an Anacreon, prepared for the press by his brother Henry. It is thought that he obtained the brevet of king’s printer after the death of his father, but we do not find that he assumed the title before 1561. He died in Feb. 1571, and in the month of March following, his nephew, Frederic Morel, was made king’s printer. He married Denisa Barbe, and had three sons, Robert, Francis, who died young, and Henry. His widow married Mauiert Patisson.

, the third of that name, was the son of the preceding Robert the second, and was educated by the celebrated Desportes, who inspired him with a taste for poetry. He began printing in 1572, and in 1574 was honoured with the title of king’s printer. He translated from Greek into French the first two books of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and printed them himself in 1629, 8vo. In the title-page he calls himself poet and interpreter to the king for the Greek and Latin languages. He was a man of spirit and wit, and was much celebrated for his choice of devices and mottoes for eminent personages. He died in 1629, but left no family. Besides his translation of Aristotle and some Greek poets, he was the author of, 1. “Vers Chretiens au comte du Bouchage,” 1587, 4to. 2. “Discours en vers au connetable de Montmorency,” 1595, 4to. 3, “Epitre de Gregoire de Nysse touchant ceux qui vont a Jerusalem,” with a preface on the superstitious abuse of pilgrimages, which gave rise to the opinion that he was not far from embracing the protestant religion.