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

, son of the second Henry, was born in 1566, and educated with great care. After he had finished 1m studies, his father, who wished him to succeed to his own business, sent him on his travels that he might form connections with men of learning. He accordingly visited the principal cities of Germany, Holland, Leyden, where he lived some time with Lipsius, and came also into England, where he is said to have formed an intimacy with John Castohus, a young man well versed in the ancient languages, but of whom we find no other mention. In 1599 he established a printing-office at Geneva, and produced some very correct editions of the Greek and Latin classics with notes, but not such beautiful specimens of typography as those of his father and grandfather. He died at Geneva in 1627, leaving two sons, Anthony and Joseph; the latter was king’s printer at Rochelle, and died in 1629. Of Anthony we shall take some notice presently. Paul published, 1. “Epigrammata Graecse anthoiogiae, Latinis versibus reddita,” Geneva, 1575, 8vo. 2. “Juvenilia,” ibid. 1595, 8vo, consisting of some small pieces he wrote in his youth. Among the editions of the classics which came from his press, there are few, if any, that used to be more valued than his “Euripides,” 1602, 4to. It occurs very rarely.

We shall now briefly mention the remaining branches of this justly celebrated family. Henry Stephens, the third of that name, and son to Robert, the second, was treasurer of the royal palaces. Prosper March and thinks he was a printer in 1615, but no work is known to have issued from his press. He had two sons, Henry and Robert, and a daughter married to Fougerole, a notary. His son Henry, sieur des Fossés, was the author of “L' Art de faire les devices, avec un Traité des rencontres ou mots plaisants,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. His “Art of making devices” was translated into English by our countryman Thomas Blount (See vol. V. p. 430) and published in 1646, 4to. Henry assumed the title of interpreter of the Greek and Latin languages, and was reckoned a good poet. We also are indebted to him for a character of Louis XIII. and eloges of the princes and generals who served under that monarch, which he published in a work entitled “Les Triomphes de Louis-le-Juste,” Paris, 1649, fol. Robert, his brother, was an advocate of parliament, and completed the translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric begun by his uncle, Robert the third of the name, and published at Paris in 1630, 8vo. He left off printing about 1640, and was bailli of St. Marcel.

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

Anthony is said to have been the last branch of the illustrious family of the Stephani, who were at once the ornament and the reproach of the age in which they lived. They were all men of great learning, all extensive benefactors to literature, and all persecuted or unfortunate.

, an eminent antiquary, was the fourth sou of Richard Stephens, esq. of the elder house of that name atEastington in Gloucestershire, by Anne the eldest daughter of sir Hugh Cholmeley, of Whitby, in Yorkshire, baronet. His first education was at Wotton school, whence he removed to Lincoln-college, Oxford, May 19, 681. He was entered very young in the Middle Temple, applied himself to the study of the common law, and was called to the bar. As he was master of a sufficient fortune, it may be presumed that the temper of his mind, which was naturally modest, detained him from the public exercise of his profession, and led him to the politer studies, and an acquaintance with the best authors, ancient and modern: yet he was thought by all who knew him to have made a great proficience in the law, though history and antiquities seem to have been his favourite study. When he was about twenty years old, being at a relation’s house, he accidentally met with some original letters of the lord chancellor Bacon; and finding that they would greatly contribute to our knowledge of matters relating to king James’s reign, he immediately set himself to search for whatever might elucidate the obscure passages, and published a complete edition of them in 1702, with useful notes, and an excellent historical introduction. He intended to have presented his work to king William but that monarch dying before it was published, the dedication was omitted. In the preface, he requested the communication of unpublished pieces of his noble author, to make his collection more complete; and obtained in consequence as many letters as formed the second collection, published in 1734, two years after his death. Being a relation of Robert Harley earl of Oxford (whose mother Abigail, was daughter of Nathaniel Stephens of Eastington), he was preferred by him to be chief solicitor of the customs, in which employment he continued with unblemished reputation till 172C, when he declined that troublesome office, and was appointed to succeed Mr. Madox in the place of historiographer royal. He then formed a design of writing a history of king James the first, a reign which he thought to be more misrepresented than almost any other since the conquest: and, if we may judge by the good impression which he seems to have had of these times, his exactness and care never to advance any thing but from unquestionable authorities, besides his great candour and integrity, it could not but have proved a judicious and valuable performance. He married Mary the daughter of sir Hugh Cholmeley, a lady of great worth, and died at Gravesend, near Thornbury, in Gloucestershire, Nov. 12, 1732; and was buried at Eastington, the seat of his ancestors, where is an inscription to his memory.

, an English poet and statesman, was descended from a family at Pendigrast in Pembrokeshire, but born at London in 1663. It has been conjectured that he was either son or grandson of Charles third son of sir John Stepney, the first baronet of that family: Mr. Cole says his father was a grocer. He received his education at Westminster-school, and was removed thence to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1682; where he took his degree of A.B. in 1685, and that of M.A. in 1689. Being of the same standing with Charles Montague, esq. afterwards earl of Halifax, a strict friendship grew up between them, and they came to London together, and are said to have been introduced into public life by the duke of Dorset. To this fortunate incident was owing all the preferment Stepney afterwards enjoyed, who is supposed not to have had parts sufficient to have risen to any distinction, without such patronage. When Stepney first set out in life, he seems to have been attached to the tory interest; for one of the first poems he wrote was an address to James II. upon his accession to the throne. Soon after, when Monmouth’s rebellion broke out, the Cambridge men, to shew their zeal for the king, thought proper to burn the picture of that prince, who had formerly been chancellor of the university, and on this occasion Stepney wrote some good verses in his praise. Upon the Revolution, he embraced another interest, and procured himself to be nominated to several foreign embassies. In 1692 he went to the elector of Brandenburg’s court, in quality of envoy; in 1693, to the Imperial court, in the same character; in 1694, to the elector of Saxony; and, two years after, to the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and the congress at Francfort; in 1698, a second time to Brandenburg; in 1699, to the king of Poland; in 1701, again to the emperor; and in 1706, to the States General; and in all his negotiations, is said to have been successful. In 1697 he was made one of the commissioners of trade. He died at Chelsea in 1707, and was buried in Westminster-abbey; where a fine monument was erected over him, with a pompous inscription. At his leisure hours he composed poetical pieces, which are republished in the general collection of English poets. He likewise wrote some political pieces in prose, particularly, “An Essay on the present interest of England, in 1701: to which are added, the proceedings of the House of Commons in 1677, upon the French king’s progress in Flanders.” This is reprinted in the collection of tracts, called “Lord Somers’s collection.”

, archbishop of York, the son of Simon Sterne, was descended from a family in Suffolk, but was born at Mansfield in Nottinghamshire in 1596. He was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1611, whence, having taken his degrees of A. B. in 1614, and A. M. in 1618, he removed to Bene't-college in 1620, and was elected fellow July 10, 1623. He then took pupils with great credit to himself and to the college, and proceeded B. D. the following year, and was incorporated in the same degree at Oxford in 1627. He had been appointed one of the university preachers the year before, and was in such high reputation, that he was made choice of for one of Dr. Love’s opponents in the philosophical act, kept for the entertainment of the Spanish and Austrian ambassadors, and fully answered their expectations. In 1632 he was made president of the college; and upon Dr. Beale’s translation from the mastership of Jesus to that of St. John’s college soon alter, was put in his room in March 1633. His promotion is thus noticed in a private letter “One Stearne, a solid scholar (who first summed up the 3600 faults that were in our printed Bibles of London) is by his majesty’s direction to the bishop of Ely (who elects there) made master of Jesus.” This occasioned him to take the degree of D.D. in 1635, and he then assumed the government of the college, to which he proved a liberal benefactor, and it was by his means that the north side of the outer court was built. In 1641 he was nominated by a majority of the fellows to the rectory of Harletpn in Cambridgeshire; but some contest arising, he did not get possession of it till the summer following. He had, however, from March 1634 enjoyed that of Yeovilton in the county of Somerset, through the favour of archbishop Laud, one of whose chaplains he was, and so highly esteemed, that he chose him to do the last good offices for him on the scaffold. On the breaking out of the rebellion, he incurred the fiercest anger of the usurper for having conveyed to the king both the college plate and money, for which he was seized by Cromweii y and carried up to London. Here, after suffering the severest hardships in various prisons, he was ejected from all his preferments. Few men indeed suffered more cruel treatment; and it was some years before he was finally released, and permitted to retire to Stevenage in Hertfordshire, where he kept a private school for the support of his family till the restoration. Soon after that event, while he was carrying on the repairs of the college, he was appointed bishop of Carlisle, and was concerned in the Savoy conference, and in the revisal of the hook of Common-prayer. On the decease of Dr. Frevveii, he was translated to the archiepiscopal see of York, over which he presided with becoming dignity, till the time of his death, Jan. 18, 1683, in the eightyseventh year of his age. He was buried in the chapel of St. Stephen in his own cathedral, where an elegant monument uas afterwards erected to his memory by his grandson Richard Sterne, of Eivington, esq.

His character has been variously represented, as we have repeatedly had occasion to notice in the case of persons of eminence who lived in his disastrous period. Bishop Kennet informs us, “He was promoted to the bishopric of Carlisle, on account of his piety, great learning, and prudence, as being indeed not less exemplary in his notions and conversations, than if he himself had expected martyrdom, from the hour of his attendance upon his patron archbishop Laud.” Baxter says, “Among all the bishops there was none who had so promising a face. He looked so honestly, and gravely and soberly, that he thought such a face could not have deceived him;” but then he adds, “that he found he had not half the charity which became so grave a bishop, nor so mortified an aspect.” Notwithstanding this charge, he was one of those bishops who shewed great lenity, charity, and respect, in their treatment of the nonconformist clergy. The only substantial charge against him is that advanced by bishop Burnet, who censures him for being too eager to enrich his family. For this there seems some foundation, and Browne Willis allows that he ivould have deserved a larger encomium than most of his predecessors, if he had not demised the park of Hexgrave from the see to his son and t‘amiK His m.my benefactions to Bene’t and Jesus colleges, to the rebuildin of St. Paul’s, and other public and charitable purposes, show that if he was rich, fee was also liberal. As an author, besides some Latin verses, in the “Genethliacon Caroli et Marioe, 1631,” at the end o‘ Winterton’s translation of the Aphorisms of Hippocrates in lb’33, on the birth of a prince in 1640, anil others in “Iivnodia Cantab, ob paciferum Catoli e Scotia remtum, 164.1,” he ivas one of the assistants in the publication of the Polyglot; published a “Comment on Psalms ciii.” Lond. 1641*. 8vo; and wrote an accurate treatise on logic, which was published after his death, in 16St5, 8vo, under the title of “Summa Logicæ, &c.”

, an English poet and psalmodist, was born, according to Wood’s conjecture, in Hampshire, and, as Hoi imbed says, at Southampton; but Atkins, in his History of Gloucestershire, expressly affirms, that he was born at Awre, a parish about twelve miles from Gloucester; and adds, that his posterity turned papists, and left the place. He studied for some time at Oxford, but not long enough to take any degree. By some interest that he had at court, he was preferred to the office of groom of the robes to Henry VIII. which he discharged so well that he became a personal favourite of the king, who by his will left him a legacy of an hundred marks. Upon the decease of king Henry, he was continued in the same employment by Edward VI. and having leisure to pursue his studies, he acquired some degree of esteem about the court for his poetical talents. He wa> a man of great piety, in his morals consequently irreproachable, and was a stedfast adherent to the principles of the Reformation. Being offended with the immodest Soul'S, which were then the usual entertainment of persons about the court, he undertook to translate the Psalms into English metre, hoping the courtiers might find in them a proper antidote and substitute for their licentious songs: but he died in 1549, without completing the work. His will was proved Sept. 12th of that year, and in it he is styled groom of his majesty’s robes; and it appears that he died seized of lands to a considerable value in Hampshire and Cornwall.

Sternhold’s principal successor in carrying on the translation of the Psalms was John Hopkins, who was admitted A. B. at Oxford in 1544, and is supposed to have been afterwards a clergyman of Suffolk. He was living in 1556. Warton pronounces him a raiher better poet than Sternhold. He versified fifty-eight of the Psaims, which are distinguished by his initials. Bishop Tanner styles him “poeta, ut ea ferebant tempora, eximius” ajid Bale, “Britanuicorum poetarum sui temporis non infimus;” and, at the end of the Latin commendatory verses prefixed ix’s “Acts and Monuments,” are some stanzas of his h seem to justify this character. Five other Psalms were translated by William Whitting-ham, the puritan dean of Durham, and he also versified the decalogue, the prayer immediately after it, and very probably the Lord’s prayer, the creed, and the hymn “Veni Creator;” all which follow the singing-psalms in our version. Thomas Norton (See Norton) translated twenty-seven more of the psalms; Robert Wisdome the twenty-fifth, and also wrote that once very popular prayer at the end of the version, “Preserve us, Lord, by thy dear word,” &.c. which is a literal translation of Luther’s hymn upon the same occasion. Eight psalms, which complete the whole series, have the initials W. K. and T. C. but we have no account of either of these authors.

The complete version was first printed in 1562, by John Day, entitled “The whole book of Psalms, Collected into English metre by T. Sternhold, J. Hopkins, and others, conferred with the Ebrue; with apt notes to sing them withall:” Heylin, who seems to have a singular aversion to psalmody, says that “this was a device first taken up in France by one Clement Marot,” but this is a mistake. Luther, and before his time, John Huss, ajid the Bohemian brethren, had metrical psalms and hymns in the German language, which they sung to what Dr. Burncy calls unisonous and syllabic tunes, that were either adopted or imitated by all posterior reformers. In ibe edition of 1562 the tunes are chiefly German, and still used on the continent by Lutherans and Calvinists, as appears by c-iiaiion, particularly the melodies set to the Uth, 14th, 113th, 121-th, U7th, and l.vuii Psalms.

, an ancient Greek poet, was born at Himera, a city of Sicily, in the seventh century B. C. His name was originally Tysias, but changed to Stesichorus, on account of his being the first who taught the chorus to dance to the lyre. He appears to have been a man of first rank for wisdom and authority among his fellow citizens and to have had a great hand in the transact; between that state and the tyrant Phalaris. He died at Catana in Sicily at above eighty, in the year 556 B. C. the people were so sensible of the honour his relics did the city, that they resolved to keep them against the claims of the Himerians. Much of this poet’s history depends upoit the authority of Phalaris’s epistles; and if the genuineness of these should be given up, which is now the general opinion, yet we may perhaps collect from them the esteem and character Stesichorus bore with antiquity. We have no character of ins works on record: Suidas only tells us, in general, that he composed a book of lyrics in the Dorian dialect; of which a few scraps, not amounting to threescore lines, are inserted in the collection of Fnlvius Ursinus, at Antwerp, 1568, 8vo. Majesty and greatness make the common character of his style: and Horace speaks of his “Graves Camoenae.” Hence Alexander, in Dion Chrysostom, reckons him among the poets whom a prince ought to read: and Synesius puts him and Homer together, as the noble celebrators of the heroic race. Quintilian’s judgment on his works will justify all this: “the force of Stesichorus’s wit appears,” says he, “from the subjects he has treated of; while he sings the greatest wars and the greatest commanders, and sustains with his lyre all the weight and grandeur of an epic poem. For he makes his heroes speak and act agreeably to their characters: and had he but observed moderation, he would have appeared the fairest rival of Homer. But he is too exuberant, and does not know how to contain himself: which, though really a fault;, yet is one of those faults which arises from an abundance and excess of genius.”

His leisure time, during the whole of his life, he dedicated to study, to intercourse with learned men, and to the duties of benevolence and devotion. His reading was extensive, and his taste may be understood from the plan of his studies. He was well versed in the writings of the fathers of the church of the first three centuries, generally called the Apostolic fathers; he had twice read through Dr. Thomas Jackson’s Body of Divinity, in three large folios; a divine for whose writings bishop Home always expressed the highest respect. The works of bishops Andrews, Jeremy Taylor, and dean Hickes, were quite familiar to Mr. Stevens; and there was hardiy a writer of modern days, at all celebrated for orthodox opinions, who was unknown to him. Such was the esteem in which he was held, as a theologian, that Dr. Douglas, bishop of Salisbury, once said of him, “Here is a man, who, though not a bishop, yet would have been thought worthy of that character in the first and purest ages of the Christian church;” and the late bishop Horsley, who was not given to flattery, when on one occasion Mr. Stevens paid him a compliment on account of his sermon, said, “Mr. Stevens, a compliment from you upon such a subject is of no inconsiderable value.” Mr. Stevens was also, like bishop Home, a great admirer of the works of Mr. John Hutchinson.

In 1773 Mr. Stevens first appeared as an author, if we may say so of one who never put his name to his writings, by publishing “An Essay on the nature and constitution of the Christian church, wherein are set forth the form of its government, the extent of its powers, and the limits of our obedience, by a layman.” This was published at a time (the preface says) “when the press teemed with the most scurrilous invectives against the fundamental doctrines of our religion: and even the newspapers were converted into trumpets of sedition by the enemies of the church.” Thirty years after the appearance of this tract the society for promoting Christian knowledge placed it on the catalogue of their publications with the name of the author, one of whose primary motives for writing it was the effort making in 1773 to get rid of subscription to the Thirty-nine articles. With the same view, and about the same time, Mr. Woliaston, rector of Chislehurstin Kent, having published “An address to the Clergy of the church of England in particular, and to all Christians in general,” Mr. Stevens printed “Cursory Observations” on this pamphlet, with a mixture of playfulness and argument, censuring him for being friendly to the scheme then in view. In 1776 he published “A discourse on the English Constitution, extracted from a late eminent writer, and applicable to the present times,” which were, it may be remembered, times of great political turbulence. In the following year he published two distinct works: the one, “Strictures on a sermon entitled, The Principles of the Revolution vindicated — preached before the university of Cambridge, on Wednesday, May 29, 1776, by Richard Watson, D.I). F II. S. Regius professor of divinity in that university” an<1, the other, “The Revolution vindicated, and constitutional liberty asserted in answer to the Rev. Dr. Watson’s Accession Sermon, preached before the university of Cambridge on Oct. 25, 1776.” In both these works, he contends that the preacher and his friends deavouf to support doctrines which, if followed, would destroy, and not preserve the constitution, grounding all authority in the power of the people: that the revolution (in 1688) intended to preserve, and did preserve, the constitution, in its pristine state and vigour: and that this is manifest from the convention, founding the revolution entirely on the abdication and vacancy of the throne.

In 1800, he was again induced to enter the fields of controversy, in defence of the opinions partly of his relation bishop Home, and partly of his friend Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones, in his life of bishop Home, had adverted to that prelate’s acquaintance with the writings of Htitchinson; but before a second edition was wanted, some writers had attacked the character of Dr. Home, as an Hutthinsonian and Mr. Jones therefore, in the new edition of the life, published in 1799, introduced a long preface^ vindicating the bishop, and shewing that the Hutchinsonian plan was consistent with the Holy Scriptures. This preface being reviewed in the British Critic in a manner by no means satisfactory to the supporters of Hutchinsonian opinions, or the friends of Mr. Jones (who died about this time), Mr. Stevens, with all the ardour of friendship, and with all the ability and spirit which had distinguished him in his earlier years, published under the name of Ain, the Hebrew word for Nobody, “A Review of the Review of a new Preface to the second edition of Mr. Jones’s Life of bishop Home.”

The last literary work in which Mr. Stevens was engaged, was an uniform edition of the works of Mr. Jones, in 12 vols 8vo, to which he prefixed a life of that excellent man, composed in a style of artless and pathetic religious eloquence, which his biographer has very aptly compared to that of Isaac Walton, between whom and Mr. Stevens he states otner similarities. “Both were tradesmen; they were both men of reading, and personally acquired learning; of considerable theological knowledge well versed in that book which is the only legitimate source of all theology, the Bible. Both were companions and friends of the most eminent prelates and divines that adorned the church of England; both were profound masters in the art of k(>ly living, and of the same cheerfulness of disposition, &c. &c.” But though Mr. Stevens never published any other work that can be called his own, yet he was always considering how the world might be benefited by the labours of others, and therefore he was a great encourager of his learned friend Mr. Jones, in the publication of his various works; and alter the death of bishop Home, the most severe loss he ever met with, he superintended the publication of some of the volumes of his sermons. It was he also who suggested to the bishop the “Letters on Infidelity,” in answer to Ur. Adam Smith’s exaggerated character of Hume; and to him the bishop addressed them under the initials of W. S. esq.

Mr. Stevens died Feb. 6, 1807, at his house in Broadstreet,;nd was interred in Oiharn church-yard in the county of Kent. Otham wa* not the place of his nativity, yet, from being the parish of his maternal relations, he had always regarded it as his home; and in that church-yard he expressed his desire to be buried. Indeed to the church of Otham he had, during his life-time, been a great benefactor, having laid out about 600l. in repairing and adorning it. An epitaph has since been placed on a marble tablet, containing a just summary of his excellent character. For a more minute detail of it, and particularly of his extensive -charities, both as ari individual, and as treasurer of queen Anne’s bounty, which office he held many years, and it afforded to him a wide scope for benevolent exertion for many admirable traits of temper and proofs of talent, and for an example of integrity, private virtues, and public usefulness, rarely to be met with, we must refer to the “Memoirs of William Stevens, esq.” printed for private distribution in 1812, 8vo, and in 1815 for sale. 7'his very interesting and instructive work is the well-known, although not avowed, production of a learned judge, who bus ably proved “how much every man has it in his power, even under very discouraging circumstances, by diligence, fidelity, and attention, to advance himself, not only in worldly prosperity, but in learning and wisdom, in purity of life, and in moral and religious knowledge,” and that “a life of the strictest piety and devotion to God, and of the warmest and most extensive benevolence to our fellow men, is strictly compatible with the utmost cheerfulness of disposition, with all rational pleasures, and with all the gaiety, which young persons naturally feel.”

, a Flemish mathematician of Bruges, who died in 1633, was master of mathematics to prince Maurice of Nassau, and inspector of the dykes in Holland. It is said he was the inventor of the sailing chariots, sometimes made use of in Holland. He was a good practical mathematician and mechanist, and was author of several useful works: as, treatises on arithmetic, algebra, geometry, statics, optics, trigonometry, geography, astronomy, fortification, and many others, in the Dutch language, which were translated into Latin, by Snellius, and printed in two volumes folio. There are also two editions in the French language, in folio, both printed at Leyden, the one in 1608, and the other in 1634, with curious notes and additions, by Albert Girard. In Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary, art. Algebra, there is a particular account of Stevin’s inventions and improvements, which were many and ingenious.

A few months after his marriage a vacancy took place in the representation in parliament fur the county of Edinburgh, when sir James took an active part in opposition to the interest of Robert Dunclas, esq. of Arniston, one of the senators of the college of justice, who happened to preside at the meeting of the electors for the county of Edinburgh, and omitted to call over sir James’s name, on the roll of the electors, on account of an alleged insufficiency of right to vote on that occasion. On ibis account Mr. Dunclas became the object of a legal prosecution by sir James, as having disobeyed the act of parliament relating to the rolls of electors of members of parliament for counties in Scotland. When, in the course of litigation, tliis cause came to be heard before the college of justice, sir J. mes pleaded his own cause with so much eloquence, and in so masterly a manner, that Mr. Dunclas (commonly called lord Arniston), though a judge, came down from the bench and defended himself at the bar; an appearance very uncommon, and demonstrative of the high sense he had of the abilities of his opponent. This extraordinary appearance of our author gave the greatest hopes of his professional abilities, and inspired all his friends with fresh zeal for his continuance at the bar; but the sentiments and engagements formerly mentioned in all probability prevented sir James from availing himself of so brilliant an introduction. After this struggle he passed near two years at his seat in the country, surrounded at all times by the most learned and accomplished of his countrymen, and rendering himself continually the delight of all his guests and companions, by the charms and variety of his conversation, and the polite animation of his manners and address. Amoncr those were many of the illustrious persons who afterwards engaged in the attempt to piace the Pretender on the throne in 1745. As he was by far the ablest man of that party, the Jacobites engaged him to write prince CharlesEdward’s manifesto, and to assist in his councils. Information having been given of his share in these affairs, he thought it prudent, on the failure of the attempt, to leave Britain, and was excepted afterwards from the bill of indemnity, and thus rendered an exile from his country. He chose France for his residence during the first ten years of his banishment, and was chiefly at Angoule^me, where he applied himself to the study of those subjects which are treated in his works, particularly finance, and collected that vast magazine of facts relating to the revenue which laid the foundation for some of the most curious and interesting chapters of his “Principles of Political CEconomy.” From the information on these subjects which he obtained in France, he was enabled to compare the state of the two nations, as well as to give that very clear and succinct account of the then state of the French finances which composes the sixth chapter of the fourth part of the fourth book of his great work. In 1757, sir James published at Frankfort on the Maine, his “Apologiedu sentiment de Monsieur de chevalier Newton, sur Pancienne chronologie des Grecs, contenant des reponses a toutes les objections qui y ont ete faites jusqu'a present.” This apology was written in the beginning of 1755; but the printing of it was at that time prevented by his other engagements. It is said to be a work of great merit.

Sir James had, by the lady Frances Steuart, a daughter, who died soon after her birth; and the present sir James Steuart Denham, baronet.

His “Inquiry into the principles of Political Œconorny” was published in 1767, 2 vols. 4to. On this work there have been considerable differences of opinion, and the author certainly has never attracted so much attention as his great rival on the same subject, Dr. Adam Smith, who has been heard to observe that he understood sir James’s system better from his conversation than from his volumes. The work was republished in 1805, along with other pieces from his pen, in 6 vols. 8vo.

Mr. Stewart’s views made it necessary for him to attend the lectures in the university of Edinburgh in 1741; and that his mathematical studies might suffer no interruption, he was introduced by Dr. Simson to Mr. Maclaurin, who was then teaching with so much success both the geometry and the philosophy of Newton, and under whom Mr. Stewart made that proficiency which was to be expected from the abilities of such a pupil, directed by those of so great a master. Eut the modern analysis, even when thus powerfully recommended, was not able to withdraw his attention, from the relish of the ancient geometry, which he had imbibed under Dr. Simson. He still kept up a regular correspondence with this gentleman, giving him an account of his progress, and of his discoveries in geometry, which were now both numerous and important, and receiving in return many curious communications with respect to the Loci Plani, and the Porisms of Euclid. Mr. Stewart pursued this latter subject in a different, and new direction, and was led to the discovery of those curious and interesting propositions, which were published, under the title of “General Theorems,” in 1746, which, although given without the demonstrations, placed their discoverer at once among the geometricians of the first rank. They are, for the most part, Porisms, though Mr. Stewart, careful not to anticipate the discoveries of his friend, gave them only the name of Theorems. While engaged in them, Mr. Stewart had entered into the church, and become minister of Roseneath. It was in that retired and romantic situation, that he discovered the greater part of those theorems. In the summer of 1746, the mathematical chair in the university of Edinburgh became vacant, by the death of Mr. Maclaurin. The “General Theorems” had not yet appeared; Mr. Stewart was known only to his friends; and the eyes of the public were naturally turned on Mr. Stirling, who then resided at Leadhills, and who was well known in the mathematical world. He however declined appearing as a candidate for the vacant chair; and several others were named, among whom was Mr. Stewart. Upon this occasion he printed his “Theorems,” which gave him a decided superiority above all the other candidates. He was accordingly elected professor of mathematics in the university of Edinburgh, in September 1747. The duties of this office gave a turn somewhat different to his mathematical pursuits, and led him to think of the most simple and elegant means of explaining those difficult propositions, which were bit erto only accessible to men deeply versed in the modern analysis. In doing this, he was pursuing the object which, of all others, he most ardently wished to obtain, viz. the application of geometry to such problems as the algebraic calculus alone had been thought able to resolve. His solution of Kepler’s problem was the first specimen of this kind which he gave to the world, and which, unlike all former attempts, was at once direct in its method and simple in its principles. This appeared in vol. II. of the “Essays of the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh,” for 1756; and in the first volume of the same collection are some other propositions by him, which are an extension of a curious theorem in the fourth book of Pappus.

The transit of Venus took place; the astronomers returned, who had viewed the curious phenomenon, from the most distant stations: and no very satisfactory result was obtained from a comparison of their observations. Dr. Stewart then resolved to apply the principles he had already laid down and in 1763 pnblisned his essay on the “Sun’s Distance,” where the computation being actually made, the parallax of the sun was found to be no more than 6“9, and consequently his distance almost 29,875 semidiameters of the earth, or nearly 119 millions of miles. A determination of the sun’s distance, that so far exceeded all former estimations of it, was received with surprise, and the reasoning on which it was founded was likely to undergo a severe examination. But, even among astronomers, it was not every one who could judge in a matter of such difficult discussion. Accordingly, it was not till about five years after the publication of the sun’s distance, that there appeared a pamphlet, under the title of” Four Propositions," intended to point out certain errors in Dr. Stewart’s investigation, which had given a result much greater than the truth. From his desire of simplifying, and of employing only the geometrical method of reasoning, he was reduced to the necessity of rejecting quantities, which were considerable enough to have a great effect on the last result. An error was thus introduced, which, had it not been for certain compensations, would have become immediately obvious, by giving the sun’s distance near three times as great as that which has been mentioned.

The author of the pamphlet, referred to above, was the first who remarked the dangerous nature of these simplifications, and who attempted to estimate the error to which they had given rise. This author remarked what produced the compensation above mentioned, viz. the immense variation of the sun’s distance, which corresponds to a very small variation of the motion of the moon’s apogee. And it is but justice to acknowledge that, besides being just in. the points already mentioned, they are very ingenious, and written with much modesty and good temper. The author, who at first concealed his name, but afterwards consented to its being made public, was Mr. Dawson, a surgeon at Suclbury in Yorkshire, and one of the most ingenious mathematicians and philosophers which this country at that time possessed.

A second attack was soon after this made on the sun’s distance, by Mr. Landen; but by no means with the same good temper which has been remarked in the former. He fancied to himself errors in Dr. Stewart’s investigation, which have no existence; he exaggerated those that were real, and seemed to triumph in the discovery of them with unbecoming exultation. The error into which Dr. Stewart had fallen, though first taken notice of by Mr. Dawson, whose pamphlet was sent by Dr. Hutton to Mr. Landen as soon as it was printed (for Dr. Hutton had the care of the edition of it) yet this gentleman extended his remarks upon it to greater exactness. But Mr. Landen, in the zeal of correction, brings many other charges against Dr. Stewart, the greater part of which seem to have no good foundation. Such are his objections to the second part of the investigation, where Dr. Stewart finds the relation between the disturbing force of the sun, and the motion of the apses of the lunar orbit. For tiiis part, instead of being liable to objection, is deserving of the greatest praise, since it resolves, by geometry alone, a problem which had eluded the efforts of some of the ablest mathematicians, even when they availed themselves of the utmost resources of the integral calculus. Sir Isaac Newton, though he assumed the disturbing force very near the truth, computec the motion of the apses from thence only at one half of what it really amounts to; so that, had he been required, like Dr. Stewart, to invert the problem, he would have committed an error, not merely of a few thousandth parts, as the latter is alleged to have done, but would have brought out a result double of the truth. (Princip. Math. lib. 3, prop. 3.) Machin and Callendrini, when commenting on this part of the “Principia,” found a like inconsistency between their theory and observation. Three other celebrated mathematicians, Clairaut, D'Alembert, and Euler, severally experienced the same difficulties, and were led into an error of the same magnitude. It is true, that, on resuming their computations, they found that they had not carried their approximations to a sufficient length, which when they had at last accomplished, their results agreed exactly with observation. Mr. Walmsley and Dr. Stewart were the first mathematicians who, employing in the solution of this difficult problem, the one the algebraic calculus, and the other the geometrical method, were led immediately to the truth; a circumstance so much for the honour of both, that it ought not to be forgotten. It was the business of an impartial critic, while he examined our author’s reasonings, to have remarked and to have weighed these considerations.

, one of the most learned prelates of the seventeenth century, was the seventh son of Samuel Stillingfleet, gent, descended from the ancient family of the StillingBeets of Stillingfleet, about four miles from York. His mother was Susanna, the daughter of Edward Norris, of Petworth, in Sussex,gent. He was born at Cranbourne in Dorsetshire, April 17, 1635, and educated at the grammar-school of that place by Mr. Thomas Garden, a man of eminence in his profession. He continued at this school until, being intended for the university, he was removed to Ringwood in Hampshire, that he might have a chance for one of Lynne’s exhibitions, who was the founder of that school.

About 1654 he left the university to accept the invitation of sir Roger Burgoyne, who wished him to reside with him at his seat at Wroxhall, in Warwickshire He had been recommended by Dr. Hainan, one of the fellows 01 his college, but in what capacity, whether as chaplain or companion, does not appear. Sir Roger was a man of piety and learning, and became afterwards a very kind friend and patron to Mr. Stillingfleet, yet parted with him very readily next year, when he was invited to Nottingham to be tutor to the hon. Francis Pierrepoint, esq. brother to the marquis of Dorchester. In 1656 he completed his master’s degree, and the following year left Nottingham, and went again to Wroxfoail, where his patron, sir Roger Burgoyne, presented him to the living of Sutton, in Bedfordshire. Before institution he received orders at the hands of Dr. Brownrig, the ejected bishop of Exeter.

The country was now no longer thought a proper field for the exertions of one who had already shown himself so able a champion for his church and nation. His first advance to London was in consequence of his being appointed preacher to the Rolls chapel, by sir Harbottle Grimston; and in Jan. 1665 he was presented by Thomas, earl of Southampton, to the living of St. Andrew’s, Holborn. With this he kept his preachership at the Rolls, and was at the same time afternoon lecturer at the Temple church, which procured him the esteem and friendship of many eminent men in the law, particularly sir Matthew Hale, and lord chief justice Vaughan. Nor were his discourses less adapted to the common understanding. The eminent non-conformist, Matthew Henry, was often his auditor and admirer.

About 1679 Dr. Stillingfleet turned his thoughts to a subject apparently foreign to his usual pursuits, but in which he displayed equal ability. This was the question as to the right of bishops to vote in capital cases, and was occasioned by the prosecution of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby. Among others who contested that right, was Denzil lord Holies, who published “A Letter shewing that bishops are not to be judges in parliament in cases capital,” 1679, 4to. In answer to this, Dr. Stillingfleet published “The grand question concerning the bishop’s right to vote in parliament in cases capital, stated and argued from the parliament rolls and the history of former times, with an inquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in parliament.” Bishop Burnet observes that in this Stillingfleet gave a proof of his being able to make himself master of any argument which he undertook, and discovered more skill and exactness in judging this matter than all who had gone before him. Burnet adds that in the opinion of all impartial men he put an end to the controversy.

Soon after his promotion to the see of Worcester, he was appointed one of the commissioners for reviewing the liturgy, and his opinion was highly valued by his brethren. The last controversy in which he had any concern, was with the celebrated Locke, who, having laid down some principles in his “Essay on Human Understanding,” which seemed to the bishop to strike at the mysteries of revealed religion, fell on that account under his lordship’s cognizance. Although Dr. Stillingfleet had always had the reputation of coming off with triumph in all his controversies, in this he was supposed to be not successful; and some have gone so far as to conjecture, that being pressed with clearer and closer reasoning by Locke, than he had been accustomed to from his other adversaries, it created in him a chagrin which shortened his life. There is, however, no occasion for a supposition so extravagant. He had been subject to the gout near twenty years, and it having fixed in his stomach, proved fatal to him. He died at his house in Park-street, Westminster, March 27, 1699. His biographer describes his person as tall, graceful, and well-proportioned; his countenance comely, fresh, and awful. “His apprehension was quick and sagacious, his judgment exact and profound, and his memory very tenacious so that, considering how intensely he studied, and how he read every thing, it is easy to imagine him, what he really was, one of the most universal scholars that ever lived.” His body was carried for interment to Worcester cathedral, after which an elegant monument was erected over him, with an inscription written by Dr. Bentley, who had been his chaplain. This gives a noble and yet just idea of the man, and affords good authority for many particulars recorded of his life.

His writings were all collected, and reprinted in 1710, in 6 vols. folio. The first contains, 1. “Fifty Sermons, preached on several occasions,” with the author’s life. The second, 2. “Origines Sacræ” 3 “Letter to a Deist,” written, as he tells us in the preface, for the satisfaction of a particular person, who owned the Being and Providence of God, but expressed a mean esteem of the scriptures and the Christian religion. 4. “Irenicum: the Unreasonableness of Separation, or an impartial account of the history, nature, and pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England.” The third volume contains, 5. “Origines Britannicæ, or the Antiquities of the British Churches;” 6. “Two Discourses concerning the Doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction, against the Socinians.” 7. “Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” in which he animadverts upon some passages in Mr. Locke’s Essay. 8. “Answers to two Letters,” published by Mr. Locke. 9. “Ecclesiastical cases relating to the duties and rights of the Parochial Clergy,” a charge. 10. “Concerning Bonds of resignation of Benefices.” 11. “The Foundation of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and as it regards the legal supremacy.” 12. “The grand question concerning the Bishops’ right to vote in Parliament in cases capital.” 13. “Two speeches in Parliament.” 14. “Of the true Antiquity of London.” 15. “Concerning the Unreasonableness of a new Separation, on account of the oaths to King William and Queen Mary.” 16. “A Vindication of their Majesties authorities to fill the sees of deprived Bishops.” 17. “An Answer to the Paper delivered by Mr. Ashton, at his execution, to sir Francis Child, Sheriff of London, with the Paper itself.” The fourth, fifth, and sixth volumes contain, 18. Pieces written against the Church of Rome, in controversy with Cressy, Sargeant, and other Popish advocates.

“When I was a young man,” says the present venerable bishop of Llandaff, “I had formed a mean opinion of the reasoniog faculties of bishop Stillingfleet, from reading Mr. Locke’s Letter and two replies to him but a better acquaintance with the bishop’s works has convinced me that my opinion was ill-founded. Though no match for Mr. Locke in strength and acuteness of argument, yet his `Origines Sacræ,' and other works, show him to have been not merely a searcher into ecclesiastical antiquities, but a sound divine and a good reasoner.” This confession from one, perhaps a little more latitudinarian than our author in some important points, has probably contributed to revive an attention to Stillingfleet’s works, which have accordingly risen very highly in value. Indeed if we consider the variety of subjects on which he wrote, and wrote with acknowledged skill and with elegance of style, and the early fame he acquired and uniformly preserved, it will not be thought too much to rank him in the first class of learned men of the seventeenth century. While he was rector of Sutton, he married a daughter of William Dobyns, a Gloucestershire gentleman, who lived not long with him; yet had two daughters who died in their infancy, and one son, Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, afterwards rector of Wood-Norton in Norfolk. Then he married a daughter of sir Nicholas Pedley of Huntingdon, Serjeant at law, who lived with him almost all his life, and brought him seven children, of whom two only survived him; James rector of Hartlebury and canon of Windsor, and Anne, married afterwards to Humphrey Tyshe, of Gray’s-Inn, esq. His grandson is the subject of the next article.

, grandson to the preceding, and an eminent naturalist and poet, was the son of Edward Stillingfleet, who was first a physician, but afterwards entered into holy orders. He died in 1708. Hia only son, Benjamin, was born in 1702, and educated at Norwich school, where he made a considerable proficiency in classical literature. In 1720 he entered as a subsizar at Trinity-college, Cambridge, where, while he improved his classical knowledge, he attached himself with success to mathematical studies. On May 3, 1723, he was admitted a scholar, and the same year took the degree of B. A. Soon after this he left the university, and in 1724 lived in the family of Ashe Windham, esq. of Felbrig, as preceptor to William, his only son, then about seven years old. In the beginning of 1726, he returned to Cambridge, in hopes of succeeding to a fellowship, there being then four vacancies. But in this he was disappointed, “by the influence, it is said, of Dr. Bentley, who has been accused of repaying with this instance of ingratitude the obligations he had received from the father of the unprotected candidate.” Although we are unwilling to credit so serious a charge, it appears that Mr. Stillingfleet considered it as just, and “seldom afterwards omitted an opportunity of testifying his resentment against Bentley,” a circumstance which we are sorry to hear, even if the charge had been proved.

After this failure, he attached himself wholly to his patron Mr. Wind ham, and at the mansion of Felbrig passed the next fourteen years of his life, “beloved and respected by all who visited or were connected with the family.” While he was “employed in the grateful task of instructing a youth of superior talents and amiable disposition,” he was insensibly Jed into a tender attachment, in which he was not successful. The lady was a Miss Anne B; nes who, with the inexperience of youth, and the thoughtless gaiety of a volatile temper, encouraged his addresses; and he passed several years in her society, in the ardent hope that a favourable change in his circumstances at no distant period would unite him with the object of his first and lasting passion. But after ten years, the prudence or the lady outweighed her affection. As she was herself without fortune, and Mr. Stillingfleet without any means of establishing himself in life, she listened to an advantageous offer, and soon afterwards espoused a richer and more fortunate rival.

Soon after this disappointment, in 1737, he accompanied his pupil, Mr. Windham, to the Continent. The events of this tour, and the connexions to which it gave rise, fixed the future course, and formed the happiness of his life. Mr. Coxe’s account of it is highly amusing, and introduces us to the acquaintance of many persons, now, or lately, distinguished in the political or literary world. One of the results of this tour was, “A Letter from an English Gentleman to Mr. Arlaud, a celebrated painter at Geneva, giving an account of the Glacieres, or Ice Alps of Savoy, written in the year 1741.” This was written chiefly by Mr. Windham and Mr. Price (of Foxley in Herefordshire), with the assistance of Mr. Siillingfieet, and illustrated with the drawings of Mr. Price. They are said to have been the first travellers who penetrated into these Alpine recesses. In 1743 Mr. Stillingfleet returned with his pupil to England. His pupil’s father gave Mr. Stillingfleet an annuity of 100l. which for some time was his principal support. He now resided partly in London and partly with some friends in the country; and his leisure hours were dedicated to literary pursuits, some of which Mr. Coxe has specified, particularly an edition of Milton, illustrated by notes, in which he had made considerable progress when the appearance of Dr. Newton’s proposals induced him to relinquish his design. His M8S. however, which were in the possession of the late bishop Dampier, were obligingly lent to Mr. Todd, for his excellent edition of our great epic poet. About this time Mr. Stillingfleet composed some of his poems, particularly those on “Conversation,” and “Earthquakes.”

In 1746 Mr. Stillingfleet took up his residence at Foxley, the seat of the above-mentioned Mr. Price, or rather in a neighbouring cottage, where he was master of his time and pursuits; and passed his leisure hours with the family. An indifferent state of health first led him to the pursuit of Natural History, which forms his principal distinction as an author; and he soon became one of the first defenders and earliest propagators of the Linnsean system in England. This zeal produced, in 1759, his “Miscellaneous Tracts in Natural History,” with a Preface, which contains a spirited eulogium of the study of nature, and a just tribute of applause to the talents and discoveries of the great Swede. The publication of this miscellany may be considered as the sera of the establishment of Linnaean Botany in England. His biographer has also published the Journal of Mr. Stillirigfleet’s excursion into part of North Wales, which is illustrative of his character and observations, and is curious as one of the first of those local tours which are since become so fashionable. In 1760, Mr. Stillingfleet received an addition to his income by obtaining the place of barrack -master at Kensington, through the interest of his friend Mr. Price, brotherin-law to lord Harrington, then secretary at war. But in 1761 he had the misfortune to lose, by death, his friend Mr. Price, and also his pupil Mr. Windham. The latter left him guardian to his only son, the late much lamented statesman William Windham, esq. His feelings were not u little tried also, about this time, by the death of his sisters and their husbands, whose history, as well as that of Messrs. Price, Windham, and Williamson, form a very interesting part of Mr. Coxe’s memoirs. That of his nephew, capt. Locker, is particularly so, as he was one of those who contributed to form the wonderful mind of our gallant hero, lord Nelson.

This was the last of Mr. Stillingfleet' s publications; for he died, at his lodgings in Piccadilly opposite Burlingtonhouse, Dec. 15, 1771 (the year this last-me.itioned work was published), aged sixty-nine. He was interred in St. James’s church, where his great nephew Edward Hawke Locker, esq. third son of captain Locker, has recently erected a monument to his memory. The merit most generally attributed to Mr. Stillingfleet is the service which he has rendered to our Natural History and Agriculture. In the present age it may not be deemed a merit in a gentleman, who is at the same time a man of letters, to encourage such pursuits by precept and example; as we have numerous instances of men of the first rank and abilities, who have dedicated their time and labours to the promotion of this branch of useful knowledge. But, in the time of Mr. Stillingfleet, the case was far different; for few men of respectable rank in society were farmers; and still fewer, if any, gave the result of their experience and observations to the public. On the contrary, there seems to have existed among the higher classes a strong prejudice against agricultural pursuits; which Mr. Stillingfleet took some pains to combat, and which, indeed, his example, as well as his precepts, greatly contributed to overcome. As a poet, Mr. Stillingfleet is less known, because few of his compositions were ever given to the public, and those were short, and confined to local or temporary subjects. The “Essay on Conversation” the “Poem on Earthquakes” the dramas and sonnets; will certainly entitle him to a place on the British Parnassus but, when we consider his refined and classical taste, his command of language, his rich and varied knowledge, and the flights of imagination which frequently escape from his rapid pen, we can have no hesitation in asserting, that if, instead of the haste in which he apparently prided himself, he had employed more patience and more assiduous correction, he would have attained no inconsiderable rank among our native poets. Independently of his merits as a naturalist and a poet, he possessed great versatility of genius and multifarious knowledge. His intimate acquaintance with the higher branches of the mathematics, and his skill in applying them to practice, are evident from his treatise on the principles and powers of harmony: and all his works, both printed and manuscript, display various and undoubted proofs of an extensive knowledge of modern languages, both ancient and modern, and a just and refined taste, formed on the best models of classic literature.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of Megara, who flourished about 306 B. C. was so eloquent, and insinuated himself so easily into the favour of his auditors, that all the young philosophers quitted their masters to hear him. It is said, that Stilpo, having reproached the courtezan Glycera with corrupting youth, she replied, “What does it signify whether they are corrupted by a courtezan or by a sophist!” which answer induced Stilpo to reform the school of Megara, banishing from it all sophisms, useless subtilties, general propositions, captious arguments, and that parade of senseless words, which had so long debased the schools. When Demetrius, son of Antigonus, took Megara, he forbade any one to touch our philosopher’s house, and if any thing was taken from him in the hurry of plunder, to restore it. When Demetrius asked him if he lost any thing by the capture of the city, “No,” replied Stilpo, “for war can neither rob us of virtue, learning, nor eloqaence.” He at the same time gave that prince some instructions in writing, calculated to inspire him with humanity, and a noble zeal for doing good to mankind, with which Demetrius was so affected that he ever after followed his advice. Stilpo is said to have entertained very equivocal notions respecting the deity; but he was nevertheless considered as one of the chiefs of the Stoic sect. Several Grecian republics had recourse to his wisdom, and submitted to his decisions. Cicero observes, that this philosopher was naturally inclined to drunkenness and debauchery, but had so entirely conquered those propensities by reason and philosophy, that no one ever saw him intoxicated, nor perceived in him the least vestige of intemperance.

, an ancient Greek writer, lived in the fifth century, as is generally supposed. What remains of him is a collection of extracts from ancient poets and philosophers, which has not come down to us entire; and even what we have of it appears to be intermixed with the additions of those who lived after him. These extracts, though they give us no greater idea of Stobaeus than that of a common-place transcriber, present us with many things which are to be found no where else; and therefore have always been highly valued by the learned. It appears beyond dispute, in Fabricius’s opinion, that Stobaeus was not a Christian, because he never meddled with Christian writers, nor made the least use of them in any of his collections. The “Excerpta of Stobseus,” were first published in Greek at Venice in 1536, 4to, and dedicated to Bembus, who was the curator of St. Mark’s library there, and furnished the manuscript. They were republished since by Canter, 1609, folio, under the title of “Sententiae,” under that of “Eclogae,” by Heern, 1792, 4 vols. 8vo. Grotius published an excellent edition of the “Dicta Poetarum,” at Paris in 1623, 4to.

In his way to Berwick, where he meant to pay his duty to his mother, and determine on some future plan of life, he visited Dr. Thomas Sharp, archdeacon of Northumberland, then at Durham, who invited him to a residence in his house, and encouraged him to enter into holy orders. Accordingly he was ordained deacon, at Michaelmas 1759, by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, and went immediately to London, where he was to be one of Dr. Sharp’s assistants in the curacy of Duke’s-place, Aldgate. After this, he seems to have fallen into a rambling life, and in 1767, being without any church-employment, went to Italy, and resided for two years in the town of Villa Franca, where he says he read and wrote assiduously. In 1769, after his return to London, he published a translation of Tasso’s Aminta; had afterwards some concern in the “Critical Review,” and wrote a life of Waller the poet, which was prefixed to a new edition of his works. He also translated Bos’s “Antiquities of Greece” in 1771 was editor of the “Universal Magazine” and in 1775 published three sermons, two against luxury and dissipation, and one on universal benevolence. In the same year, appeared his poem entitled “The Poet,” which had some temporary reputation; and soon after the publication of it, he obtained the office of chaplain to his majesty’s ship the Resolution of 74 guns. This he retained for three years, and published “Six Sermons to Seamen;” translated Sabbatier’s “Institutions of the Ancient Nations,” and wrote an “Essay on the writings and genius of Pope,” in answer to Dr. Warton’s work on the same subject.

In the summer of 1780, sir Adam Gordon, who had the living of Hincworth in Hertfordshire, offered Mr. Stockdale the curacy of that place. He accepted it with gratitude, and there wrote fifteen sermons. At this period at the distance of twenty-three years from his first ordination, he took priest’s orders. In 1782, he wrote his “Treatise on Education;” and in the autumn of the succeeding year, lord Thurlow (the then lord Chancellor), in consequence, as we are gravely told, “of having read a volume of Mr. Stockdale’s sermons, and without any other recommendation,” presented him with the living of Lesbury, in Northumberland. To this the duke of Northumberland added that of Long-Houghton, in the same county. Here he wrote a tragedy called “Ximenes,” which was never acted or printed; but still, in a restless pursuit of some imaginary happu.ess, he fancied that the bleakness of the climate injured his health; and accepted an invitation in 1787, from his friend Mr. Matra, British Consul at Tangier, to pass some time with him, under its more genial sky.

, an eminent, though self-taught mathematician, was a native of Scotland, and son of a gardener in the service of the duke of Argyle. Neither the time nor place of his birth is exactly known, but from a ms memorandum in our possession it appears that he died in March or April 1768. The chief account of him that is extant is contained in a letter written by the celebrated chevalier Ramsay to father Castel, a Jesuit at Paris, and published in the Journal de Trevoux, p. 109. From this it appears, that when he was about eighteen years of age, his singular talents were discovered accidentally by the duke of Argyle, who found that he had been reading Newton’s Principia. The duke was surprised, entered into conversation with him, and was astonished at the force, accuracy, and candour of his answers. The instructions he had received amounted to no more than having been taught to read by a servant of the duke’s, about ten years before. “I first learned to read,” said Stone; “the masons were then at work upon your house: I went near them one day, and I saw that the architect used a rule and compasses, and that he made calculations. I inquired what might be the use of these things; and I was informed, that there was a science called arithmetic: I purchased a book of arithmetic, and I learned it. I was told there was another science called geometry: I bought the books, and I learned geometry. By reading I found that there were good books in these two sciences in Latin: I bought a dictionary, and 1 learnt Latin. I understood that there were good books of the same kind in French: I bought a dictionary, and I learned French. And this, my lord, is what I have done. It seems to me that we may learn every thing, when we know the twenty-four letters of the aipiuibet.” Delighted with this account, the duke drew him from obscurity, and placed him in a situation which enabled him to pursue his favourite objects. Stone was author and translator of several useful works 1 “A new Mathematical Dictionary, 1726, 8vo. 2.” Fluxions,“1730, 8vo. The direct method is a translation of L' Hospital’s Analyse des infiniment petits, from the French; and the inverse method was supplied by Stone himself. 3.” The Elements of Euclid," 1731, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a neat and useful edition of the Elements of Euclid, with an account of the life and writings of that mathematician, and a defence of his elements against modern objectors. 4. ' A paper in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. xli. p. 218, containing an account of two species of lines of the third order, not mentioned by sir Isaac Newton, or Mr. Sterling; and some other small productions.

To this account, as given in the last edition of this work, we may add that when Stone had obtained the duke of Argyle’s patronage, he probably was enabled to come to London, as we find he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1725, a year before the publication of his “Mathematical Dictionary,” and his subsequent works were all published in London: but in what capacity he lived or how supported, we know not. Io 1742 or 1743 his name was withdrawn from the list of the Royal Society. In 1758 he published “The Construction and Principal Uses of Mathematical Instruments, translated from the French of M. Bion, chief instrument -maker to the French king. To which are added, the construction and uses of such instruments as are omitted by M. Bion, particularly of those invented or improved by the English. By Edmund Stone,” folio. Here he omits the title of F. R S. which appeared to his former publications. From the introductory part of an account of this work in the Critical Review, it would appear that he was known to the writer of that article, and that he was now old and neglected. “Since the commencement of our periodical labours,” says the critic, “none of Mr. Stone’s works have passed through our hands. It is with pleasure we now behold this ingenious gentleman breaking a silence, for the service of the publick, which we were ready to attribute to his sense of its ingratitude. There is hardly a person the least tinctured with letters in the British dominions, who is unacquainted with the extraordinary merit of our author. Untutored, and self-taught, he ascended from the grossest ignorance, by mere dint of genius, to the sublimest paths of geometry. His abilities are universally acknowledged, his reputation unblemished, his services to the public uncontested, and yet he lives to an advanced age unrewarded, except by a mean employment that reflects dishonour on the donors.” What this employment was, we know not, but the work itself is said to be a second edition, and that the first had a rapid sale. In 1767, was published a pamphlet entitled “Some reflections on the the uncertainty of many astronomical and geographical positions, with regard to the figure and magnitude of the earth, &c. &c. By Edmund Stone,” 8vo. We have not seen this production, but from the account given of it in the Monthly Review, it must have been written either by a Mr. Edmund Stone of far inferior abilities and good sense to our author, or by our author in his dotage.

, a pious and worthy baronet, originally a physician and afterwards a divine, was the son of Richard and Caroline Stonhouse, of Tubney, near Abingdon, in Berkshire, and was born July 20, 1716. His father, who died when his son was ten years old, was, as sir James informs us, “a country squire, kept a pack of hounds, and was a violent Jacobite.” Our author succeeded to the title of baronet late in life, by the death of his collateral relation sir James Stonhouse cf Radley.

He was educated at Winchester-school, and was afterwards of St. John’s college, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1739, and his degrees in medicine, M. B. in 1742, and M. D. in 1745. He had his medical education under Dr. Frank Nichols (See F. Nichols), whom he represents as a professed deist, and fond of instilling pernicious principles into the minds of his pupils. Mr. Stonhouse resided with him in his house in Lincoln’s. innfields for two years, and dissected with him, which, he says, was a great and an expensive privilege. He also attended St. Thomas’s hospital for two years under those eminent physicians sir Edward Wilmot, Dr. Hall, and Dr. Letherland. Two years more he devoted to medical study and observation at Paris, Lyons, Montpellier, and Marseilles. On his return, he settled one year at Coventry, where he married Miss Anne Neale, the eldest of the two daughters of John Neaie, esq. of Allesley, near Coventry, and member of parliament for that city. This lady, who died in 1747, soon after their marriage, in the twenty-fifth year of her age, is introduced as one of the examples of frail mortality in Hervey’s “Meditations,” and is farther commemorated there in a note.

From Coventry, Dr. Stonhouse removed, in 1743, to Northampton, where and through the neighbourhood for many miles, his practice became most extensive; and his benevolence keeping pace with his profits, he was acknowledged in all respects a great benefactor to the poor. Among other schemes for their relief, he founded the county-infirmary at Northampton, but amidst much opposition. During his residence here the celebrated Dr. Akenside endeavoured to obtain a settlement as a practitioner, but found it in vain to interfere with Dr. Stonhouse, who then, as Dr. Johnson observes in his life of Akenside, “practised with such reputation and success, that a stranger was not likely to gain ground upon him.” After practising at Northampton for twenty years, he quitted his profession, assigning for a reason that his practice was become too extensive for his time and health, and that all hi- attempts to bring it into narrower limits, without giving offence, and occasioning very painful reflections, had failed. But neither the natural activity of his mind, nor his unceasing wish to be doing good, would permit him to remain unemployed, and as his turn of mind was peculiarly bent on subirets of divinity, he determined to go into the church, and was accordingly ordained deacon by the special favour of the bishop of Hereford, in Hereford cathedral, and priest next week by letters dimissory to the bishop of Bristol, in Bristol cathedral, no one, he informs us, being ordained at either of those times but himself. In May 1764 lord Radnor found him very ill at Bristol-wells, and gave him the living of Little-Cheverel; and in December 1779 his lordship’s successor gave him that of Great Cheverel.

About ten years before this, he married his second wife Sarah, an heiress, the only child of Thomas Ekins, esq. of Cb,<ester-on-the-water, in Northamptonshire. She was left by her father under the guardianship of Dr. Doddridge, who died before she came of age, at which last period Dr. Stonhouse married her. Dr. Stonhouse’s piety, for which he was most admired, had not always been uniform. He tells us, that he imbibed erroneous notions from Dr. Nichols, and that he was for seven years a confirmed infidel, and did all he could to subvert Christianity. He went so far as to write a keen pamphlet against it; the third edition of which he burnt. He adds, “for writing and spreading of which, I humbly hope, as I have deeply repented of it, God has forgiven me: though I never can forgive myself.” His conversion to Christianity, which he attribute.-, to some of Dr. Doddridge’s writings, and the various circumstances attending it, were such, that he was advised to write the history of his life, which he accordingly did, and intended it to have been published after his death: but in consequence of the suggestion of a friend, and his own suspicions lest a bad use might have been made of it, he was induced to destroy the manuscript.

After being settled at Cheverel, he applied himself to the duties of his station with fervour and assiduity, and became very popular as a preacher. Much of his general character and conduct, his sentiments and the vicissitudes of his professional employment, may be learned from his correspondence lately published. He died at Bristol- Wells Dec. 8, 1795, in the eightieth year of his age, and was buried in the Wells chapel, in the same grave with his second wife, who died seven years before, over which, on an elegant monument, is an epitaph, in verse, by Miss Hannah More.

, a Dutch painter of sea-pieces, and sea-ports, died in 1708, but the time of his birth, and the master under whom he studied, have not been recorded. He was a native of Amsterdam, where he might naturally imbibe a taste for that kind of scenery which he usually represented; consisting of boats, barges, and ships, with many persons engaged in different employments, lading or unlading the vessels. He studied assiduously after nature, and usually sketched from the real objects, so that a strong character of truth is the great recommendation of his seas, rocks, and harbours. His figures are small, but usually designed with great exactness, and so numerous in most of his pieces, as to afford a great fund of entertainment. He had a brother who was a painter of landscapes, and chiefly represented views of the Rhine, but was not equal to him. A capital picture of Abraham Stork is, the reception of the duke of Marlborougb, in the river Amstel.

At what time, or on what occasion he removed from Cornhill, is uncertain, but in 1549, we find him dwelling within Aldgate, where the pump now stands, between Leadenhall-street and Fenchurch-street. While he lived here, he was the spectator of an execution which affected him not a little. The bailiff of Rumford, coming up to town during an insurrection which prevailed in Norfolk and Suffolk, and spread to some parts of Essex, happened to fall in company with the curate of Cree church, who asking him what news, the bailiff said that many were up in Essex, but that, “thanks be to God, things were in good quiet about them.” The curate, from some misconception of these words, immediately informed against the poor bailiff, as one of the rebels, or a favourer of their cause. On this he was next morning brought before a court-martial, and sentenced to be hanged in the parish where he uttered the aforesaid words, upon a gibbet erected before Mr. Stow’s door. Stow was of course a witness, and heard the poor man’s dying declaration, respecting the above words which he made use of, and which were the only pretence for this unjust execution. Some time after, Stow removed into Lime-street ward, in the parish of St. Andrew Unclershaft, where he continued until his death*.

Mr. Stow’s success, however, in the Affair probably ani­* This curate, called Sir Stephen, one c<>mii>- n I e/\p bumr them. Mr. became so contemptible by his furious Slow heat <J 'his sermon, an I saw the zeal, that he was forced to leave the effec’s of it. Another rmrk of the city, and retire tosome unknown place curate’s imprudent zeal w.< his takin the country. “Mr. Stow has re- ing; /ccasion from that church’s name corded some things of him, which Un ^rshaft., as superstitions^ ^iv>n it, though not attended with such fata! to i!<-r are his judgment that thr titles consequences as that already men- of cnurches should be altered, and that tioned, were evidences of his exclusive even the names of the days of the week big‘ try. In a sermon, which he ought to be changed from those ht;apreached before a areat auditory at St. then ones which had been given them; Paul’s Cross, he inveighed bitterly nud that Fridays and Saturdays should against a long may-pole, called -haft, be no more fish-days, but others subin the next parish to his own, which stituted for such in thei>- place from thence was named *r. Andrew that Lent should he kept ai>nv Undershaft. This he insisted upon time than between Shrove-ti e and being an idol; and so warmly did he Raster. Another t.’id ).ia<-tice of this declare against it, that the zeal of many cut ate was, to go out of the pulpi> into of his hearers being excited thereby, the church- yard, and II.Oum' nu h gh they wt-nt in the afternoon of the same elm that grew there and p ea; h from day, and pulled the may-pole do MI tbttnce to his audience, and then return from the place where it hung upon to the church, and say or-ire the hooks, and then sawed it ii to divers English service, not at th,- a^tar. as pieces, each housekeeper taking as w. is usual, but upon a tomb, whit much of it as hung over his door or placed northward of it.” Strype’s Life stall, and then casting the pieces into of Stow. mated him in his antiquarian researches, as he had now demonstrated the practical benefit arising from them. It was about 1560, that he turned his thoughts to the compiling an English chronicle, and he spent the greater part of his future life in collecting such materials relating to the kingdom at large, as he esteemed worthy to be handed down to posterity. But after he had been eagerly employed for a while in these studies, perceiving how little profit he was likely to reap from them, he was on the point of diverting his industry into the channel of the occupation he had been bred to; and the expensiveness of purchasing manuscripts was an additional motive to this resolution. Archbishop Parker, however, himself an excellent antiquary, and a bountiful patron of all who had the same turn, persuaded him to goon, and liberally contributed to lessen his expences, while his grace lived.

In order to qualify himself effectually for what he had in view, he procured as many of the ancient English writers, both printed and in manuscript, as he could obtain by money or favour. These he studied so attentively as to gain an exact and critical knowledge of them, and he at the same time embraced every opportunity of cultivating the intimacy of those persons who were most capable of assisting him; such as archbishop Parker, already mentioned; Lambard, author of the Perambulation of Kent, and other works; Bowyer, keeper of the records of the Tower, and the first methodizer of them; with the celebrated Camden, and others of lesser note. For more particular information respecting the antiquities of London, he collected all the old books, parchments, instruments, -charters, and journals relating to it, that he could meet with; and he had, besides, procured access to the archives in the chamber of the city, where he perused, and transcribed such original papers as were of service to him in the prosecution of his grand design of writing the “Survey” of it.

The first work which he published, was his “Summary of the Chronicles of England, from the coming in of Brute unto his own time,” which he undertook at the instance of lord Robert Dudley. The reason of his proposing it to him was this: In 1562, Mr. Stow having in his search after curious and uncommon tracts, met with an ingenious one of Edmund Dudley, his lordship’s grandfather’s writing, during his imprisonment in the Tower, entitled “The Tree of the Commonwealth;” (which he dedicated to Henry VIII. but it never came to his hand) he kept the original himself, hut transcribed a fair copy of it, and took an opportunity of presenting it to this nobleman, who earnestly requested our author to attempt something of the same nature. To gratify so illustrious a suitor, he collected his “Summary,” and dedicated it to him when it was finished. The acquisition of such a patron was undoubtedly important to him at this period, but more in point of fame tiian emolument.

In 1598 appeared the first edition in 4to, of that valuable work which he entitled “A Survey of London.” What induced him hrst to compile this work, was a passage he met with in William Lambard’s “Perambulation,” in which he calls upon all who had ability and opportunity, to do the like service for the shires and counties wherein they were born or dwelt, as he had done for that of Kent. Such an invitation was not lost upon a writer of Stow’s zeal and disposition, and he immediately resolved upon the description of the metropolis, the place both of his habitation and birth. It was dedicated by him to the lord mayor, commonalty, and citizens; and at the end of it were the names of the mayors and sheriffs, as far as 1598. He was sensible something ought to have been added concerning the political government of the city; but he declined touching upon it, as he at first intended, because he was informed that Mr. James Dalton, a learned gentleman and citizen, purposed to treat of it.

In 1603, five years after the first, a second edition of this useful work was published, with considerable improvements made by the author, out of his old stores of “many rare notes of antiquity” as he styles them. Part of these related to the city government, which he now had no scruple to introduce, as Mr. Dalton’s death had put an end to all expectation from that gentleman’s pen. Stow therefore endeavoured to supply the defect, and would have done it more copiously, had he not been interrupted by a fit of sickness. The notes which he added related to the aldermen and sheriffs of London; the names of the officers belonging to the mayor’s house, and to the sheriffs: of the liveries of the mayors and sheriffs, and various other particulars which are very curious when contrasted with the manners and modes of our times*. He must have verylittle curiosity who is not amused by comparisons of this kind, and must have very little reflection, if he does not draw useful conclusions from observing the pertinacity with which every age supports its own fashions. These additions, Stow confessed, were far short of what he desired or purposed to do: but as they were all he could accomplish at present, he promised hereafter to augment them, a promise which his increasing weakness and death prevented him from fulfilling.

ten accused that he reporfeih res in se elegant historians who have wrote since

must be indulged to his education so of his endeavours." Fuller’s Worthies. hard is it for a citizen to write an hisIn 1618, after his decease, a third edition, still in quarto, was published by A. M. or Anthony Muuday (See Munday), a citizen also, and a man of some fame. He had been the pope’s scholar in the seminary at Rome; afterward, returning home, and renouncing the pope and popery, he wrote two books relative to the English priests and papists abroad. This editor made several additions, as he pretended, to the Survey; much of which, he hinted, he had formerly from Stow himself, who, in his lite-time, delivered into his han.ls some of his best collections, and importunately persuaded him to correct what he found amiss, and to proceed in perfecting so worthy a design. He talks of being employed about twelve years revising and enlarging it; and that he had the encouragement of the court of aldermen in the council-chamber, being brought before them by sir Henry Montague, the recorder, afterward lord chief justice of the King’s-bench. But after all, the additions he made were chiefly some inscriptions and epitaphs from the monuments in the parish churches; a continuation of the names of the mayors and sheriffs; and little more, except some transcripts out of Stow’s Summary and Annals, and here and there venturing to correct some errors, as he calls them, in the original, in place of which he has rather substituted his own; for Mr. Stow was too exact and precise to be corrected by one so much inferior to him in literature, and in antiquities, as Munday appears to be.

In this state of poverty, he died April 5, 1605, in his eightieth year, and was buried towards the upper end of the north-isle of the church of St. Andrew Undershaft, in Leadenhall-street, where a monument was erected by his widow, of a composition resembling alabaster, and altogether a very animated work. How she could afford this, when her husband died in such poor circumstances, does not appear. Probably she was assisted by some persons who were ashamed of their neglect of our author in his life-time. We are sorry to add a very disgraceful circumstance to this account, which was not known to the editors of the edition of 17 54, and which we have upon the authority of Maitland. After noticing this monument, and paying a just compliment to the deceased’s character, Maitland adds, “that neither that, nor any other consideration was sufficient to protect his repository from being spoiled of his injured remains by certain men in the year 1732, who removed his corpse to make way for another.”

For the character of Stow, we must necessarily be indebted to his contemporaries, and it would be injustice not to give it in their simple style. His person and temper are thus described by Edmund Hows, who well knew him “He was tall of stature, lean of body and face his eyes small and chrystalline; of a pleasant and cheerful countenance y his sight and memory very good, and Ijg recained the use of all his senses unto the day of his Ueath. He had an excellent memory was very sober, mild, and courteous to any that required his instructions. He always protected never to have written any thing either for envy, fear, or favour, nor to seek his own private gain or vain glory, and that his only pains and care was, to write truth.”

But in order to form a judgment of him, it is necessary to consider the disposition of his mind, as well as lus visible works and actions. The first thing that naturally occurs to our view is, that he was an earnest student and lover of the antiquities of his own country, and this to such a degree as to sacrifice the trade to which he was brought up. He was an unwearied reader of all English history, whether printed or in manuscript; and a searcher into records, registers, journals, charters, &c. Nor was he content with barely perusing these things, but desirous also of possessing himself of them, as of a great treasure. By the time he was forty years of age, he h?id furnished a considerable library of such, as appears from the report of Mr. Watts, archdeacon of London, who was sent to search it, viz. ‘That he had a great collection of old books anJ Mss. of all sorts, but especially relating to chronicles and history, both in parchment and paper, &c.’ And his library contained not only ancient authors, but original charters, registers’, and chronicles of particular places, which he had the greater opportunity of procuring, as he lived shortlyafter the dissolution of the monasteries, when such things were dispersed and scattered abroad among various hands.

It was his custom to transcribe all such old and useful books, as he could not obtain or buy, and were of service to his purpose. Thus, as we are assured by Ralph Brooksmouth, he copied Le'and’s six volumes of collections for his own use, which he sold afterward to the celebrated Camden, who gave him for them an annuity of H/. during his life. As he was thus well provided with books, he acquired a critical and nice taste in judging of them, and was enabled to detect many frauds and vulgar errors in our history, which had long passed unquestioned. One whimsical instance we shall mention from Strype. Grafion relates in his chronicle, that in 1502, one Bartholomew Read, a goldsmith and mayor, entertained in Goldsmiths’­hall more than a hundred persons of great estate; messes and dishes served in a vast number; nay, that there was a park paled in the same hall, furnished with fruitful trees and beasts of venery (hunting) and other like circumstances. Stow had litltle difficulty in refuting this story, by measuring the hail, and it would appear to require very little ability to refute it, yet in these days of credulity it ion '4 passed current.

He was a true antiquary, one who was not satisfied with reports, nor yet with the credit of what he found in print, but always had recourse to originals. He made use of his own Lgs (for he could never ride), travelling on foot to many cathedral churches, and other places, where ancient records and charters were, to read them, and made large transcripts into his collections. There is a volume of these notes, which first came into the possession of sir Simonds D'Ewes, and was afterward procured by the first earl of Oxford. Ii is now part of the Harleian collection.

Much has been said of his religion. He was first, in all probability, a favourer of popery: this appears from the jealousy the state had of him in 1568, which occasioned an order of council to Grindal, bishop of London, to have his library searched f;>r superstitious books’; of which sort several were found there. And it is very likely that his notorious bias this way, might be the ground of the troubles he underwent either in the ecclesiastical commission court, or star-chamber; for it is certain that about 1570, he was accused before the ecclesiastical commissioners of no less than a hundred and forty articles, preferred against him by one that had been his servant. This miscreant had before defrauded him of his goods, and now sought to deprive him of his life also. A far less number would hate been sufficient to despatch a man out of the world in those mistrustful times, hut the witnesses against him weie of such exceptionable characters, that his judges were too upright to condemn him upon their testimony. Some of them had been detected of perjury, and others burnt in the hand for felony. The perfidious servant, who was at the head of them as the informer, was no other than his younger brother Thomas, a man of great profligacy, as was evident both by this unprincipled prosecution of his nearest relation, and by his subsequent behaviour to him. For instead of manifesting any shame or repentance for his crime, he swore that he never committed it, and persisted in defaming his reputation, and threatening his life.

Whether Mr. Stow was a hearty protestant is rather dubious; there is one expression of his somewhere in the reign of queen Elizabeth, which is an indication of the affirmative, viz. “That doctrine is more pure now than it was in the monkish world.” But it is not certain whether he wrote this in earnest or ironically, nor is it matter of much consequence. Although he was not able to surmount the religious prejudices of his time, his moral practice was unblamable. He hated vice in all orders, and exposed it no less in the elergy than in laymen. He abhorred injustice, and spared not to rebuke all who were guilty of it. He was a lover of hospitality, and a great friend to public benefactions, while he had any thing to bestow. He was of an honest and generous disposition, and unspotted in his life.

Strabo’s work was published with a Latin version by Xylander, and notes by Isaac Casaubon, at Paris, 1620, in folio; and again at Amsterdam in 1707, in two volumes folio, by the learned Theodore Janson of Almelooveen, with the entire notes of Xylander, Casaubon, Meursius, Cluver, Holsten, Salmasius, Bochart, Ez. Spanheim, Cellar, and others. To this edition is subjoined the “Chrestomathise;” or Epitome of Strabo; which, according to Mr. Dodwell, who has written a very elaborate and learned dissertation about it, was made by some unknown person, between the years of Christ 676 and 996. It has been found of some use, not only in helping to correct the original, but in supplying in some measure the defect in the seventh book. Mr. Dodwell’s dissertation is prefixed to this edition. The last and most valuable edition of Strabo, is that by Falconer, (See Falconer.) splendidly printed at Oxford in two volumes folio.

Although his “Prolusiones” is by far his best work, he is yet perhaps better known as a historian. His “Historia de Bello Belgico” was published at Rome in two parts or decades, 1640—1647, 2 vols. fol. It is written in what some have termed elegant Latin, and which character, “in a certain degree, it deserves; but the style is florid and fuse, and too obviously an affected imitation of that of Livy. His partiality to the Spanish cause is another objection, of which his readers must be warned. This history appeared at the same time wit!) that o(' Beniivoglio, who says that Strada’s work is fitter for a college than a court, and that he did not understand war and politics. It was also attacked by Scioppius in a very rude manner, in a book entitled” Infamia Faimani." Strada, or Stradanus (John), a Flemish painter, born at Bruges in 1536, was famous in several branches of his art. He painted history, battles, chaces, and animals, all with great success. His family was illustrious, but his inclinations led him to the study of painting; and to complete his knowledge of the art he went to Italy. The exquisite remains of antiquity, with the works of Raphael, and other great painters, were the models which enabled him to attain considerable eminence in his profession. Florence was the place where he chose to fix his residence, though invited to several others; and there the best of his works remain. He died there in 1604, at the age of sixtyeight. His taste is esteemed good, though not entirely divested of the Flemish style, after all his diligent study in Italy. The tone of his colouring, however, is pleasing, and his works maintain an honourable place with those of Salviati, Volterra, and others.

, an eminent printer, and many years printer to his majesty, was born at Edinburgh in 1715. His father, who had a small appointment in the customs, gave his son the education which every boy of decent rank then received in a country where the avenues to learning were easy, and open to men of the most moderate circumstances. After having passed through the tuition of a grammar-school, he was put apprentice to a printer; and, when a very young man, went to follow his trade in London. Sober, diligent, and attentive, while his emoluments were for some time very scanty, he contrived to live rather within than beyond his income; and though he married early, and without such a provision as prudence might have looked for in the establishment of a family, he continued to thrive, and to better his circumstances. His abilities in his profession, accompanied with perfect integrity, and unabating diligence, enabled him, after the first difficulties were overcome, to proceed with rapid success. He was one of the most flourishing men in the trade, when, in 1770, he purchased a share of the patent for king’s printer, of Mr. Eyre, with whom he maintained the most cordial intimacy during all the rest of his life. Besides the emoluments arising from this appointment, as well as from a very extensive private business, he was eminently successful in the purchase of the copy-rights of some of the most celebrated authors of the time. In this his liberality kept equal pace with his prudence, and in some cases went perhaps rather beyond it. Never had such rewards been given to the labours of literary men, as were now received from him and his associates (See Cadell) in those purchases of copy-rights from authors.

Having now attained the first great object of business, wealth, Mr. Strahan looked with a very allowable ambition en the stations of political rank and eminence. Politics had long occupied his active mind, which he had for many years pursued as his favourite amusement, by corresponding on that subject with some of the first characters of the age. His queries to Dr. Franklin in the year 1769, respecting the discontents of the Americans, published in the London Chronicle of July 28, 1778, shew the just conception he entertained of the important consequences of that dispute, and his anxiety as a good subject to investigate, at that early period, the proper means by which their grievances might be removed, and a permanent harmony restored between the two countries. In 1775 he was elected a member of parliament for the borough of Ma'msbury, in Wiltshire, with a very illustrious colleague, the hon. Charles James Fox; and in the succeeding parliament, for Wotton Bassett, in the same county. In this station, applying himself with that industry which was natural to him, he attended the House with a scrupulous punctuality, and was a useful member. His talents for business acquired the consideration to which they were entitled, and were not unnoticed by the minister. In his political connexions he was constant to the friends to whom he had been first attached. He was a steady supporter of that party who were turned out of administration in the spring of 1781, and lost his seat in the House of Commons by the dissolution of parliament with which that change was followed: a situation which he did not shew any desire to resume on the return of the new parliament. One motive for his not wishing a seat in the next parliament, was a sense of some decline in his health, which had rather suffered from the long sittings and late hours with which the political warfare in the last had been attended. Though without any fixed disease, his strength was visibly declining; and though his spirits survived his strength, yet the vigour and activity of his mind were considerably impaired. Both continued gradually to decline till his death, which happened on July yth, 1785, in the seventy-first year of his age.

Endued with much natural sagacity, and an attentive observation of life, he owed his rise to that station of opulence, and respect which he attained, rather to his own talents and exertion, than to any concurrence of favourable circumstances. His mind, though not deeply tinctured with learning, was not uninformed by letters. From a habit of attention to style, he had acquired a considerable portion of critical acuteness in the discernment of its beauties and defects. In the epistolary branch of writing, he not only shewed a precision and clearness of business, but possessed a neatness, as well as fluency of expression, which fe'.v letter-writers have surpassed. Letter-writing was one of his favourite amusements; and among his correspondents were men of such eminence and talents as well repaid his endeavours to entertain them. To Dr. Franklin, already mentioned, may be added the names of most of the great authors who had adorned the republic of letters for almost forty years before Mr. Strahan’s death; and many specimens of his letters have been given in their posthumous works, or lives. We may add, among his anonymous essays, a paper in “The Mirror,” No. 94.

His ample property Mr. Struhan bestowed with the utmost good sense and propriety. After providing munificently for his widow and children, his principal study seems to have been to mitigate the affliction of those who were more immediately dependant on his bounty; and to not a few who were under this description, and would otherwise have severely felt his loss, he gave liberal annuities for their lives and, among other instances of benevolence, bequeathed 1000l. to the company of Stationers (of which he had been master in 1774) for charitable purposes. Of his family, there remain now, only, his second the rev. George Strahan, D. D. prebendary of Rochester, rector of Cranham in Essex, and vicar of St. Mary’s Islington and Andrew Strahan, his third son, M. P. for CatherJogh, one of the joint patentees as printer to his majesty; and law printer; a gentleman who has inherited his father’s spirit as well as property, and has for many years been at the head of his profession.

Sir John Strange married Susan, eldest daughter, and coheir of Edward Sis oreemvich, in the county of Kent, esq. She died in 1747, and was buried in the same vault with her husband in Leyton church-yard. Two sons survived him, of whom Matthew, the eldest, died in 1759, and John, who died March 19, 1799, aged sixty-seven. He was educated at Clare hall, Cambridge, and was British resident at Venice for some years, and in his own country LL. D. F. R. S. and F. S. A. He was also a member of the academies of Bologna, Florence, and Montpelier, and the Leopolcline academy of the Curiosorum Naturae. He was a very able antiquary and naturalist, and contributed various papers both to the Archacologia, and to the Philosophical Transactions. He accumulated an xcellent library, a very extensive museum, and a fine collection of pictures, all which were sold after his death, as directed by his will.

, an English engraver of the first eminence, was born in the Island of Pomona in Orkney, July 14, 1721. He was lineally descended from sir David Strange, or Strang, a younger son of the family of Stranges, or Strangs, of Balcasky in the county of Fife, who settled in Orkney at the time of the Reformation. He received his classical education at Kirkwall in Orkney, under the care of a learned, worthy, and much-respected gentleman, Mr. Murdoch M'Kenzie, who rendered great service to his country by the accurate surveys and charts he gave of the island of Orkney, and of the British and Irish coasts.

Mr. Strange was originally intended for the law; but that profession ill according with his peculiar turn of mind, he quitted it in a short time, and while yet uncertain whither his genius really pointed, went aboard a man of war bound for the Mediterranean. From this voyage he returned so much disgusted with a sea-life, that he again betook himself to pursuits of law, and might have continued to prosecute them through life, and his talents as an artist been for ever lost to the world, if his brother had not accidentally discovered in his bureau a variety of drawings and unfinished sketches, with which he appears to have amused those hours that his friends supposed devoted to severer labours. These first essays of genius struggling to display its peculiar powers, were shewn to the late Mr. llichard Cooper, at Edinburgh, the only person there who, at that time, had taste in such performances; they were by him very highly approved, and he immediately proposed that the young man should be regularly placed under his tuition. This measure, coinciding perfectly with his own inclinations, was accordingly adopted. The rapid progress which he made under this master’s instructions soon satisfied his friends that in making the arts his study and profession, he had yielded at last to the bent of nature, and was following the course which genius prompted him to pursue.

While he was thus assiduously engaged in laying the foundation of his future fame, a fatal interruption to the arts of peace took place in Scotland, by the arrival of the young chevalier; and Strange, urged by many motives, and particularly by the desire of gaining a hand which was already become necessary to his happiness, joined the rebel army. He continued to act with it as one of the troops styled the Life-Guards, a post of danger as well as honour, till the total defeat of the Pretender’s few remaining troops on the field of Culloden, obliged him and all those who escaped the issue of the day, to fly for shelter to the Highland hills. There young Strange, among the rest, continued concealed for many months, enduring hardships, the detail of which would seem to make dear the purchase even of life itself. Before the period of this overthrow, and soon after the battle of Falkirk, he so narrowly escaped the severest fate of war, that the accident deserves to be recorded. Having received command to execute some military order, in the absence of an aid-de-camp, he was riding for that purpose along the shore, when the svrord which he carried was bent in his hand by a ball from one of the king’s vessels stationed off the coast.

When the vigilance of pursuit was somewhat abated, Strange left the Highlands, and returned to Edinburgh, where, for the first time, he began to turn his talents to account, and contrived to maintain himself, in concealment, by the sale of small drawings of the rival leaders in the rebellion, many of which must still be extant. They were purchased, at the time, in great numbers, at a guinea each. A fan also, the primary destination of which gave it in his eyes an additional value, and where he had, on that account, bestowed more than usual pains, was sold at this period, with a sad heart, “non hos quacsitum munus in usus,” to the earl of Wemyss; who was too sensible of its value to suffer it to be re-purchased, when that was proposed a short time afterwards. Tired of a life of alarm and privacy,lr. Strange, at length, after much difficulty, procured a safe conduct to London, intending to embark for France; but not till he had received the reward peculiarly due to the brave; and made that hand his own, for the sake of which he had risked his life in the field. The name of the lady to whom he was thus united in 1747, and in whose steady affection, through the whole of a long life, all those dangers were forgotten, was Isabella Lumisden, the daughter of an ancient and respectable family, and sister to a gentleman well known in the literary world for his instructive work on the antiquities of Rome.

In the year 1751, he finally removed his family to London; and at this period, when historical engraving had made but little progress in Britain, he began to devote himself to this higher and more difficult species of his art; of which, therefore, in this country, he is justly entitled to be considered as the father. It was about this time that by refusing to engrave a portrait of his present majesty, he incurred the strong displeasure of lord Bute; whose conduct towards him is detailed, with many other interesting circumstances, in a letter to that nobleman, which Mr. Strange published in 1775. It is not easy, or perhaps possible, in this country, for power to depress merit; and so it proved in the case of this artist, who rose in spite of all opposition. With respect to the painting which he thus refused to engrave, it is said that a personage, apparently more concerned in the question than lord Bute, has since commended the spirit of the artist, who scorned to perpetuate so wretched a performance. In 1760 Mr. Strange set out for Italy, which, as the seat of the fine arts, he had long been anxious to visit. The drawings made by him in the course of this tour, several of which he afterwards engraved, are now in the possession of lord Dundas. Every where throughout Italy singular marks of attention and respect accompanied him, not only from illustrious personages, but from the principal academies of the fine arts which he visited in his route. He was made a member of the academies of Rome, Florence, and Bologna, and professor of the royal academy at Parma. Nothing indeed shews more strongly the high estimation in which his talents were held at Rome, than the compliment which was paid him by signer Roifanelli, in painting the ceiling of that room in the Vatican library, where the collection of engravings is preserved. The painting represents the progress of the art of engraving, and, among the portraits of those who were most eminent in it, that of Strange is introduced. He is represented holding under his arm a volume on which his name is inscribed; an honour paid to no British artist but himself. Similar marks of high respect were also bestowed on his talents in France. In particular, he was made a member of the royal academy of painting at Paris, the highest honour ever conferred on any foreigner.

Sir Robert enjoyed his honours but for a short period. On the 5th of July, 1792, he fell a victim to a complaint of an asthmatic nature, with which he had been long severely afflicted. It is for those who were best acquainted with his character while living, to conceive with what sentiments of regret this melancholy event, though neither untimely nor unexpected, was felt by his family and friends. Of aM Uk-;-! whom the writer of this narrative ever knew, sir Hubert ossessed the mildest and most ingenuous manne! s, i.uned to dispositions of mind the most liberal and benign. There was in his temper an endearing gentleness which invited affection; and in his heart a warm sincerity, immediately perceptible, which infallibly secured it. To know him and be his enemy was impossible. Unassuming even to a fault, and with a diffidence which anxiously shunned pretension, his opinions both of thinking and of expressing himself, even on the most unimportant occasions, laid an irresistible, though unconscious claim, to taste, to sentiment, and to genius. These, indeed, a skilful physiognomist, if such a person exists, might have read distinctly in the features of his countenance; though Lavater, to support a theory, or misled by an imperfect likeness, has asserted the contrary. The head engraved from Greuse, and prefixed to sir Robert’s posthumous volume, bears a strong, though scarcely a striking resemblance, to the original, and will probably be thought to justify what is here advanced. It may certainly with equal truth be added, that in the whole of his deportment and general demeanour, there was a remarkable degree of grace and modest dignity.

He was also excellent in landscape and still-life; and there is some fruit of his painting yet to be seen, which is of the highest Italian style, for penciling, judgment, and composition. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was made his majesty’s serjeant-painter. He became violently afflicted with the stone, and resolved to be cut; which the king hearing, and having a great kindness for him, sent on purpose to France for a surgeon, who came and performed the operation; which, however, Streater did not survive. He died in 1680, having spent his life in great esteem and reputation. His principal works were, the theatre at Oxford the chapel at Ah Souls college; some ceilings at Whitehall, now burnt the battle of the giants with the gods, at sir Robert Clayton’s; the pictures of Moses and Aaron, at St. Michael’s church in Cornhill, &c. &c.

, father and son, were two poets of Ferrara, who both wrote in Latin. Their poems were printed together at Venice, 1513, 8vo, and consist of elegies and other compositions, in a pure and pleasing style. Titus died about 1502, at the age of eighty. Hercules, his son, was killed by a rival in 1508. Strozzi was also an illustrious name at Florence, which migrated with the Medici’s into France, and there rose to the highest military honours, as they had in their own country attained the greatest commercial rank. There have been several other writers of the name, of whom we shall notice only one, as most remarkable, Cyriac Strozzi, who was a profound student in the works of Aristotle, and therefore considered as a peripatetic philosopher. He was born at Florence in 1504. He travelled over a great part of the world, and pursued his studies wherever he went. He was a professor of Greek and of philosophy at Florence, Bologna, and Pisa, in all which places he was highly esteemed. He died in 1565, at the age of sixty-one. He added a ninth and a tenth book to the eight books of Aristotle’s politics, and wrote them both in Greek and Latin. He had so completely made himself master of the style and sentiments of his great model, that he has been thought, in some instances, to rival him. He had a sister, Laurentia, who wrote Latin poems. Considerable information may be found respecting the Strozzi in our authorities.

, one of the many sons of the preceding, was born at Weimar, May 26, 1671. His father, who soon perceived his turn for study, sent him to Zeitz, to profit by the instructions of the learned Cellarius, who then lived in that place, and he afterwards pursued his studies under the ablest masters at Jena, Helmstadt, Francfort, and Halle. In the latter city he went to the bar, but did not follow that profession long, devoting his attention chiefly to history and public law, which were his favourite pursuits. He paid some visits to Holland and Sweden, whence he returned to Wetzlar, accompanied by his brother, who had dissipated his fortune in search of the philosopher’s stone. This misfortune affected our author, who, after the death of his brother, spent almost his whole property in paying his debts, and he fell into a melancholy state, which lasted for two years; but having then recovered his health and spirits, he was appointed librarian at Jena in 1697, and took his degree of doctor of philosophy and law at Halle. In 1704, he was made professor of history in that university, and in 1712 professor extraordinary of law, counsellor and historiographer to the dukes of Saxony; and at length in 1730, counsellor of the court, and ordinary professor of public and feudal law. He died at Jena, March 25, 1738, leaving many distinguished proofs of learned research, particularly in law and literary history. One of his first publications was his “Bibliotheca numismatum antiquiorum,” 12mo, which appeared at Jena in 1693. 2. “Epistolaad Cellarium, de Bibliothecis,” Jena, 1696, 12mo. 3. “Atuiquitatum Romanorum Syntagma,” Jena, 1701, 4to, This is the first part of a larger work, and chiefly respects the religion of the Romans, but is valuable. 4. “Tractatus Juridicus de Balneis et Balneatoribus” 4to, the same year, at Jena; all his works indeed appear to have been published there. 5. “Acta Literaria,” vol.1. 1703, 8vo; vol.11. 1720. 6. “Bibliotheca Philosophica,” 1704, 8vo, and again, 1728. 7. “Bibliotheca Historica,” 1705, 8vo. This, like several other works of this author, has undergone several editions, and been much augmented b) other editors. The title to the latest edition of this book is “Bibliotheca Historica, instructa a Burcardo Gotthelf Siruvio, aucta a Christi. Gottlieb Budero, nunc vero a Joanne Georgio Meuselio ita digesta, amplificata, et emendata, ut pcene novum opus videri possit.” This account of it is literally true, for, from a single volume, it is now extended to twenty-two vols. 8vo, usually bound in eleven, 1782 1804. It forms a complete index to the histories of all nations. 8. “Bibliotheca Librorum rariorum,” 1719, 4to. 9. “Introductio ad Notitiam Rei Literariee, et usum Bibliothecarum.” The fifth edition of this work, a very thick volume, small 8vo, with the supplements of Christopher Coler, and the notes of Michael Lilienthal, was printed at Leipsic in 1729; but the best is that of 1754 by John Christian Fischer, 2 vols. 8vo. 10. A life of his father, entitled, “De Vita et Scriptis Geo. Adam Struvii,” 1705, 8vo. He published also several works in German, and some others in Latin, all of which are mentioned in H- insius’s Biicher Lexicon, published at Leipsic in 1793, which is indeed a very excellent index to the works of German authors in particular.

, the most valuable contributor to ecclesiastical history and biography that ever appeared in this country, is said to have been of German extraction. His father John Strype, or Van Stryp, was a native of Brabant, and fled to England for the sake of religion. He was a merchant and silk-throwster. His son is said to have been born at Stepney, Nov. 1, 1643, but he calls himself a native of London, and his baptism does not occur in the register of Stepney, though the names of some of his brothers and sisters are there entered, and his father lies buried in the church-yard. The reason why he calls himself a Londoner probably was, that he was born in Strype’s yard, formerly in Stepney, but afterwards in the parish of Christ-church, Spitalfields. After being educated in St. Paul’s school for six years, he was matriculated of Jesuscollege, Cambridge, July 5, 1662, whence he removed to Catherine-hall, where he took his degree of A. B. in 1665, and that of M. A. in 1669, His first preferment was the donative, or perpetual curacy of Theydon-Boys in the county of Essex, conferred upon him July 14, 1669; but he quitted it a few months after, on being appointed minister of Low-Leyton in the same county, which he retained all his life. The circumstances attending this preferment were rather singular, Although he enjoyed it above sixtyeight years, and administered the sacrament on Christmasday, for sixty-six years successively, yet he was never instituted nor inducted. The reason assigned for this irregularity is, that the living being small, the patrons allowed the parish to choose a minister. Accordingly Mr. Strype having, on the vacancy which occurred in 1669, preached before them, he was duly elected to be their curate and lecturer, and they entered into a subscription-bond for his maintenance, promising to pay the sums annexed to their names, “provided he continues the usual custom of his predecessor in preaching twice every Sunday.” The subscriptions in all amounted to 69l. Many years after this, viz in 1674, he was licensed by Dr. Henchman, then bishop of London, to preach and expound the word of God in the parish church of Low-Leyton, and to perform the full office of priest and curate there, during the vacancy of the vicarage, which license, and no other instrument, he used to exhibit at the visitations, as late as 1720. In 1677, as he seemed secure of his possession, he rebuilt the vicarage, with 140l. of his own money, aided by contributions from his parishioners, and expended considerable sums also in the repairs of the chancel. After his death, his executors derived some advantage from the manner in which he held this living; for, being sued by his successor for dilapidations, only 40l. could be recovered, as the plea was, that he had never been instituted nor inducted, and that the parsonage- house was built and ought to be repaired by the parish. It is probable that the quiet possession he so long enjoyed was owing to the high esteem in which he was held by the heads of the church, for his eminent services as a historian. Soon after he came to reside at Low-Leyton, he got access to the valuable manuscripts of sir Michael Hickes, knt. once of Ruckholt’s in this parish, and secretary to William lord Burleigh, and began from them some of those collections which he afterwards published. It appears, however, that he extended his inquiries much farther, and procured access to every repository where records of any kind were kept; made numerous and indeed voluminous transcripts, and employed many years in comparing, collating, and verifying facts, before he published any thing. At the same time he carried on an extensive correspondence with archbishop Wake, and the bishops Atterbury, Burnet, Nicolson, and other eminent clergymen or laymen, who had a taste for the same researches as himself. Towards his latter days, he had the sinecure of Terring, in Sussex, given him by archbishop Tenison, and was lecturer of Hackney till 1724, when he resigned that lecture. When he became old and infirm, he resided at Hackney with Mr. Harris an apothecary, who had married his granddaughter, and there he died Dec. 11, 1737, at the very advanced age of ninety-four , one instance at least, that the most indefatigable literary labour is not inconsistent with health.

, a Scottish historian, was born at Edinburgh, in 1742. His father, Mr. George Stuart, who died in 17>3, was professor of humanity in that university, and a man of considerable eminence for classical taste and literature. Gilbert Stuart, having made the usual prepa' rations in the grammar-school and the university, applied himself to the study of jurisprudence. For thr-.t profession, however, he is said to have been disqualified by indolence: and he early began to indulge his passion for general literature, and boundless dissipation. Yt t his youth was not wasted altogether in idleness, for before he had completed his twenty-second year, he published “An Historical Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the British Constitution,” which had so much merit as to obtain for him the degree of doctor of laws, from the university of Edinburgh. After an interval of some years, in which he could not have neglected his studies, he produced, 2. “A View of Society in Europe, in its progress from rudeness to refinement; or inquiries concerning the history of laws, government, and manners.” This is a valuable work, and proves that he had meditated with much attention on the most important monuments of the middle ages. About the time when the first edition of this book appeared, Dr. Stuart applied for the professorship of public law in the university of Edinburgh; but being disappointed, removed soon after to London. He there became from 1768 to 1773, one of the writers of the Monthly Review. He then returned to Edinburgh, where he began a magazine and review, called from the name of that city, the first number of which appeared in October 1773. In this he was assisted by William Smellie (See Smellie); but owing to the virulent spirit displayed by the writers, it was obliged to be discontinued in 1776. In 1778 his View of Society' was republished. In 1782 he again visited London, and engaged in the Political Herald, and the English Review; but being attacked by two formidable disorders, the jaundice and the dropsy, he returned by sea to his native country, where he died, in his father’s house, August 13, 1786.

The other works of Dr. Gilbert Stuart were, 3. An anonymous pamphlet against Dr. Adam, who had published a Latin grammar, 1772. 4. “Observations concerning the public Law and Constitutional History of Scotland,” Edinburgh, 1779, 8vo. In this work he critically examined the preliminary book to Dr. Robertson’s History of Scotland. 5. “The History of the Establishment of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland,” London, 1780, 4to, a work commended for the easy dignity of the narrative, and for the more extraordinary virtue of strict impartiality. 6. “The History of Scotland,” from the establishment of the reformation to the death of queen Mary, London, 1782, 2 vols. His chief purpose in this book was to vindicate the character of that queen; but the whole is well written, and has been very generally read and admired. 7. He also revised and published “Sullivan’s Lectures on the Constitution of England,” This was about 1774. Dr. Stuart was about the iRnicldle size and justly proportioned. His countenance was modest and expressive, sometimes announcing sentiments of glowing friendship, of which he is said to have been truly susceptible; at others, displaying strong indignation, against folly and vice, which he had also shewn in his writings. With all his ardour for study, he yielded to the love of intemperance, to which, notwithstanding a strong constitution, he fell an early sacrifice. His talents were great, and his writings useful; yet in his character altogether there appears to have been little that is worthy of imitation. He is painted in the most unfavourable colours by Mr. Chalmers, in his Life of Ruddiman, who says, “Such was Gilbert Stuart’s laxity of principle as a man, that he considered ingratitude as one of the most venial of sins. Such was his conceit as a writer, that he regarded no one’s merits but his own. Such were his disappointments, both as a writer and a man, that he allowed his peevishness to sour into malice; and indulged his malevolence till it settled in corruption.” If this character be not too harshly drawn, it is impossible that much should be alleged in its defence.

, a celebrated architect and lover of classical antiquity, was born in London, in 1713. His parents resided in Creed-lane, Ludgate-street. His father, who was a mariner, was a native of Scotland, and his mother of Wales. Their circumstances were very narrow; but they were honest and worthy people, and gave their son the best education in their power. Mr. Stuart, who was the eldest of four children, was left utterly unprovided for when his father died. He exhibited, however, at a very early period of life, the dawnings of a strong imagination, splendid talents, and an ardent thirst for knowledge. By whom he was educated we have no account; but drawing and painting were his earliest occupations; and these he pursued with such industry and perseverance, that, while yet a boy, he contributed very essentially to the support of his widowed mother and her little family, by designing and painting fans for a person in the Strand. He placed one of his sisters under the care of this person as his shop-woman; and he continued, for many years, to pursue the same mode of maintaining the rest of his family. Notwithstanding the great pressure of such a charge, and the many temptations to dissipation, which are too apt to attract a young man of lively genius and extensive talents, Mr. Stuart employed the greatest part of his time in such studies as tended to perfect himself in the art he loved. He acquired a very accurate knowledge of anatomy; he became a correct draughtsman, and rendered himself master of geometry, and all the branches of the mathematics, so necessary to form the mind of a good painter: and it is no less extraordinary than true, that necessity and application were his only instructors. He has often confessed, that he was first led into the obligation of studying the Latin language, by a desire to understand what was written under prints, published after pictures of the ancient masters.

As his years increased, knowledge attended their progress: he acquired a great proficiency in the Greek language; and his unparalleled strength of mind carried him into a familiar association with most of the sciences, and principally that of architecture. His stature was of the middle size, but athletic. He possessed a robust constitution, invincible courage, and inflexible perseverance. Of this the following fact is a proof: a wen, in his forehead, had grown to an inconvenient size; and, one day, being in conversation with a surgeon, he asked him how it could be removed. The surgeon acquainted him with the length of the process; to which Mr. Stuart objected, on account of the interruption of his pursuits, and asked whether he could not cut it out, and then it would be only necessary to heal the part. The surgeon replied in the affirmative, but mentioned the very excruciating pain and danger of such an operation. Mr. Stuart, after a minute’s reflection, threw himself back in his chair, and said, “I will sit stil! do it now.” The operation was performed with success. With such qualifications, although yet almost in penury, he conceived the design of visiting Rome and Athens; but the ties of filial and fraternal affection induced him to postpone his journey, till he could insure a certain provision for his mother, and his brother and second sister. His mother died: he was soon after enabled to place his brother and sister in a situation that was likely to produce them a comfortable support; and then, with a very scanty pittance in his pocket, he set out on foot for Rome; and thus he performed the greatest part of his journey travelling through Holland, France, &c. and stopping through necessity at Paris, and several other places in his way, where, by his ingenuity as an artist, he procured some moderate supplies, towards prosecuting the rest of his journey. When arrived at Rome, he soon formed an intimate acquaintance with Mr. Nicholas Revett, an eminent painter and architect. From this gentleman Mr. Stuart first caught his ideas of that science, in which (quitting the profession of a painter) he afterward made such a conspicuous figure. During his residence at Rome, he studied architecture and fortification; and in 1748 they jointly circulated “Proposals for publishing an authentic description of Athens, &c.” For that purpose, they quitted Rome in March 1750, but did not reach Athens till March 1751, where, in about two months, they were met by Mr. Wood and Mr. Dawkins, whose admiration of his great qualities and wonderful perseverance secured to him their patronage. Dawkins was glad to encourage a brother in scientific investigation, who possessed equal ardour with himself, but very unequal resources for prosecuting those inquiries in which they were both engaged; having at the same time so much similarity of disposition, and ardour of pursuit. During his residence at Athens Mr. Stuart became a master of architecture and fortification; and having no limits to which his mind would be restricted, he engaged in the army of the queen of Hungary, where he served a campaign voluntarily, as chief engineer. On his return to Athens, he applied himself more closely to make drawings, and take the exact measurements of the Athenian architecture. He left Athens in 1755, still accompanied by his friend Revett; and after visiting Thessalonica, Smyrna, and the islands of the Archipelago, arrived in England in the beginning of 1755. The result of their classical labours was the appearance, in 1762, of the first volume in folio of “The Antiquities of Athens measured and delineated, by James Stuart, F. R. S. and S.A. and Nicholas Revett, painters and architects.” This work is a very valuable acquisition to the lovers of antiquities and the fine arts, and is a proper companion to the noble descriptions of Palmyra and Balhec, by Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Wood, by whom the two artists were early encouraged in the prosecution of a design so worthy of the most distinguished patronage. To this work, and the long walk which the author performed to compose it, he has been indebted for the name of the Athenian Stuart, universally decreed to him by the learned of this country.

In whatever new project he engaged, he pursued it with such avidity, that he seldom quitted it while there was any thing further to be learned or understood from it. Thus he rendered himself skilful in the art of engraving, and of sculpture; and his enthusiastic love for antique elegance made him also an adept in all the remote researches of an antiquary. But in this display of his talents, a just tribute to his memory as a man must not be forgotten. Those who knew him intimately, and had opportunities of remarking the nobleness of his soul, will join in claiming for him the title of Citizen of the World; and, if he could be charged with possessing any partiality, it was to merit, in, whomsoever he found it.

Mr. Stuart was twice married; first in 1760, to his housekeeper, a very worthy woman, by whom he had a son, who died an infant; his second wife, who survived him, was the daughter of Mr. Blackstone, a farmer in Kent; and to this lady, who was very young, he was united at the age of sixty-seven. By her he had four children; one of whom— a boy—was the very image and transcript of himself, both in body and mind. He exhibited an astonishing genius for drawing, even before he was three years old, and would imitate with pen, or pencil, any thing that he saw lying on his father’s table. This child (the darling of his father) died of the small-pox toward the end of 1787. Mr. Stuart’s health was observed to decline very rapidly from that time. He expired, at his house, in Leicester-square, on the 2d of February, 1788, in the seventy-sixth year of his age, and and was buried in a vault of the church of St. Martin’s in the Fields. Two volumes of his great work, “The Antiquities of Athens,” have been published since his death; the 2d in 1790, the 3d in 1794: the former by Mr. Newton, the latter by Mr. Revely. A fourth volume, containing a great many plates, has just been published under the superintendance of Mr. Taylor, of the architectural library, Holborn.

, an English writer of uncommon parts and learning, and very celebrated in his day, was born at Partney, near Spilsbye in Lincolnshire, Feb. 28, 1631. His father was a minister, and lived at Spilsbye; but being inclined to be an anabaptist, and forced to leave that place, he went with his wife and children into Ireland. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion there in 1641, the mother fled with her son Henry into England; and, landing at Liverpool, went on foot from thence to London, where she gained a comfortable subsistence by her needle, and sent her son Henry, being then ten years of age, to Westminster- school. There Dr. Busby, the master, was so struck with the surprising parts of the boy, that he shewed him more than ordinary favour; and recommended him to the notice of sir Henry Vane, junior, who one day came accidentally into the school. Sir Henry took a fancy to him, and frequently relieved him with money, and gave him the liberty of resorting to his house, “to fill that belly,” says Stubbe, “which otherwise had no sustenance but what one penny could purchase for his dinner, and which had no breakfast except he got it by making somebody’s exercise.” He says this in the preface to his “Epistolary Discourse concerning Phlebotomy;” where many other particulars of his life, mentioned by Mr. Wood, and here recorded, are also to be found. Soon after he was admitted on the foundation, and his master, in consideration of his great progress in learning, gave him additional assistance in books and other necessaries.

The Royal Society had from its first institution alarmed the zealous admirers of the ok! philosophy, who affected to represent the views of many of its members to be the destruction, not only of true learning, but even of religion itself. This gave occasion to Dr. Sprat’s “History of the Royal Society” in 1667, and to a discourse by Mr. Glanvill in 1668, under the title of “Plus ultra, or, the progress and advancement of Knowledge since the days of Aristotle, in an account of some of the most remarkable late improvements of practical useful learning, to encourage philosophical endeavours.” Mr. Stubbe attacked both these works with great warmth and severity, yet with prodigious acuteness and learning, in a 4tu volume, entitled, “Legends no history, or a specimen of some animadversions upon the History of the Royal Society; together with the Plus ultra of Mr. Glanvill, reduced to a Non plus, 1670.” In this book he charges the members of the Royal Society with intentions to bring contempt upon ancient and solid learning, especially the Aristotelian philosophy, to undermine the universities, to destroy the established religion, and even to introduce popery. This laid the foundation of a controversy, which was carried on with asperity for some time; and Stubbe wrote several pieces to support his allegations. He w;is encouraged in this affair by Dr. Fell, who was no admirer of the Royal Society; and he made himself so obnoxious to that body, that, as he himself informs us, “they threatened to write his life.”

The writings of Mr. Stubbe, though his life was no long one, were extremely numerous, and upon various subjects. Those which he published before the Restoration were against monarchy, ministers, universities, churches, and every thing which was dear to the royalists; yet he did this more to please and serve his friend and patron sir Henry Vane, than out of principle, or attachment to a. party: and when his antagonists insulted him for changing his tone afterwards, he made no scruple at all to confess it: “My youth,” says he, “and other circumstances, incapacitated me from rendering him any great services but all that I did, and all that I wrote, had no other aim nor do I care how much any man can inodiate my former writings, so long- as they were suhservient to him.” “The truth is, and all,” says Wood, “who knew him in Oxford, knew this of him for certain, that he was no frequenter of conventicles, no taker of the covenant or engagement, no contractor of acquaintance with notorious sectaries; that he neither enriched nor otherwise advanced himself during the late troubles, nor shared the common odium, and dangers, or prosperity of his benefactor.” On this account he easily made his peace with the royalists, after the Restoration: yet not, as it should seem, without some overt acts on his part, for, besides conforming entirely to the church of England, he wrote a small piece against Harrington’s “Oceana,” in 1660 which, in the preface to “The good old Cause,” printed in 1659, he had extolled, “as if,” says Wood, “it were the pattern in the mount.” By these means he made amends for all the offence he had given: “I have at length,” says he, “removed all the umbrages I ever lay under; I have joined myself to the church of England, not only on account of its being publicly imposed (which in things indifferent is no small consideration, as I learned from the Scottish transactions at Perth;) but because it is the least defining, and consequently the most comprehensive and fitting to be national.”

After a life of almost perpetual war and conflict in various ways, this extraordinary man came to an untimely end: yet not from any contrivance or designs of his enemies, although his impetuous and furious zeal hurried him to say that they often put him in fear of his life. Being at Bath in the summer season, he had a call from thence to a patient at Bristol; and whether because it was desired, or from the excessive heat of the weather, he set out in the evening, and went a by-way. Mr. Wood says that “his head was then intoxicated with bibbing, but more with talking and snuffing of powder:” be that as it may, he was drowned in passing a river about two miles from Bath, on the 12th of July, 1676. His body was taken up the next morning, and the day after buried in the great church at Bath; when his old antagonist Glanvill, who was the rector, preached his funeral sermon; but, as it is natural to imagine, without saying much in his favour. Soon after, a physician of that place made the following epitaph, which, though never put over him, deserves to be recorded: “Memorise sacrum. Post varies casus, et magna rerum discrimina, tandem hie quiescunt mortalitatis exuviae Henrici Stubbe, medici Wanvicensis, quondam ex cede Christi Oxoniensis, rei medicae, historicse, ac mathematics peritissimi, judkii vivi, & librorum heliuonis qui, quum multa scripserat, & plures sanaverat, aliorum saluti sedulo prospiciens, propriam neglexit. Obiit aquis frigidissuffocatus, 12 die Julii, A.D. 1679.”

, a celebrated anatomist and painter of animals, was born at Liverpool in 1724-, and at the age of thirty went to Rome for improvement in his studies, but why is not easily accounted for; London was the best theatre to exercise his talents for the dissection and the portraiture of animals, of horses (which he chiefly excelled in) especially, and in London he fixed his residence. That his skill in comparative anatomy never suggested to him the propriety of style in forms, if it were not eminently proved by his Phaeton with the Horses of the Sun, would be evident from all his other figures, which, when human, are seldom more than the attendants of some animal, whilst the style of the animals themselves depended entirely on the individual before him: his tiger for grandeur has never been equalled; his lions are to those of Rubens what jackals are to lions; but none ever did greater justice to the peculiar structure of that artificial animal, the race courser, and to all the mysteries of turf- tactics, though, unfortunately for the artist, they depend more on the fac-similist’s precision than the painter’s spirit. Stubbs was perhaps the first who painted in enamel on a large scale. He was an associate of the Royal Academy, and died in 1806. He published a work, completed in 1766, under the title of “The Anatomy of the Horse including a particular description of the bones, cartilages, muscles, fascias, ligaments, nerves, arteries, veins, and glands; in eighteen tables from nature:” and before his death three numbers of another work, which was to have consisted of six, entitled “A Comparative Anatomical Exposition of the structure of the Human Body with that of a Tiger and a common Fowl, in thirty tables.”!

, a learned lawyer in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was born about 1541, and is said by Mr. Strype to have been a member of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge. He removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn for the study of the law, and contracted an acquaintance with the most learned and ingenious men of that society. He became a puritan in consequence, as some suppose, of his connection with the celebrated Thomas Cartu right, who had married his sister. About 1579, when the report of the queen’s intended marriage with the duke of Anjou, brother to the king of France, had created an extraordinary alarm, lest such a match should eventually be injurious to the Protestant establishment, Mr. Stubbs published a satirical work against it, entitled “The Discovery of a gaping gulph wherein England is like to be swallowed up by another French marriage,” &c. This highly incensed the queen, whose passions ha -I always much -way over her actions, and too much over htr ministers, and she immediately issued out a proclamation against it; and the autuor and printer, or bookseller, being discovered, they were soon apprehended, and sentence given against them, that their right hands should be cut off, according to an act of Philip and Mary, “against the authors and publishers of seditious writings.” When Stubbs came to receive his punishment, which was inflicted with great barbarity, with a butcher’s knife and mallet, he immediately took off his hat with his left hand, and cried “God save the queen!”

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

, an antiquary of much celebrity, descended from an antient family in Lincolnshire, was born at Holbech in that county, November 7, 1687. After having had the first part of his education at the free-school of that place, under the care of Mr. Edward Kelsal, he was admitted into Bene't-college in Cambridge, Nov. 7, 1703, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Favvcett, and chosen a scholar there in April following. While an under-graduate, he often indulged a strong propensity for drawing and designing; and began to form a collection of antiquarian books. He made physic, however, his principal study, and with that view took frequent perambulations through the neighbouring country, with the famous Dr. Hales, Dr. John Gray of Canterbury, and others, in search of plants; and made great additions to Ray’s “Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam;” which, with a map of the county, he was solicited to print; but his father’s death, and various domestic avocations, prevented it. He studied anatomy under Mr. Rolfe the surgeon attended the chemical lectures of signor Vigani and taking the degree of M. B. in 1709, made himself acquainted with the practical part of medicine under the great Dr. Mead at St. Thomas’s hospital. He first began to practise at Boston in his native county, where he strongly recommended the chalybeate waters of Stanfield near Folkingham. In 1717 he removed to London, where, on the recommendation of his friend Dr. Mead, he was soon after elected F. R. S. and was one of the first who revived that of the Antiquaries in 1718, to which last he was secretary for many years during his residence in town. He was also one of the earliest members of the Spalding society. He took the degree of M. D. at Cambridge in 1719, and was admitted a fellow of the College of Physicians in the year following, about which time (1720) he published an account of “Arthur’s Oon” in Scotland, and of “Graham’s dyke,” with plates, 4to. In the year 1722, he was appointed to read the Gulstonian Lecture, in which he gave a description and history of the spleen, and printed it in folio, 1723, together with some anatomical observations on the dissection of an elephant, and many plates coloured in imitation of nature. Conceiving that there were some remains of the Eleusinian mysteries in free-masonry, he gratified his curiosity, and was constituted master of a lodge (1723), to which he presented an account of a Roman amphitheatre at Dorchester, in 4to. After having been one of the censors of the College of Physicians, of the council of the Royal Society, and of the committee to examine into the condition of the astronomical instruments of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, he left London in 1726, and retired to Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he soon came into great request. The dukes of Ancaster and Rutland, the families of Tyrconnel, Gust, &c. &c. and most of the principal families in the country, were glad to take his advice. During his residence here, he declined an invitation from Algernon earl of Hertford, to settle as a physician at Marlborough, and another to succeed Dr. Hunter at Newark. In 1728 he married Frances daughter of Robert Williamson, esq. of Allington, near Grantham, a lady of good family and fortune. He was greatly afflicted with the gout, which used generally to confine him during the winter months. On this account, for the recovery of his health, it was customary with him to take several journeys in the spring, in which he indulged his innate love of antiquities, by tracing out the footsteps of Caesar’s expedition in this island, his camps, stations, &c. The fruit of his more distant travels was his “Itinerarium Curiosum; or, an Account of the Antiquities and Curiosities in his Travels through Great Britain, Centuria I.” adorned with one hundred copper-plates, and published in folio, London, 1724. This was reprinted after his death, in 1776, with two additional plates; as was also published the second volume, (consisting of his description of the Brill, or Caesar’s camp at Pancras,“IterBoreale,” 1725, and his edition of Richard of Cirencester , with his own notes, and those of Mr. Bertram of Copenhagen, with whom he corresponded, illustrated with 103 copper-plates engraved in the doctor’s lifetime. Overpowered with the fatigue of his profession, and repeated attacks of the gout, he turned his thoughts to the church; and, being encouraged in that pursuit hy archbishop Wake, was ordained at Croydon, July 20, 1720; and in October following was presented by lord-chancellor King to the living of All-Saints in Stamford . At the time of his entering on his parochial cure (1730), Dr. Rogers of that place had just invented his Oleum Artbriticum; which Dr. Stukeley seeing oihers use with admirable success, he was induced to do the like, and with equal advantage for it not only saved his joints, but, with the addition of a proper regimen, and leaving off the use of fermented liquors, he recovered his health and limbs to a surprising degree, ind ever after enjoyed a firm and active state of body, beyond any example in the like circumstances, to a good old age. This occasioned him to publish an account of the success of the external application of this oil in innumerable instances, in a letter to sir Hans Sloane, 1733; and the year after he published also, “A Treatise on the Cause and Cure of the Gout, from a new Rationale;” which, with an abstract of it, has passed through several editions. He collected some remarkable particulars at Stamford in relation to his predecessor bishop Cumberland; and, in 1736, printed an explanation, with an engraving, of a curious silver plate of Roman workmanship in basso relievo, found underground at Risley Park in Derbyshire; wherein he traces its journey thither, from the church of Bourges, to which it had been given by Exsuperius, called St. Swithin, bishop of Toulouse, about the year 205. He published also the same yea.- his “Palæographia Sacra, No. I. or, Discourses on the Monuments of Antiquity that relate to Sacred History,” in 4to, which he dedicated to sir Richard Kllys, bart. “from whom he had received many favours.” In this work (uhich was to have been continued in succeeding numbers) he undertakes to shew, how Heathen Mythology is derived from Sacred History, and that the Bacchus in the Poets is no other than the Jehovah in the Scripture, the conductor of the Israelites through the wilderness. In his country retirement he disposed his collection of Greek and Roman coins according to the order of the Scripture History; and cut out a machine in wood (on the plan of an Orrery), which shews the motion of the heavenly bodies, the course of the tide, &c. In 1737 he lost his wife and in 1738, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of Dr. Gale, dean of York, and sister to his intimate friends Roger and Samuel Gale, esquires; and from this time he often spent his winters in London. In 1740, he published an account of Stonehenge, dedicated to the duke of Ancaster, who had made him one of his chaplains, and given him the living of Somerby near Grantham the year before. In 1741, he preached the Thirtieth of January Sermon before the House of Commons; and in that year became one of the founders of the Egyptian society, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt. In 1743 he printed an account of lady Roisia’s sepulchral cell, lately discovered at Royston, in a tract, entitled “Palseographia Britannica, No. I.” to which an answer was published by Mr. Charles Parkin, in 1744. The doctor replied in “Palasographia Britannica, No. II.” 1746, giving an account of the origin of the universities of Cambridge and Stamford, both from Croylandabbey; of the Roman city Granta, on the north-side of the river, of the beginning of Cardike near Waterbeach, &c. To this Mr. Parkin again replied in 1748; but it does not appear that the doctor took any further notice of him. In 1747, the benevolent duke of Montagu (with whom he had become acquainted at the Egyptian society) prevailed on him to vacate his preferments in the country, by giving him the rectory of St. George, Queen-square, whence he frequently retired to Kentish-town, where the following inscription was placed over his door:

He had the misfortune to lose his patron in 1749 on whose death he published some verses, with others on his entertainment at Boughton, and a “Philosophic Hymn on Christmas-day.” Two papers by the doctor, upon the earthquakes in 1750, read at the Royal Society, and a sermon preached at his own parish-church on that alarming occasion, were published in 1750, 8vo, under the title of “The Philosophy of Earthquakes, natural and religious;” of which a second part was printed with a second edition of his sermon on “the Healing of Diseases as a Character of the Messiah, preached before the College of Physicians Sept. 20, 1750.” In 1751 (in “Palaeographia Britannica, No. III.”) he gave an account of Oriuna the wife of Carausius; in Phil. Trans, vol. XLVIII. art. 33, an account of the Eclipse predicted by Thales; and in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 1754, p. 407, is the substance of a paper read at the Royal Society in 1752, to prove that the coral-tree is a sea-vegetable. On Wednesday the 27th of February, 1765, Dr. Stukeley was seized with a stroke of the palsy, which was brought on by attending a full vestry, at which he was accompanied by serjeant Eyre, on a contested election for a lecturer. The room being hot, on their return through Dr. Stukeley’s garden, they both caught their deaths; for the serjeant never was abroad again, and the doctor’s illness came on that night. Soon after this accident his faculties failed him; but he continued quiet and composed until Sunday following, March 3, 1765, when he departed in his seventy eighth year, which he attained by remarkable temperance and regularity. By his own particular directions, his corpse was conveyed in a private manner to East- Ham in Essex, and was buried in the church-yard, just beyond the east end of the church, the turf being laid smoothly over it, without any monument. This spot he particularly fixed on, in a visit he paid some time before to the vicar of that parish, when walking with him one day in the church-yard. Thus ended a valuable life, daily spent in throwing light on the dark remains of antiquity. His great learning and profound skill in those researches enabled him to publish many elaborate and curious works, and to leave many ready for the press. In his medical capacity, his “Dissertation on the Spleen” was well received. His “Itinerariutn Curiosum,” the first-fruits of his juvenile excursions, presaged what might be expected from his riper age, when he had acquired more experience. The curious in these studies were not disappointed; for, with a sagacity peculiar to his great genius, with unwearied pains and industry, and some years spent in actual surveys, he investigated and published an account of those stupendous works of the remotest antiquity, Stonehenge and Abury, in 1743, and has given the most probable and rational account of their origin and use, ascertaining also their dimensions with the greatest accuracy. So great was his proficiency in Druidical history, that his familiar friends used to call him “the arch-druid of this age.” His works abound with particulars that shew his knowledge of this celebrated British priesthood; and in his Itinerary he announced a “History of the Ancient Celts, particularly the first inhabitants of Great Britain,” for the most part finished, to have consisted of four vplumes, folio, with above 300 copper-plates, many of which were engraved. Great part of this work was incorporated into his Stonehenge and Abury. In his “History of Carausius,” 1757, 1751), in two vols. 4to, he has shewn much learning and ingenuity in settling the principal events of that emperor’s government in Britain. To his interest and application we are indebted for recovering from obscurity Richard of Cirencester’s Itinerary of Roman Britain, which has been mentioned before. His discourses, or sermons, under the title of “Palaeographia Sacra, 1763, on the vegetable creation,” bespeak him a botanist, philosopher, and divine, replete with antient learning, and excellent observations; but a little too much transported by a lively fancy and invention. He closed the last scenes of his life with completing a long and laborious work on ancient British coins, in particular of Cunobelin; and felicitated himself on having from them discovered many remarkable, curious, and new anecdotes, relating to the reigns of that and other British kings. The twenty-three plates of this work were published after his decease; but the ms. (left ready for publishing) remained in the hands of his daughter Mrs. Fleming, relict of Richard Fleming, esq. an eminent solicitor, who was the doctor’s executor, and died in 1774. By his fii^t wife Dr. Stukeley had three daughters; of whom one died young; the other two survived him; the one, Mrs. Fleming already mentioned; the other, wife to the Rev. Thomas Fairchild, rector of Pitsey, in Essex. They both died in 1782. By his second wife, Dr. Stukeley had no child. To the great names already mentioned among his friends and patrons, may be added those of Mr. Folkes, Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne (with whom he corresponded on the subject of Tar* water), Dr. Pocock bishop of Meath, and many others of the first rank of literature at home: and amou. the eminent foreigners with whom he corresponded wete Dr. Heigertahl, Mr. Keysler, and the learned father Montfaucon, who inserted some of his designs (sent him by archbishop Wake) in his “Antiquity explained.” A good account of Dr. Stukeley was, with his own permission, printed in 1725, by Mr. Masters, in the second part of his History of Corpus Christi college; and very soon after his death a short but just character of him was given in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1765, by his friend Peter Collinson. Of both these, Mr. Nichols availed himself; and was favoured with several additional particulars from Dr. Ducarel and Mr. Gough. After his decease, a medal of him was cast and repaired by Gaub; on one side, the head adorned with oak leaves, inscribed Rev. Gvl. Stvkeley, M.D.S. R. & A. s. Exergue, act. 54. Reverse, a view of Stonehenge, Ob. Mar. 4, 1765, Æt. 84; [but this is a mistake, for he was in fact but 78]. There is a portrait of him, after Kneller, in mezzotino, by;J". Smith in 172 i, before he took orders, with his arms, viz. Argent, a spread-eagle double-headed Sable. Mrs. Fleming had another portrait of him in his robes, by Wills; and Mrs. Parsons (relict of Dr. James Parsons) had a fine miniature, which was esteemed a good likeness.

, a German of great learning, was of a noble family of Strasburg, and was born there in 1489 or 1490. He made himself illustrious by the services he did his country; and discharged the most considerable offices of state with the greatest ability and probity, particularly in several deputations to the diets of the empire, the imperial court, and that of England. He contributed very much to the reformation of religion at Strasburg, to the erecting of a college which was opened there ten years after, and to the compilation of the history of the reformation in Germany by Sleidan, which that author acknowledges in his preface. “I received the assistance of that noble and excellent person, James Sturmius, who, having been above thirty years engaged in public and important affairs with the highest reputation, and having generously honoured me with his friendship, frequently cleared up my doubts, and put me into the right way; and, at my request before his last illness, read over the greatest part of the work, and made the necessary remarks upon it.” He died at Strasburg Oct. 20, 1555, after languishing of a fever for two months. Sleidan says that “he was a man of great prudence and integrity, and the glory of the German nobility, on account of the excellent qualities of his mind, and his distinguished learning.”

, the Cicero of Germany, if we may use the terms of Melchior Adam, was born at Sleida in Eiffel, near Cologne, Oct. 1, 1507. He was initiated in letters in his native country, with the sons of count de Manderscheid, whose receiver his father was, and afterwards studied at Liege in the college of St. Jerome. In 1524, he went to Louvain, where ne sp.-Mit five years, three in learning, and two in teaching; an 1 had for his fellowstudents, Sleidan, Vesalius, and some others, who afterwards became men of eminence, a:vi had a great esteem for him. He set up a printing-press with Rudger Rescins, professor of Greek, and printed several Greek authors. He began with Homer, and soon after carried those editions to Pans, in 1529, where he made himself highly esteemed, and read public lectures upon the Greek and Latin writers, and upon logic. He married also there, and kept a great number of boarders, who came from England, Germany, and Italy, and were the sous of considerable families; but as he had imbibed the principles of the reformation, he was more than once in danger; which, undoubtedly, was the reason why he removed to Strasburg in 1537. in order to take possession of the place offered him by the magistrates. The year following he opened a school, which became famous, and by his means obtained from the emperor Maximilian II. the title of an university in 1566. He was very well skilled in polite literature, wrote Latin with great purity, and understood the method of teaching; and it was owing to him, that the college of Strasburg, of which he was perpetual rector, became the most flourishing in all Germany. His talents were not confined to the schools; he was frequently entrusted with several deputations in Germany and foreign countries, and discharged those employments with great honour and diligence. He shewed extreme charity to the refugees who fled on account of religion: he was not satisfied with labouring to assist them by his advice and recommendations, but even impoverished himself by his great hospitality towards them. His life, however, was exposed to many troubles, which he owed chiefly to the intolerance of the Lutheran ministers. At Strasburg he formed a moderate Lutheranism, to which he submitted without reluctance, though he was of Zuinglius’s opinion, and afterwards declared himself for Calvinism, and was in consequence, in 1583, deprived of the rectorship of the university. He died March 3, 1589, aged above eighty. He had been thrice married, but left no children. Though he lost his sight some time before his death, yet he did not discontinue his labours for the public good. He published a great number of books, chiefly on subjects of philosophy. Having when at Paris studied medicine, he published in 1531, an edition of Galen’s works, fol. Among his other works, are, 1. “De Literarum ludis recte aperiendis liber,” 1538, 4to, twice reprinted, and inserted in Crenius’s collection “Variorum auctorum consilia, &c.” Morhoff praises this work very highly. 2. “In partitiones Oratorias Ciceronis libri duo,” Argent. 1539 and 1565, 8vo. He published some other parts of Cicero for the use of students. 3. “Beati Rhenani vita,” prefixed to that author’s “Rerum Germanicarum libri tres,” Basil, 1551, fol. 4. “Ciceronis Opera omnia,” Strasb. 1557, &.c. 9 vols. 8vo. 5. “Aristotelis Rheticorum libri tres,” Gr. and Lat. with scholia, &c. 1570, 8vo. 6. “Anti-Pappi tres contra Joannis Pappi charitatem et condemnationem Christianam.” 1579, 4to. This is the first of his controversial tracts against Pappus, who had been the cause of his losing his rectorship. There are many letters between Stimnius and Roger Ascham in that collection published at Oxford in 1703.

, an accomplished courtier, scholar, and poet, was the son of sir John Suckling, comptroller of the royal household, and was born at Whitton in Middlesex, where his father resided, in 1609. His biopraphers have hitherto fixed the time of his birth in 1612, but, according to some extracts from the parish-register of Twickenham, in Lysons’s " Environs/* it appears, that he was baptised Feb. 10, 160S-9. Lloyd, from whoop we have the first account of this poet, mentions a circumstance relating to his birth, from which more was presaged than followed. He was born, according to his mother’s computation, in the eleventh month, and long life and health were expected from so extraordinary an occurrence. During his infancy he certainly displayed an uncommon facility of acquiring every branch of education. He spoke Latin at five years of age, and could write in that language at the age of nine. It is probable that he was taught more languages than one at the same time, and by practising frequently with men of education who kept company with his father, soon acquired an ease and elegance of address which qualified him for the court as well as for foreign travel. His father is represented as a man of a serious turn and grave manners; the son volatile, good-tempered, and thoughtless; characteristics which he seems to have preserved throughout life. His tutors found him particularly submissive, docile, easy to be taught, and quick in learning It does not appear that he was sent to either university, yet a perusal of his prose works can leave no doubt that he laid a very solid and extensive foundation for various learning, and studied, not only such authors as were suitable to the vivacity of his disposition, but made himself acquainted with those political and religious controversies which were about to involve his country in all the miseries of civil war.

While thus seemingly devoted to pleasure only, the unfortunate aspect of public affairs roused him to a sense of duty, and induced him to offer his services, and devote his life and fortune, to the cause of royalty. How justly he could contemplate the unfortunate dispute between the court and nation, appears in his letier to Mr. Germaine (afterwards lord Albemarle), a composition almost unrivalled in that age for elegance of style and depth of observation. It was, however, too much the practice with those who made voluntary offers of soldiers, to equip them in an expensive and useless manner. Suckling, who was magnificent in all his expenses, was not to be outdone in an. article which he had studied more than became a soldier, and which he might suppose would afford unquestionable proof of his attachment to the royal cause; and, having been permitted to raise a troop of horse, consisting of an hundred, he equipped them so richly, that they are said to have cost him the sum of twelve thousand pounds. This exposed him to some degree of ridicule, a weapon which the republicans often wielded with successful dexterity, and which, in this instance, was sharpened by the misconduct of his gaudy soldiers. The particulars of this affair are not recorded; but it appears, that in 1639, the royal army, of which his troop formed a part, was defeated by the Scotch, and that sir John’s men behaved remarkably ill. All this is possible, without any imputation on the courage of their commander; but it afforded his enemies an opportunity of turning the expedition into ridicule with an effect that is yet remembered. The lines in Dr. Percy’s collection, by sir John Mennis, are not the only specimen of the wit of the times at our author’s expense.

This unhappy affair is said by Lloyd to have contributed 10 shorten his days; but Oldys, in his ms notes on Langbaine, attributes his death to another cause. Lord Oxford informed Oldys, on the authority of dean Chetwood, who said he had it from lord Roscommon, that sir John Suckling, in his way to France, was robbed of a casket of gold and jewels, by his valet, who gave him poison, and besides stuck the blade of a pen-knife into his boot in such a manner, that sir John was disabled from pursuing the villain, and was wounded incurably in the heel. Dr. Warton, in a note to his Essay on Pope, relates the story somewhat differently: “Sir John Suckling was robbed by his valetde-chambre; the moment he discovered it, he clapped on his boots in a passionate hurry, and perceived not a large rusty nail that was concealed at the bottom, which pierced his heel, and brought on a mortification.” He died May 7, 1641, in the thirty-second year of his age. That he was on his way to France, when he met with the occasion of his death, seems to be confirmed by a ludicrous poem, lately re-printed in the “Censura Literaria,” entitled “A Letter sent by sir John Suckling from France, deploring his sad estate and flight: with a discoverie of the plot and conspiracie, intended by him and his adherents against England. Imprinted at London, 1641.” This poem is dated Paris, June 16, 1641, at which time the author probably had not learned that the object of his satire was beyond his reach.

As a poet, he was one of those who wrote for amusement, and was not stimulated by ambition, or anxious for fame. His pieces were sent loose about the world; and not having been collected until after his death, they are probably less correct than he left them. Many of his verses are as rugged and unhamionious as those of Donne; but his songs and ballads are elegant and graceful. He was particularly happy and original in expressing the feelings of artificial love, disdain, or disappointment. The “Session of the Poets,” the “Lines to a Rival,” the “Honest Lover,” and the “Ballad upon a Wedding,” are sufficient to entitle him to the honours of poetry, which the author of the lives published under the name of Gibber, is extremely anxious to wrest from him.

, an ancient historian and biographer, was born at Rome about the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, perhaps in the year 70, as may be collected from his own words in the life of Nero. His father Suetonius Lenis was tribune of a legion, in the service of the emperor Otho, against Vitellius. He passed his first years probably at Romej and when grown up, applied himself to the bar. He appears to have very early acquired the friendship of the younger Pliny, who procured for him the office of tribune and aiteru lkl.N, upon his resignation, transferred it to his kinsman, at Sdetonius’s request. He ohtained also In* him th “Jus trimn liberon.m;” a favour seldom granted, and which Pliny could not have obtained, if, besides hU great interest at court, he had not very earnestly solicited the emperor Trajan, in a letter written from Bnhynia, of which he was at that time governor. In this letter he describes Suetonius as a man of gr<at integrity, honour, a. d learning, whose manners and studies were the same with his own; and he adds, “the better I have known him, the more I have loved him. He has been rather unhappy in his marriage; and the privileges of those who have three children are upon several accounts necessary. He begs through me, therefore, that your bounty will supply what his ill fortune has denied him. I know, sir, the high value of the favour I ask but I am asking a sovereign whose indulgence to all my wishes I have long experienced. How desirous I am to obtain it, you will easily conclude, from my applying to you at this distance; which I should not have done, if it had been a mutter of indifference to me.” Suetonius advanced himself to be afterwards secretary to the emperor Adrian; but he lost that place, for not paying a due respect to the empress. Spartian, speaking of him and others involved in the same blame, uses the words “quod apud Sabinam uxorem, injussu ejus, familiarius se tune egerant, quam reverentia domus aulicae postulabat.” On the nature of this disrespect, or “too great familiarity,” critics are not agreed. Their offence probably rose only from the capricious temper of the emperor, who, we are told, treated her with great contempt himself for some reason, and permitted others also to do so under certain limitations; which limitations Suetonius and others might ignorantly transgress.

, one of the best painters hi his time which the French nation had produced, was born at Paris in 1617, and studied the principles of his art under Simon Vouet, whom he infinitely surpassed; and although he was never out of France, carried the art to a very high degree of perfection. His style was formed upon antiquity, and after the best Italian masters. He invented with ease, and his execution was always worthy of his designs. His attitudes are simple and noble, and his ex r pression well adapted to the subject. His draperies are designed after the manner of Raphael’s last works. Although he knew little of the local colours, or the chiaro scuro, he was so much master of the other parts of painting, that there was a great likelihood of his throwing off Vuuet’s manner entirely, had he lived longer. Immediately aiter Vouet’s death, he perceived that his master had led him out of the way: and by considering the antiques that were in France, and the designs and prints of the best Italian masters, particularly Raphael, he contracted a more refined style and happier manner. Le Brun could not forbear being jealous of Le Sueur, who did not mean, however, to give any man pain; for he had great simplicity of manners, and much candour, and probity. He died at Paris April 30, 1655, at no more than thirty-eight years of age. The life of St. Bruno, in twenty pictures, originally preserved in the Chartreux, and which employed him for three years, have, as Mr. Fuseli informs us, been “lately consigned to the profane clutch of restoration in the attic of the Luxembourg, and are now little more than the faint traces of what they were when issuing from the hand of their master. They have suffered martyrdom more than once.It is well that the nature of the subject permitted little more than fresco in the colouring at first, and that the great merit of their execution consisted in that breadth of vehicle which monastic drapery demands, else we should have lost even the fragments that remain.‘ The old man in the fore-ground, the head of St. Bruno, and some of the disputants in the back-ground of the Predication; the bishop and the condemned defunct in the funeral; the apparition of St. Bruno himself in the camp; the female figure in the eleemosinary scene, and what has suffered least of all, the death of St. Bruno, contain the least disputable marks of the master’s primitive touch. The subject of the whole, abstractly considered, is the personification of sanctity, and it has been represented in the series with a purity which seems to place the artist’s heart on a level with that of his hero. The simplicity which tells that tale of resignation and innocence, despises all contrast of more varied composition, though not always with equal success, St. Bruno on his bed, visited by angels, building or viewing the plan for building his rocky retreat; the hunting-scene, and’ the apotheosis; might probably have admitted happier combinations. As, in the different re* touchings, the faces have suffered most, the expression must be estimated by those that escaped; and from what still remains, we may conclude that it was not inferior to the composition.”

, a learned German divine, was born at Zurich June 26, 1619; became professor there of the Greek and Hebrew languages; and died at Heidelberg Nov. 8, 1684, according to Saxius. He was the compiler of a very useful work, called “Lexicon, sive Thesaurus Ecclesiastic us Patrum Graeconm):” the best edition of which is that of Amsterdam, 1728, 2 vols. fol. He had a son, Henry Suicer, distinguished by some literary productions, who was a professor, first at Zurich, then at Heidelberg, and who died in 1705.

, author of a celebrated Greek Lexicon, is a personage of whom we are unable to give many particulars. Who he was, or when he lived, are points of great uncertainty; no circumstances of his life having been recorded, either by himself or any other writer. Politian and some oihers have been of opinion that no such person ever existed; but thai Suidas was a real person, appears, not only from his name being found in all the manuscripts of his Lexicon, but from his being often mentioned by Eustathius in his Commentary upon Homer. The learned have differed in the same manner concerning the age of Suidas; some, as Grotins, supposing him to have lived under Conjstantinus, the son of Leo, emperor of the East, who began to reign in the year 912; while others have brought him even lower than Eustathins, who is known to have lived in 1180. The learned Bentley thinks that as he has referred a point of chronology to the death of the emperor Zimisces, that is, to the year of Christ 975: we may infer that he wrote his Lexicon between that time and the death of the succeeding emperor, which was in 1075. This Lexicon is a compilation of matters from various authors, sometimes made with judgment and diligence, but often from bad copies; and he therefore sometimes gives his reader corrupt and spurious words, instead of those that are pure and genuine. He also mixes things of a different kind, and belonging to different authors, promiscuously; and some of his examples to illustrate the signification of words are very little to the purpose. His Lexicon, however, is a very useful book, and a storehouse of all sorts of erudition. Scholars by profession have all prized it highly; as exhibiting many excellent passages of ancient authors whose works are lost. It is to be ranked with the Bbliotheca of Photuis ard works of that kind. The “Etymologicon Magnum” has been ascribed to Suidas, but without sufficient authority, though it may have been composed in the same period with the Lexicon. Suidas’s Lexicon was first published at Milan, 1499, in Greek only: it has since been printed with a Latin version: but the best edition, indeed the only good one, is that of Kuster, Gr. & Lat. Cambridge, 1705, 3 vols. folio. To this should be added Toup’s valuable “Emendationes in Suidam,” Oxon. 1790, 4 vols. 8vo. Mr. Taylor had begun an appendix to Suidas, four sheets only of which were printed off at the time of his death, April 4, 1766. It had the following title, “Appendix notarum in Suidae Lexicon, ad paginas edit. Cantab. 1705, adcommodatarum; colligente, qui et suas etiani aliquammultas adjecit, Joanne Taylor.” This, we believe, was never finished.

, one of the most able and honest ministers that France ever had, was descended from an ancient and illustrious house, and born in 1559 at Rosni, descended from a younger branch of the ancient counts of Flanders. His father was the baron de Rosni. He was bred in the opinions and doctrine of the reformed religion, and continued to the end of his life constant in the profession of it, which seems to have fitted him for the important services to which Providence had designed him. The queen of Navarre, after the death of her husband Antony de Bourbon, returned to Beam, where she openly professed Calvinism. She sent for her son Henry from the court of France to Pau in 1556, and put him under a preceptor, who trained him up in the Protestant religion. She declared herself the protectress of the Protestants in 1566; and went to Rochelle, where she devoted her son to the defence of the Reformed religion. In that quality Henry, then prince of Beam, was declared chief of the party; and followed the army from that time to the peace, which was signed at St. Germains, August 11, 1570. He then returned to Beam, and made use of the quiet that was given him, to visit his estates and his government of Guyenne, after which he went and settled in Rochelle, with his mother.

The advantages granted to the Protestants by the peace of St. Germains, raised a suspicion in the breasts of their leaders, that the court of France was acting treacherously, and that in reality nothing else was intended by the peace, than to prepare for the most dismal tragedy that ever was acted and the truth was, that the queen dowager Catharine de Medicis, and her son Charles IX. being now convinced that the Protestants were too powerful to be subdued by force, were determined to extirpate them by stratagem. They, however, dissembled their intentions; and, during the whole year 1571, talked of nothing but faithfully observing the treaties of entering into a closer correspondence with the Protestants, and carefully preventing all occasions of rekindling the war. To remove all possible suspicion, the court of France proposed a marriage between Charles the IXth’s sister, and Henry prince of Beam; and feigned, at the same time, as if they would prepare a war against Spain, than which nothing could be more agreeable to Henry. These things, enforced with the appearance of great frankness and sincerity, entirely gained the queen of Navarre; who, though she continued irresolute for some months, yet yielded about the end of 1571, and prepared for the journey to Paris, as was proposed, in May 1572.

Sully’s father was one of those who doubted the sincerity of the court, and conceived such strong apprehensions, that when the report of the court of Navarre’s journey to Paris first reached him, he could not give credit to it. Firmly persuaded that the present calm won Id be of short continuance, he made haste to take advantage of it, and prepared to shut himself up with his effects in Rochelle, when every one else thought of leaving it. But the queen of Navarre having informed him of her design, and requested him to join her in her way to Vendome, he went, and took Sully, now in his twelfth year, along with him. He found a general security at Vendome, and an air of satisfaction on every face; to which, though he durst not object in public, yet he made remonstrances to some of the chiefs in private. These were considered as the effects of weakness and timidity; and therefore, not caring to seem wiser than persons of greater understandings, he seemed to incline to the general opinion. He went to Rosni, to put himself into a condition to appear at the magnificent court of France; but, before he went, presented his son to the prince of Beam, in the presence of the queen his mother, with great solemnity, and assurances of the most inviolable attachment. Sully did not return with his father to Rosni, but went to Paris in the queen of Navarre’s train. He applied himself closely to his studies, without neglecting to pay a proper court to the prince his master; and lived with a governor and a valet de chambre in a part of Paris where almost all the colleges stood, and continued there till the bloody catastrophe which happened soon after.

All the necessary measures having been taken, the ringing of the bells of St. Germain TAuxerrois for matins was the signal for beginning the slaughter. The admiral de Coiigni was first murdered by a domestic of the duke of Guise, the duke himself staying below in the court, and his body was thrown out of the window. (See Coligni.) The king, as Daniel relates, went to feast himself with the sight of it; and, when those that were with him took notice that it was somewhat offensive, is said to have used the reply of the Roman emperor Vitellius, “The body of a dead enemy always smells sweet.” All the domestics of the admiral were afterwards slain, and the slaughter was at the same time begun by the king’s emissaries in all parts of the city. Tavanes, a marshal of France, who had been page to Francis I. and was at that time one of the counsellors and confidants of Catharine de Medicis, ran through the streets of Paris, crying, “Let blood, let blood! bleeding is as good in the month of August, as in May!” Among the most distinguished of the Protestants that perished was Francis de la Rochefoucault; who having been at play part of the night with the king, and finding himself seized in bed by men in masques, thought they were the king and his courtiers, who came to divert themselves with him. During this carnage, Sully’s safety is thus accounted for by himself: “1 was in bed,” says he, “and awaked from sleep three hours after midnight by the sound of all the bells and the confused cries of the populace. My. governor, St. Julian, with my valet de chambre, went hastily out to know the cause; and I never afterwards heard more of these men, who, without doubt, were among the first that were sacrificed to the public fury. I continued alone in my chamber dressing myself, when in a few moments I saw my landlord enter, pale, and in the utmost consternation. He was of the reformed religion; and, having learned what the matter was, had consented to go to mass, to preserve his life, and his house from being pillaged. He came to persuade me to do the same, and to take me with him: I did not think proper to follow him, but resolved to try if I could gain the college of Burgundy, where I had studied; though the great distance between the house where I then was, and the college, made the attempt very dangerous. Having disguised myself in a scholar’s gown, I put a large prayer/-book under my arm, and went into the street. I was seized with horror inexpressible at the sight of the furious murderers; who, running from all parts, forced open the houses, and cried aloud, ‘ Kill! kill! massacre the Huguenots!’ The blood which I saw shed before my eyes, redoubled my terror. I fell into the midst of a body of guards; they stopped me, questioned me, and were beginning to use me ill, when, happily for me, the book that I carried was perceived, and served me for a passport. Twice after this 1 fell into the same danger, from which I extricated myself by the same good fortune. At last I arrived at the college of Burgundy, where a danger still greater than any I had yet met with awaited me. The porter having twice refused me entrance, I continued standing in the midst of the street, at the mercy of the furious murderers, whose numbers increased every moment, and who were evidently seeking for their prey; when it came into my mind to ask for La Faye, the principal of this college, a good man, by whom I was tenderly beloved. The porter, prevailed upon by some small pieces of money which I put into his hand, admitted me; and my friend carried me to his apartment, where two inhuman priests, whom I heard mention Sicilian vespers, wanted to force me from him, that they might cut me in pieces; saying, the order was, not to spare even infants at the breast. All the good man could do was to conduct me privately to a distant chamber, where he locked me up; and here I was confined three days, unceriain of my destiny, seeing no one but a servant of my friend, who came from time to time to bring me provision.”

Henry king of Navarre, who had been married to Charles the IXth’s sister bnt six days before, with the greatest solemnity and with all the marks of kindness and affection from the court, was awaked two hours before day by a great number of soldiers, who rushed boldly into a chamber in the Louvre, where he and the prince of Conde lay, and insolently commanded them to dress themselves, and attend the king. They would not suffer the two princes to take their swords with them, who, as they went, saw several of their gentlemen massacred before their eyes. This was contrived, doubtless, to intimidate them; and, with the same view, as Henry went to the king, the queers gave orders, that they should lead him under the vaults, and make him pass through the guards, drawn up in files on each side, and in menacing postures. He trembled, and recoiled two or three steps back; but the captain of the guards swearing that they should do him no hurt, he proceeded through, amidst carbines and halberts. The king waited for them, and received them with a countenance and eyes full of fury: he ordered them with oaths and blasphemies, which were familiar with him, to quit a religion, which he said had been taken up only for a cloke to their rebellion: he told them in a fierce and angry tone, “that he would no longer be contradicted in his opinions by his subjects; that they by their example should teach others to revere him as the image of God, and cease to be enemies to the images of his mother;” and ended by declaring, that “if they did not go to mass, he would treat them as Criminals guilty of treason against divine and human majesty.” The manner of pronouncing these words not suffering the princes to doubt the sincerity of them, they yielded to necessity, and performed what was required of them: and Henry was even obliged to send an edict into his dominions, by which the exercise of any other religion but the Romish was forbidden.

In the mean time the court sent orders to the governors in all the provinces, that the same destruction should be made of the Protestants there as had been at Paris; but many of them nobly refused to execute these orders; and the viscount d'Orthe had the courage to write from Bayonne to Charles IX. that, “he found many good soldiers in his garrison, but not one executioner: and begged him to command their lives in any service that was possible.” Yet the abettors and prime actors in this tragedy at Paris were wonderfully satisfied with themselves, and found much comfort in having been able to do so much for the cause of God and his church. Tavanes, mentioned above, who ran about the streets crying “Let blood! let blood!” being upon his death-bed, made a general confession of the sins of his life; after which his confessor saying to him with an air of astonishment, “Why! you speak not a word of St. Bartholomew;” he replied, “I look upon that as a meritorious action, which ought to atone for all the sins I have ever committed.” This is related by his son, who has written memoirs of him. The king himself must have supposed real merit to have been in it; for, not content with setting his seal and sanction to these detestable butcheries, he is credibly affirmed to have taken the carbine into his own hands, and to have shot at the poor Huguenots as they attempted to escape. The court of Rome did all they could to confirm the Parisians in this horrid notion: for though Pope Pius V. is said to have been so much afflicted at the massacre as to shed tears, yet Gregory XIII. who succeeded him, ordered a public thanksgiving to God for it to be offered at Rome, and sent a legate to congratulate Charles IX. and to exhort him to continue it. Father Daniel contents himself with saying, that the king’s zeal in his terrible punishment of the heretics was commended at Rome; and Baronius affirms the action to have been absolutely necessary. The French writers, however, have spoken of it in the manner it deserves; have represented it as the most wicked and inhuman devastation that ever was committed “an execrable action,” says one of them, Prefixe, “that never had, and I trust God will never have, its like.” Seventy thousand, according to Sully’s Memoirs, was the numberof Protestants massacred, during eight days, throughout the kingdom.

At the end of three days, however, a prohibition against murdering and pillaging any more of the Protestants was published at Paris; and then Sully was suffered to quit his cell in the college of Btirgundy. He immediately saw two soldiers of the guard, agents to his father, entering the college, who gave his father a relation of what had happened to him; and, eight days after, he received a letter from him, advising him to continue in Paris, since the prince he served was not at liberty to leave it and adding, that he should follow the prince’s example in going to mass. Though the king of Navarre had saved his life by this submission, yet in other things he was treated very indifferently, and suffered a thousand capricious insults. He was obliged, against his will, to stay some years at the court of France; he knew very well how to dissemble his chagrin 5 and he often diverted it by gallantries, and the lady de Sauves, wife to one of the secretaries of state, became one of his chief mistresses. But still he did not neglect such political measures as seemed practicable, and he had a hand in those that were formed to take away the government from Catharine de Medicis, and to expel the Guises from court which that queen discovering, caused him and the duke of Alengon to be arrested, set guards upon them, and ordered them to be examined upon many heinous allegations. They were set at liberty by Henry III. for Charles IX. died, 1574, in the most exquisite torments and horrors, the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s -day having been always in his mind. Sully employed his leisure in the most advantageous manner he was able. He found it impracticable in a court to pursue the study of the learned languages, or of any thing called learning; but the king of Navarre ordered him to be taught mathematics and history, and all those exercises which give ease and gracefulness to the person; that method of educating youth, with a particular attention to the formation of the manners, being peculiar to Henry, who was himself educated in the same way.

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

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

This change of religion in Henry IV. though it seemed to create a present satisfaction, did not secure him from continual plots and troubles and being made upon political motives, it was natural to suppose it not sincere. Thus, Dec. 26, 1594, a scholar, named John Chastel, attempted to assassinate the king, but only wounded him in the mouth; and when he was interrogated concerning the crime, readily answered, “That he came from the college of the Jesuits,” and then accused those fathers of having instigated him to it. The king, who was present at his examination, said with much gaiety, that “he had heard, from the mouths of many persons, that the society never loved him, and he was now convinced of it by his own.” Some writers have related, that this assassination was at* tempted when he was with the fair Gabrieile, his mistress, at the hotel d'Estrees; but Sully, who was with him, says that it was at Paris, in his apartments in the Louvre. This Gabriel le was the favourite mistress of Henry IV. and it is said that the king intended to marry her; but she died in 1599, the year that his marriage with Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX. was declared null and void by the pope’s commissioners, with consent of both parties. He married Mary of Medicis, at Lyons, the year after, and appointed madame de Guercheville, to whom he had made love without success, to be one of her ladies of honour; saying, that “since she was a lady of real honour, she should be in that post with the queen his wife.” Henry, though he was a great monarch, was not always successful in his addresses to the fair; and a noble saying is recorded by many writers of Catharine, sister to the viscount de Rohan, who replied to a declaration of gallantry from this prince, that “she was too poor to be his wife, and of too good a fau.ily to be his mistress.”

Sully was now the first minister; and he performed all the offices of a great and good minister, while Henry performed the offices of a great and good king. He attended to every part of the government; prosecuted extortioners, and those who were guilty of embezzling the public money; and, in short, restored the kingdom, in a few years, from, a most desperate to a most flourishing condition; which, however, he could not have done, if the king had not resolutely supported him against favourite mistresses, the cabals of court, and the factions of state, which would otherwise have overwhelmed him. The king himself turned his whole application to every thing that might be useful, or even convenient, to his kingdom, without suffering things that happened out of it to pass unobserved, as soon as he had put an end to the civil wars of France, and had concluded a peace with Spain at Vervins, on the 2d of May, 1598. The state of the finances of France was at thu time in a wretched situation, as many of the provinces were entirely exhausted, and none of them in a condition of bearing any new imposition. The standing revenues brought into the king’s coffers no more than thirty millions, though an hundred and fifty millions were raised on the people: so great were the abuses of that government in raising money; and they were not less in the dispensation of it. The whole scheme of the administration was a scheme of fraud, and all who served cheated the public, from the highest offices down to the lowest; from the commissioners of the treasury, down to the under farmers and under treasurers. Sully beheld this state of things, when he came to have the sole superintendency of affairs, with horror; he was ready to despair but zeal for his master and for his country animated his endeavours, and he resolved to make the reformation of abuses, the reduction of expences, and a frugal management, the fund for the payment of national debts, and for all the great things he intended to do, without overcharging the people. This plan fully succeeded. The people were immediately eased, trade revived, the king’s coffers were filled, a maritime power was created, and every thing necessary was prepared to put the nation in a condition of executing great designs, whenever great conjunctures should offer themselves. “Such,” says Bolingbroke, “was the effect of twelve years of wise and honest administration: and this effect would have shewed itself in great enterprises against the house of Austria, more formidable in these days than the house of Bourbon has been in ours, if Henry IV. had not been stabbed by one of those assassins, into whose hands the interest of this house, and the frenzy of religion, had put the dagger more than once.”

After the death of his master, by which he was greatly afflicted, Sully retired from court; for, a new reign introducing new men and new measures, he was no longer regarded. The life he led in retreat was accompanied with decency, grandeur, and even majesty; yet it was, in some measure, embittered with domestic troubles, arising from the extravagance and ill conduct of his eldest son, the marquis of Rosni. He died Dec. 22, 1641, aged eighty-three, and his duchess caused a statue to be erected over his burying-place, with this inscription: “Here lies the body of the most high, most puissant, and most illustrious lord, Maximilian de Bethune, marquis of Rosni, who shared in, all the fortunes of king Henry the Great; among which was that memorable battle, which gave the crown to the victor; where, by his valour, he gained the white standard, and took several prisoners of distinction. He was by that great monarch, in reward of his many virtues and distinguished merit, honoured with the dignities of duke, peer, and marshal of France, with the governments of the Upper and Lower Poitou, with the office of grand master of the ordnance; in which, bearing the thunder of his Jupiter, he took the castle of Montmelian, till then believed impregnable, and many other fortresses of Savoy. He was likewise made superintendant of the finances, which office he discharged singly, with a wise and prudent occonomy; and continued his faithful services till that unfortunate day, when the Caesar of the French nation lost his life by the hand of a parricide. After the lamented death of that great king, he retired from public affairs, and passed the remainder of his life in ease apd tranquillity. He died at the castle of Villebon, Dec. 22, 1641, aged 82.” Though he lived to such an age, no life could be more frequently exposed to perils than that of Sully. One of these was of a very extraordinary kind, and deserves to be particularly mentioned. It was at the taking of a town in Cambray, in 1581, when, to defend the women from the brutality of the soldiers, the churches, with gu.irds about them, were given them for asylums; nevertheless, d very beautiful young girl suddenly threw herself into the arms of Sully, as he was walking in the streets, and, holding him fast, conjured him to guard her from some soldiers, who, she said, had concealed themselves as soon as they saw him. Sully endeavoured to calm her fears, and offered to conduct her to the next church; but she tpld him she had been there, and had asked for admittance, which they refused, because they knew she had the plague. Sully thrust her from him with the utmost indignation as well as horror, and expected every moment to be seized with the plague, which, however, did not happen.

The character of Sully, as it was given by his master Henry IV. is thus preserved in his memoirs. “Some persons,” said Henry, “complain, and indeed 1 do myself, sometimes, of his temper. They say he is harsh, impatient, and obstinate: he is accused of having too enterprising a mind, of presuming too much upon his own opinions, exaggerating the worth of his own actions, and lessening that of others, as likewise of eagerly aspiringafter honours and riches. Now, although I am well convinced that part of these imputations are true, and that I am obliged to keep a high hand over him, when he offends me with those sallies of ill humour yet I cannot cease to love him, esteem him, and employ him in all affairs of consequence, because I am very sure that he loves my person, that he takes an interest in my preservation, and that he is ardently solicitous for the honour, the glory, and grandeur of me and my kingdom. I know also that he has no malignity in his heart; that he is indefatigable in business, and fruitful in expedients; he is a careful manager of my revenue, a man laborious and diligent, who endeavours to be ignorant of nothing, and to render himself capable of conducting all affairs, whether of peace or war; who writes and speaks in a style that pleases me, because it is at once that of a soldier and statesman. In a word, I confess to you, that, notwithstanding all his extravagances and little transports of passion, I find no one so capable as he is of consoling me under every uneasiness.”

, an ancient Roman poetess, the wife of Calenus, flourished about the year 90, and was so admired as to be thought worthy of the title of the Roman Sappho. We have nothing left of her but a satire, or rather fragment of a satire, against Domitian, who published a decree for the banishment of the philosophers from Rome. This satire was published at Strasburgh, with other poems, by G. Merula,! 509, 4to, and may be found in other collections, but has usually been printed at the end of the “Satires of Juvenal,” to whom, as well as to Ausonius, it has been attributed by some critics. Grainger likewise added it to his “Tibullus,” with a translation and notes. From the invocation it should seem, that she was the author of many other po.ems, and the first Roman lady who taught her sex to vie with the Greeks in poetry. Her language is easy and elegant, and she seems to have had a happy talent lor satire. She is mentioned by Martial and Sidonius Apollinans, and is said to have addressed to her husband Calenus, who was a Roman knight, “A poem on conjugal love,” but this is lost. Her satire has been reprinted by Wernsdorf in the third volume of the “Poetae Minores Latini,” where may be seen some useful remarks respecting her works.

, an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished about the beginning of the fifth century, was a disciple of St. Martin of Tours, whose life he has written; and friend of Pauliims, bishop of Nola, with whom he held a constant and intimate correspondence. He was illustrious for his birth, his eloquence, and still more for his piety and virtue. After he had shone with great lustre at the bar, he married very advantageously; but, losing his wife soon after, he quilted the world, and became a priest. He was born at Agen, in the province of Aquitain, which at that time produced the best poets, the best rhetoricians, and the best orators of the Roman empire, of those at least who wrote in Latin. He lived sometimes at Elisso, and sometimes at Toulouse. Some have affirmed, that he was bishop of the Bitu rices; but they have erroneously confounded him with another Severus Sulpicius, who was bishop of that people, and died at the end of the sixth century. Sulpicius lived till about the year 420. He is said to have been at one time seduced by the Pelagians; and that, returning to his old principles, he imposed a silence upon himself for the rest of his days, as the best atonement he could make for his error; but some think that this silence meant only his refraining from writing or controversy. The principal of his works was his “Historia Sacra,” in two books; in which he gives a succinct account of all the reroaikible things that passed in the Jewish or Christian churches, from the creation of the world to about the year 400. He wrote, also, the “Life of St. Martin,” as we have said already; “Three Letters upon the death and virtues of this saint;” and “Three Dialogues;” the first upon the miracles of the Eastern monks, and the two last upon the extraordinary qualities and graces of St. Martin. These, with seven other epistles never before printed with his works, were all revised, corrected, and published with notes, in a very elegant edition, by Le Clerc, at Leipsic, in 1709, 8vo. There is another by Jerom de Prato, printed at Venice in 1741—54, 2 vols. 4to, the text of which is thought the most correct. Sulpicius has a purity in his style, far beyond the age in which he lived. He has joined a very concise manner of expressing himself to a remarkable perspicuity, and in this has equalled even Sallust himself, whom he always imitates and sometimes quotes. He is not, indeed, correct throughout in his “History of the Church;” and is very credulous upon the point of miracles. He admits also several opinions, which have no foundation in Scripture; and he is in some instances defective, taking no notice, for example, of the reign of Julian, &c. His “Dialogues” contain many interesting particulars, respecting the manners and singularities of the Eastern monks; the disturbances which the books of Origen had occasioned in Egypt and Palestine, and other matters of some curiosity.

, denominated the founder of the Russian theatre, was the son of Peter Sumorokof, a Russian nobleman, and was born at Moscow November 14, 1727. He received the first rudiments of learning in his father’s house, where, besides a grammatical knowledge of his native tongue, he was well grounded in the Latin language. Being removed to the seminary of the cadets at St. Petersburg!*, he prosecuted his studies with unwearied application, and gave early proofs of his genius for poetry. Even on holidays he would retire from his companions, who were engaged in play, and devote his whole time to the perusal of the Latin and French writers: nor was it long before he himself attempted to compose. The first efforts of his genius were love-songs, whose tenderness and beauties, till then unexpressed in the Russian tongue, were greatly admired, and considered as certain prognostics of his future fame. Upon quitting the seminary, he was appointed adjutant, first to count Golovkin, and afterwards to count Rosomouski: and being soon noticed and patronized by count Ivan Shuvalof, he was introduced by that Maecenas to the empress Elizabeth, who took him under her protection. About the twenty-ninth year of his age, an enthusiastic fondness he had contracted for the works of Racine, turned his genius to the drama; and he wrote the tragedy of “Koref,” which laid the foundation of the Russian theatre. This piece was first acted by some of his former schoolmates, the cadets, who had previously exercised their talents in declamations, and in acting a French play. The empress Elizabeth, informed of this phenomenon in the theatrical world, ordered the tragedy to be exhibited in her presence, upon a small theatre of the court, where German, Italian, and French plays had been performed. The applause and distinction which the author received on this occasion, encouraged him to follow the bent of his genius, and he produced other tragedies, several comedies, and two operas. With respect to his tragedies, Racine was his model; and the Russian biographer of Sumorokof, who seems a competent judge of his merit, allows, that though in some instances he has attained all the excellence of the French poet, yet he has failed in many others; but it would be uncandid to insist upon such defects in a writer who first introduced the drama among his countrymen. The French overlook in their Corneille still greater faults. “His comedies,” continues the same author, “contain much humour; but I do not imagine that our dramatic writers will adopt him for their model: for he frequently excites the laughter of the spectator at the expence of his cooler judgment. Nevertheless, they present sufficient passages to prove, that he would have attained a greater degree of perfection in this line, if he had paid more attention to paint our manners, and to follow the taste of the best foreign writers.”

With respect to his disposition, says his biographer, it was amiable; but his extreme sensibility, an excellent quality in a poet when tempered with philosophy, occasioned that singularity and vehemence of character, which gave so much trouble and uneasiness to all his acquaintance, but particularly to himself. He was polite and condescending towards those who treated him with respect, but haughty to those who behaved to him with pride. He knew no deceit; he was a true friend, and an open enemy and coul neither forget an obligation nor an injury. Passionate, and frequently inconsiderate in his pursuits^ he could not bear the least opposition and oftentimes looked upon the most trifling circumstance as the greatest evil. His extraordinary fame, the many favours which the empress conferred upon him, with the indulgence and veneration of his friends, might have made him extremely fortunate, if he had understood the art of being so. He had conceived a great, perhaps too great, idea of the character and merits of a true poet; and could not endure to see with patience this noble and much-esteemed art, which had been consecrated by Homer, Virgil, and other great men, profaned by persons without judgment or abilities. These pretenders, he would say, shock the public with their nonsense in rhyme; and clothe their monstrous conceptions in the dress of the Muses. The public recoil from them with disgust and aversion; and, deceived by their appearance, treat with irreverence those children of heaven the true Muses. The examples of Lomonozof and Sumorokof have tended to diffuse a spirit of poetry, and a taste for polite learning, among the Russians; and they are succeeded bj a, numerous band of poets.

, an English divine of considerable abilities in controversy, was educated at Trinity-college, Cambridge, but of his early history we have no account. In 1586, he was installed archdeacon of Taunton, and on Oct. 22, 1588, confirmed dean of Exeter. He had been admitted a civilian in 1582. He died in 162U, leaving a daughter his heiress, who, Prince thinks, was married to the son and heir of the Halse family in Devonshire; and as the estates Dr. Sutcliffe left to Chelsea-college were in that country, it probably was his birth-place. He was esteemed a very learned writer in defence of the protestant establishment; but although long in favour with James I. upon that account, we find that this prince, in 1621, ordered him to be taken into custody for the freedom of his remarks upon public affairs. On the other hand Strype, in his life of Whitgift, has published a long letter from that eminent prelate to Beza, defending Sutcliffe against some disrespectful expressions used by the reformer. Among his works, may be noticed, 1. “A treatise of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” Loud. 1591, 4to. 2. “De Presbyterio, ejusque nova in Ecclesia Christiana Politeia,” the same year, 4to. 3. “De Turco-Papismo,” or, on the resemblance between Mahometanism and Popery, London, 1599, 4to. 4. “De Purgatorio, adversus Bellarminum,” the same year, 4to. 5. “De vera Christi Ecclesia,” 1600, 4to. 6. “De Missa, adversus Bellarminurn,” 1603, 4to. 7. “The Laws of Armes,” 1593, 4to. 8. lt Examination of Cartwright’s Apology," 1596, 4to; and many other works, enumerated in the Bodleian catalogue, of the controversial kind, against Beliarmin, Parsons, Garnet, and other popish propagandists.

At first the undertaking seemed attended with good omens: prince Henry was a zealous friend to it: the king consented to be deemed the founder, called the college after his own name, “King James’s college at Chelsea,” endowed it with the reversion of certain lands at Chelsea, which were fixed upon for its site, laid the first stone of the building, gave timber out of Windsor forest, issued his royal letters to encourage his subjects throughout the kingdom to contribute towards the completion of the structure; and as a permanent endowment, procured an act of parliament to enable the college to raise an annual rent, by supplying the City of London with water from the river Lea. It appears by the charter of incorporation, dated May 8, 1610, that the college consisted of a provost and twenty fellows, eighteen of whom were required to be in holy orders; the other two, who might be either laymen or divines, were to be employed in writing the annals of their times. Sutcliffe himself was the first provost; Camden and Haywood the first historians; and among the fellows we find the well-known names of Overall, Morton, Field, Ahbot, Howson, Spencer, Boys, &c. When a vacancy happened in any department, the successor was to he nominated and recommended by the vice-chancellor and heads of colleges in the two universities, and approved by the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor or' each university, and the bishop of London. The charter granted th college the power of using a common seal; various privileges and immunities, and licence to possess lands in mortmain to the value of 3000l. per ann.

With these good omens Dr. Sutcliflfe began to erect the college at his own expence, and built one side of the first quadrangle: “which long ran g6 alone (says Fuller) made not of free-stone, though of free-timber, cost, O the dearness of college and church work! full three thousand pounds.” Such was the progress of the work at SutclihVs death, who, by his will, dated Nov. I, 1628, bequeathed to the college the greater part of his estates, consisting of lands in Devonshire, the benefit of an extent on sir Lewis Stukeley’s estates valued at more than 3000l., a share in the great Neptune (a ship at Whitby in Yorkshire), at enement at Stoke Rivers, and other premises; all his books and goods in the college, and a part of his library at Exeter; but all these bequests were subject to this proviso, “if the work of the college should not be hindered.”

The total failure of pecuniary resources soon proved a very effectual hindrance to any farther progress in this undertaking. The national attention had been so much engaged by the extensive repairs of St. Paul’s cathedral, that the college saw little hopes of success from the circulation of the king’s letters for the purpose of promoting a public contribution; and at the time of his death no collections had been made under their sanction. The success of sir Hugh Middleton’s project for supplying London with water, which took place the very year after the act of parliament in favour of the college, and the total inability of its members to avail themselves of the privileges they enjoyed, for want of money to carry on *nch an undertaking, destroyed all hopes of advantage from that source. Of all Dr. SutclinVs benefactions, the college never possessed mo than a house and premises, worth about 34/ per annu the greater part of which was expended in repairs. After Sutcliffe’s death, Dr. Featly (see Featly), who was recommended by the dean as his successor, became provost; but so little was the original intention of the institution regarded, even at this early period, that one Richard Dean, a young merchant, was made one of the fellows. Such was the state of the foundation, when the court of chancery, in 1631, decreed that Dr. Sutcliffe’s estates should revert to the right heirs, upon their paying to the college the sum of 340l. Under these difficulties, which were afterwards increased by a dispute with lord Monson about the lease of the land on which the college stood, no farther progress, it may be supposed, was ever made in the building. That part which was already completed, consisted of a library, and a few rooms, occupied by the provost and twjp, fellows. For the subsequent reverses which this project met with, as they are not connected with the subject of our memoir, we refer to our authorities. On the site is now the Royal Hospital for soldiers.

His father Richard Sutton, steward of the courts in Lincoln, died in that city in 1558, and his son, on his return home in 1562, found himself in possession of considerable property. He was now about thirty years of age, and reckoned an accomplished gentleman. He was first retained by the duke of Norfolk, whose favours he acknowledges in his will by a legacy of 400l.; and afterwards became secretary to the earl of Warwick, and occasionally also to his brother the earl of Leicester. In 1569, the earl of Warwick being master-general of the ordnance, appointed Mr. Sutton master of the ordnance -at Berwick, a post of great trust at that time, Berwick being a frontier garrison to Scotland. In this situation he distinguished himself much on the breaking out of the rebellion in the north by the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland; and by the recommendation of his two patrons, he obtained a patent the same year for the office of master-general of the ordnance in the north, for life; and in 1573, he commanded one of the five batteries, which obliged the strong castle of Edinburgh to surrender to the English. It is probable, that, as master-tyeneral of the ordnance, he attended the earl of Sussex, president of the North, into Scotland, with an army in 1570, though he is not expressly named in Camden’s annals for that year. But in 1573, he is named as one of the chief of those 1500 men who marched into Scotland to the assistance of the regent, the earl of Morton, by order of queen Elizabeth, and laid siege to Edinburgh castle.

The disposition of his great property towards some charitable purpose seems now to have engrossed all his thoughts. Fuller gives it as a well-authenticated fact, that “Mr. Sutton used often to repair into a private garden, where he poured forth his prayers to God, and was frequently overheard to use this expression, * Lord, thou hast given me a large and liberal estate, give me also a heart to make use thereof.'” A man of his property, hesitating only how he was to dispose of it in his life-time, could not be long without advisers. It appears indeed to have been a general topic of curiosity, in what manner Mr. Sutton would bestow his wealth, and in 1608 a very singular instance of impertinent interference occurred. At that time a report was spread that he meant to leave his vast property to the duke of York, afterwards Charles I.; and in order to confirm him in this resolution, a peerage was to be offered to him. This report, and the mean trick of the peerage, so revolting to an independent mind, he traced to sir John Harrington, who defended himself but weakly. The matter, however, rested there. Among advisers of a better kind, was the pious and worthy Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich, who wrote to him a long letter, exciting him to come to some determination respecting his intended charity. This probably was successful, as it certainly was acceptable, for soon after the receipt of it, he abandoned his design of building an hospital in Essex, and purchased of the earl of Suffolk, Howard- house, the late dissolved Charter-house near Smithfield, for the sum of 13,000l. and upon that in 1611 founded the present hospital, and endowed it with the bulk of his property. He intended to have been himself the first master, but soon after the foundation, being seized with a slow fever, and perceiving his end to approach, he executed a deed, nominating the Rev. John Hutton, vicar of Littlebury in Essex, to that office. He died at Hackney Dec. 12, 1611, and was interred with great magnificence in the chapel of the Charter-house, where a monument was erected to his memory. At his death he was the richest untitled suhject in the kingdom, having in land 5000l. a year, and in money upwards of 60,000l. His will contains many individual legacies of the charitable kind. Soon after his death, his nephew, Simon Baxter, to whom he left an estate worth 10,000l. and 300l. in money, all which he squandered away, made an ineffectual attempt to set aside the will; the matter was brought to a fair hearing, and in 1613 it was determined that the foundation, incorporation, and endowment of the hospital was sufficient, good, and effectual in law. This attempt of Baxter’s was much censured at the time, and it is to be regretted that much of the odium fell on sir Francis (afterward lord) Bacon, then solicitor-general, who was his chief adviser.

, or, as pronounced, Suvoroff, Rimnikski (Count Alexander), an eminent Russian general, of an ancient Swedish family, was born in 1730, or as some think in 1732, and was originally intended for the profession of the law. His inclinations, however, leading him to the army, he entered as a private in 1742, and in 1754 had attained the rank of lieutenant. He made his first campaign in the seven years war against the Prussians in 175.9, and entered upon actual service under prince Wolgon>ki. He marched against the Prussians with the rank of first major and was at the battle of Kimnersdorf, and at the taking of Berlin. He this campaign signalized himself by many acts of valour, until the year 1762, when a truce was made between Prussia and Russia, which was followed by a peace. Although he was attached to the infantry service, count Romanzow presented him at the general promotion as colonel of cavalry; from his superior knowledge in that department of the army; but there were certain obstacles which caused that line of promotion to be abandoned. Soon after, the count Panin, who commanded in Pomerania, sent him to Petersburgh with an account of the return oi the troops. On this occasion he gave him a special letter of recommendation to the empress, who presented him a colonel’s commission, written with her own hand.

The confederates soon after surprized Cracow, which obliged Suworrow to hasten and blockade the place. After some time it capitulated. On this occasion he shewed his magnanimity to Mods. Choisi, one of the French officers, to whom he said, on being offered his sword, “I cannot receive the sword of a gallant man in the service of a king, who is the ally of my own sovereign.” Tranquillity was soon after restored to Poland, where Suworrow served during four years without interruption. Independent of the numerous inferior actions and multiplied skirmishes, in which his courage was always displayed, and his military capacity never failed to appear; he was covered with glory by the victory of Stalowiz and the capture of Cracow: which gave the promise of that brilliant career that he afterwards run.

His next memorable exploit was the taking of Ismailow in 1790, which he accomplished after a most furious assault in about eleven hours. In this dreadful space of time, the Ottomans lost 33,000 men killed or dangerously wounded: 10,000 who were taken prisoners: besides 6000 women and children, and 2000 Christians of Moldavia, who fell in the general massacre. The plunder was immense; but Suworrow, who was inaccessible to any views of private interest, did not appropriate to himself a single article, not so much as a horse, of which about 10,000, many extremely beautiful, were found in the place. Having, according to his custom, rendered solemn thanks to God for his victory, he wrote to prince Potemkin the following Spartan letter “The Russian colours wave on the ramparts of Ismailow.”

Peace being concluded with the Turks in December 1791, no political events occurred from that period to call forth the military talents of Suworrow till 1794, when he was sent to disarm the Poles in Red Russia, as a step towards the partition of Poland then concerted between the empress, the emperor, and the king f of Prussia. He afterwards stormed and took Praja, with immense slaughter, and Warsaw having consequently capitulated, the kingdom of Poland was overturned. Suworrow’s character has suffered by the conduct of the taking of Praja as well as that of Ismailow; but it is not our purpose to enter into a discussion on the subject, still less on the policy of the partition of Poland. Suworrow never appears to have entered into the niceties of political deliberation. He was a mere soldier who obeyed the commands of his superiors, and we have every reason to think, tempered them with as much lenity as the difficult circumstances in which he was frequently placed, would admit. For his services in Poland, the empress advanced him to the rank of field-marshalgeneral, loaded him with jewels, and presented him with an estate of 7000 peasants, in the district of Kubin, which had been the scene of his first battle in the course of this campaign.

From the subjugation of Poland we hear little more of Suworrow, until he entered upon his career in Italy, when the emperor Paul, who had succeeded his mother on the throne of Russia, joined in the confederacy against France in 1799. He assumed the command of the combined army of Russians and Austrians, and such was his success that the French lost, one after another, all the principal towns in the north of Italy, and were defeated in the bloody battle of Novi. After that action, Suworrow crossed the Alps, and marched into Swisserland, driving the French from mount St. Gothard. But here his gallant career was interrupted by the defeat of another division of the Russians, who were attacked by the French general Massena near Zurich, and obliged to cross the Rhine into Germany. This disaster, with the failure of the expected aid from the Austrians, obliged Suworrow, who was opposed by Moreau, to commence a fighting retreat towards the lake of Constance; and after prodigious exertions of valour, he arrived there with a much diminished army, and effected a junction with the remainder of the troops that had been defeated by Massena, He was now recalled home, and under the pressure of fatigue, vexation, and fever, reached Petersburgh, where he soon fell into a childish state, and died May 18, 1300. His capricious master is said to have displayed his resentment by refusing the usual military honours to his remains, and even deprived his son of his rank of major-general. The present emperor Alexander, however, repaired this injustice to the memory of an officer so brave and faithful, by erecting his statue in the imperial gardens. Another account says that Paul, although he endeavoured to disgrace Suworrow at the end of his life, ordered him a magnificent funeral.

He was sincerely attached to the religion of his country, and a strict observer of its rites, which he equally strictly enjoined on all under his command. His biographer assures us that from his earliest years he was enamoured of the sciences, and improved himself in them; but as the military science was the sole object of his regard, those authors of every nation who investigate, illustrate, or improve it, engrossed his literary leisure. Hence Cornelius Nepos was with him a favourite classic; and he read, with great avidity and attention, the histories of Montecuculi and Turenne. Caesar, however, and Charles XII. wore the heroes whom he most admired, and whose activity and courage became the favourite objects of his imitation. The love of his country, and the ambition to contend in arms for its glory, were the predominant passions of his active life; and to them he sacrificed every inferior sentiment, am) consecrated all the powers of his body and mind.

The arcana of anatomy now exciting his curiosity, one of his first objects was to consider how the parts of the body, prepared by dissection, could be preserved in a state for anatomical demonstration; and in this he succeeded, as he had done before in his nicer contrivances to dissect and prepare the minutest insects. After this, he made a journey into France, where he spent some time at Saumur with Tanaquil Faber, and made a variety of observations upon insects. From Saumur he went to Paris, in 1664, where he lived in the same house with his friend Steno. He likewise contracted an intimacy with Thevenot, who strenuously recommended him to Conrad Van Beuningen, a senator and burgomaster of Amsterdam, and at that time that republic’s minister at the court of France: Beuningen obtained leave for Svvammerdam, at his return home, to dissect the bodies of such patients as should happen to die in the hospital of that city.

He returned to Leyden to take his degrees; and took the occasion of his stay there to cultivate a friendship with Van Home, who had been formerly his preceptor in anatomy. It was at this time, Jan. 1667, that in Van Home’s house, Swammerdam first injected the uterine vessels of a humaa subject with ceraceous matter, which most useful art he afterwards brought to great perfection. In February the same year, he was admitted to his degree as doctor or physic, after having publicly maintained his thesis on respiration; which was then conceived only in short and contracted arguments, but appeared soon after with considerable additions, with a dedication to Thevenot. It was thus that Swammerdam cultivated anatomy with the greatest art and labour, in conjunction with Van Home; but a quartan ague, which attacked him this year, brought him so very low, that he found himself under a necessity of discontinuing these studies; which, on his recovery, he entirely neglected, in order to give himself up to his favourite pursuit of entomology.

In 1668, the grand duke of Tuscany being then in Holland with Mr. Thevenot, in order to see the curiosities of the country, carne to view those of Swammerdam and his father; and on this occasion, our author dissected some insects in the presence of that prince, who was struck with admiration at his uncommon dexterity in handling those minute objects, and especially at his proving, that the future butterfly lies with all its parts neatly folded up in a caterpillar; by actually removing the integuments that cover the former, and extricating and exhibiting all its parts, however minute, with incredible ingenuity, and by means of instruments of an inconceivable fineness. On this occasion his highness offered him 12,OOu florins for his share of the collection, provided he would remove them into Tuscany, and live at the court of Florence; but Swammerdam, from religious motives, as well as a dislike of a court life, declined the proposal. He now continued his researches into the nature and properties of insects, and in 1669, he published a general history of them, a work which afterwards proved the lasting monument of his talents. But, in the mean time his father resenting his neglect of his profession, endeavoured to recall him to it by refusing him any pecuniary aid. This induced him at last to promise to resume his profession; but, as he had injured his health by the closeness of his studies, a retirement to the country for some time was requisite that he might recover his strength, and return to his business with new force and spirits. He was, however, scarcely settled in his country retirement, when, in 1670, he relapsed into his former occupation. Thevenot, in the mean time, informed of the disagreement between Swammerdam and his lather, did all that lay in his power to engage the former to retire into France, and probably some amicable arrangement might have been made, had not Swammerdam, in 1673, formed a connection with the then famous Antonia Bourignon, and became totally absorbed in all her mysticism and devout reveries. After this he grew altogether careless of the pursuits in which he had so much delighted, and withdrew himself in a great measure from the world, and followed and adopted all the enthusiasms of Antonia. In this persuasion he neglected his person, wasted away to the figure of a skeleton by his various acts of mortification, and died at Amsterdam in 1680.

The works of this celebrated anatomist and naturalist, are, 1. “Tractatus Physico-Anatomico-Medicus de Respiratione,” Leyden, 1667, 1677, and 1679, in 8vo, and 1738, 4to. 2. “General History of Insects,” Utrecht, 1669, 4to, in Dutch, but published there in 1685, 4to, in French, and at Leyden, in Latin, 1685, with fine engravings. 3. “Miraculuai Naturae, seu, nteri rnuliebris fetbrica,” Leyden, 1672, 1679, 1717, 1729, 4to, with plates. He was impelled to this publication by Van Home, who had claimed some of his discoveries. 4. “Historia Insectorum generalis; adjicitur dilucidatio, qua specialia cujusvis ordinis exempla figuris accuratissime, tarn naturali magnitudine, quam ope microscopii aucta, illustrantur,” Leyd. 1733, 4to. This translation of his history of insects is by Henninius, but the best edition of this valuable work is that which appeared at Leyden in 1737, 2 vols. folio, under the title “Biblia Naturae, sive, Historia Insectorum in classes certas redncta, &c.” The learned owe this to Boerhaave, for the manuscript having been left by the author to his executors, had been handed about till it was difficult to be traced. Of this an English translation was published in 1757, folio, by sir John Hill and others, and with Boerhaave’s plates.

, an illustrious English wit, and justly celebrated also for his political knowledge, was descended from a very ancient family, and born Nov. 30, 1667. His grandfather, Mr. Thomas Swift, was vicar of Goodrich in Herefordshire, and married Mrs. Elizabeth Dryden, aunt of Dryden the poet; by whom he had six sons, Godwin, Thomas, Dryden, William, Jonathan, and Adam. Thomas was bred at Oxford, but died young; Godwin was a barrister of Gray’s-inn; and William, Dryden, Jonathan, and Adam, were attornies. Godwin having married a relation of the old marchioness of Ormond, the old duke of Ormond made him attorney-general in the palatinate of Tipperary in Ireland. Ireland was at this time almost without lawyers, the rebellion having converted men of all conditions into soldiers. Godwin, therefore, determined to attempt the acquisition of a fortune in that kingdom, and the same motive induced his four brothers tO'go with him. Jonathan, at the age of about twenty-three, and before he went to Ireland, married Mrs. Abigail Erick, a gentlewoman of Leicestershire; and about two years after left her a widow with one child, a daughter, and pregnant with another, having no means of subsistence but an annuity of 20l. which her husband had purchased for her in England, immediately after his marriage. In this distress she was taken into the family of Godwin, her husband’s eldest brother; and there, about seven months after his death, delivered of a son, whom she called Jonathan, in remembrance of his father, and who was afterwards the celebrated dean of St. Patrick’s.

It happened, by whatever accident, that Jonathan was not suckled by his mother, but by a nurse, who was a native of Whitehaven and when he was about a year old, her affection for him was become so strong, that, finding it necessary to visit a sick relation there, she carried him with her, without the knowledge of his mother or uncle. At this place he continued about three years; for, when the matter was discovered, his mother sent orders not to hazard a second voyage, till he should be better able to benr it. Mrs. Swift, about two years after her husband’s death, quitted the family of Mr. Godwin Swift in Ireland, and retired to Leicester, the place of her nativity; but her son was again carried to Ireland by his nurse, and replaced under the protection of his uncle Godwin. It has been generally believed, that Swift was born in England; and, when the people of Ireland displeased him, he has been heard to say, “I am not of this vile country; I am an Englishman:” but this account of his birth is taken from one which he left behind him, in his own hand-writing Some have also thought, that he was a natural son of sir William Temple, because sir William expressed a particular regard for him; but that was impossible; for sir WilJiam was resident abroad in a public character from 1665 to 1670; and his mother, who was never out of the British dominions, brought him into the world in 1667.

At about six years of age, he was sent to the school of Kilkenny, and having continued there eight years, he was admitted a student of Trinity college in Dublin*. Here applying himself to books of history and poetry, to the neglect of academic learning, he was, at the end of four years, refused his degree of bachelor of arts for insufficiency; and was at last admitted speciali gratia, which is there considered as the highest degree of reproach and dishonour. Stung with the disgrace, he studied eight hours a day, for seven years following. He commenced these studies at the university of Dublin, where he continued them three years; and during this time he drew up the first sketch of his “Tale of a Tub;” for Wassendon Warren, esq. a gentleman of fortune near Belfast in Ireland, wha was chamber- fellow with Swift, declared that he then saw a copy of it in Swift’s own hand-writing. In 1688, his uncle Godwin was seized with a lethargy, and soon after was deprived both of his speech and memory: by which accident Swift being left without support, took a journey to Leicester, that he might consult with his mother what course of life to pursue. At this time sir William Temple was in high reputation, and honoured with the confidence and familiarity of king William. His father sir John Temple, had been master of the Rolls in Ireland, and contracted an intimate friendship with Godwin Swift, which continued till his death; and sir William, who inherited his title and estate, had married a lady to whom Mrs. Swift was related: she therefore advised her son to communicate his situation to sir William, and solicit his direction what to do. Sir William received him with great kindness, and Swift’s first visit continued two years. Sir William had been ambassador and mediator of a general peace at Nimeguen before the Revolution; in which character he became known to the prince of Orange, who frequently visited him at Sheen, after his arrival in England, and took his advice in affairs of the utmost importance. Sir William being then lame with the gout, Swift used to attend his majesty in the walks about the garden, who admitted him to such a familiarity, that he shewed him how to cut asparagus after the Dutch manner, and once offered to make him a captain of horse; but Swift had fixed his mind upon an ecclesiastical life.

About this time a bill was brought into the house for triennial parliaments, to which the king was very averse; but sent, however, to consult sir William Temple, who soon afterwards sent Swift to Kensington with the whole account in writing, to convince the king how ill he was advised. This was Swift’s first embassy to court, who, though he understood English history, and the matter in hand very well, yet did not prevail. Soon after this transaction, he was seized with the return of a disorder, which he had contracted in Ireland by eating a great quantity of fruit, and which afterwards gradually increased, though with irregular intermissions, till it terminated in a total debility of body and mind.

His resolution was now to take orders; and he soon after obtained a recommendation to lord Capel, then lord deputy of Ireland, who gave him the prebend of Kilroot, in the diocese of Connor, worth about 100l. per annum. But sir William, who had been used to the conversation of Swift, soon found that he could not be content to live without him; and therefore urged him to resign his prebend in favour of a friend, promising to obtain preferment for him in England, if he would return. Swift consented; and sir William was so much pleased with this act of kindness, that during the remainder of his life, which was about four years, his behaviour was such as produced the utmost harmony between them. Swift, as a testimony of his friendship and esteem, wrote the “Buttle of the Books,” of which sir William is the hero; and sir William, when he died, left him a pecuniary legacy, and his posthumous works.

Upon the death of sir William Temple, Swift applied, by petition to king William, for the- first vacant prebend of Canterbury or Westminster, for which the royal promise had been obtained by his late patron, whose posthumous works he dedicated to his majesty, to facilitate the success of that application. But it does not appear, that, after the death of sir William, the king took the least notice of Swift. After this he accepted an invitation from the earl of Berkeley, appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, to attend him as chaplain and private secretary; but he was soon removed from this post, upon a pretence that it svas not fit for a clergyman. This disappointment was presently followed by another; for when the deanery of Derry became vacant, and it was the earl of Berkeley’s turn to dispose of it, Swift, instead of receiving it as an atonement for his late usage, was put off with the livings of Laracor and Rathbeggin, in the diocese of Meath, which together did not amount to half its value. He went to reside at Laracor, and performed the duties of a parish priest with the utmost punctuality and devotion. He was, indeed, always very devout, not only in his public and solemn addresses to God, but in his domestic and private exercises i and yet, with all this piety in his heart, he could not forbear indulging the peculiarity of his humour, when an opportunity offered, whatever might be the impropriety of the time and place. Upon his coming to Laracor, he gave public notice, that he would read prayers on Wednesdays and Fridays, which had not been the cus-> torn; and accordingly the bell was rung, and he ascended the desk. But, having remained some time with no other auditor than his clerk Roger, he began, “Dearly beloved Roger, the Scripture moveth you and me in sundry places;” and so proceeded to the end of the service. Of the same kind was his race with Dr. Raymond, vicar of Trim, soon after he was made dean of St. Patrick’s. Swift had dined one Sunday with Raymond, and when the bells had done ringing for evening prayers, “Raymond,” says Swift, “I will lay you a crown, that I begin prayers before you this afternoon.” Dr. Raymond accepted the wager, and immediately both ran as fast as they could to the church. Raymond, the nimbler of the two, arrived first at the door, and when he entered the church, walked decently towards the reading-desk: Swift never slackened his pace, but running up the aite, left Raymond behind him, and stepping into the desk, without putting on the surplice, or opening the book, began the service in an audible voice, During Swift’s residence at Laracor, he invited to Ireland a lady whom he has celebrated by the name of Stella. With this lady he became acquainted while he lived with sir William Temple: she was the daughter of his steward, whose name was Johnson; and sir William, when he died, left her 1000l. in consideration of her father’s faithful services. At the death of sir William, which happened in 1699, she was in the sixteenth year of her age; and it was about two years afterwards, that at Swift’s invitation she Jeft England, accompanied by Mrs. Dingley, a lady who was fifteen years older, and whose whole fortune, though she was related to sir William, was no more than an annuity of 27l. Whether Swift at this time desired the company of Stella as a wife, or a friend, it is not certain: but the reason which she and her companion then gave for their leaving England was, that in Ireland the interest of money was higher, and provisions were cheap. But, whatever was Swift’s attachment to Miss Johnson, every possible precaution was taken to prevent scandal: they never lived in the same house; when Swift was absent, Miss Johnson and her friend resided at the parsonage; when he returned, they removed either to his friend Dr. Raymond’s, or to a lodging; neither were they ever known to meet but in the presence of a third person. Swift made frequent excursions to Dublin, and some to London: but Miss Johnson was buried in solitude and obscurity; she was known only to a few of Swift’s most intimate acquaintance, and had no female companion except Mrs. Dingley.

In 1710, being then in England, he was empowered by the primate of Ireland, to solicit the queen to release the clergy from paying the twentieth part and first-fruits; and upon this occasion his acquaintance with Mr. Hariey commenced. As soon as he had received the primate’s instructions, he resolved to apply to Mr. Hariey; and, before he waited on him, got himself represented as a person who had been ill used by the last ministry, because he would not go such lengths as they would have had him. Mr. Hariey received him with the utmost kindness and respect; kept him with him two hours alone; engaged in, and soon after accomplished his business bid him come often to see him privately and toldhim, that he must bring him to the knowledge of Mr. St. John. Swift presently became acquainted with the rest of the ministers, who appear to have courted and caressed him with uncommon assiduity. He dined every Saturday at Mr. Harley’s, with the lord keeper, Mr. secretary St. John, and lord Rivers: on that day no other person was for some time admitted; but this select company was at length enlarged to sixteen, all men of the first class, Swift included. From this time he supported the interest of his new friends with all his power, in pamphlets, poems, and periodical papers: his intimacy with them was so remarkable, that he thought not only to defend, but in some degree to direct their measures; and such was his importance in the opinion of the opposite party, that many speeches were made against him in both houses of parliament: a reward was also offered, for discovering the author of " The Public Spirit of the Whigs/*

Amidst all the business and honours that crowded upon him, he wrote every day an account of what occurred, to Stella; and sent her a journal regularly, dated every fort* night, during the whole time of his connection with queen Anne’s ministry. From these unrestrained effusions of -his heart many particulars are known, which would otherwise have lain hid; and by these it appears, that he was not only employed, but trusted, even by Hariey himself, who to all others was reserved and mysterious. In the mean time, Swift had no expectations of advantage from his con* nection with these persons; he knew they could not long preserve their power: and he did not honour it while it lasted, on account of the violent measures which were pursued by both sides. “I use the ministry,' 1 says he,” like dogs, because I expect they will use me so. I never knew a ministry do anything for those whom they made companions of their pleasures; but I care not.“In the summer of 1711, he foresaw the ruin of the ministry by those misunderstandings among themselves, which at last effected it; and it was not only his opinion, but their own, that if they could not carry a peace, they must soon be sent to the Tower, even though they should agree. In order therefore to facilitate this great event, Swift wrote the” Conduct of the Allies;“a piece, which he confesses cost him much pains, and which succeeded even beyond his expectations. It was published Nov. 27, 1711; and in two months time above 11,000 were sold off, seven editions having been printed in England, and three in Ireland. The tory members in both houses, who spoke, drew their arguments from it; and the resolutions, which were printed in the votes, and would never have passed but for this pamphlet, were little more than quotations from it. From this time to 1713, he exerted himself with unwearied diligence in the service of the ministry; and while he was at Windsor, just at the conclusion of the peace of Utrecht, he drew the first sketch of” An history of the four last years of queen Anne." This he afterwards finished, and came into England to publish it, but was dissuaded from it by lord Bolingbroke, who told him, the whole was so much in the spirit of party-writing, that though it might have made a seasonable pamphlet in the time of their administration, it. would be a dishonour to just history. Swift seems to have been extremely fond of this work, by declaring that it was the best thing he had ever written; but, since his friend did not approve it, he would cast it into the fire. It did not, however, undergo this fate, but was published by Dr. Lucas, to the disappointment of all those who expected any thing great from it.

Before we attend Swift to Ireland, it is necessary to give a little history of his Vanessa, because his connections with her were made in England. Among other persons with whom he was intimately acquainted during the gay part of his life, was Mrs. Vanhomrigh. She was a lady of good family in Ireland, and became the wife of Mr. Vanhomrigh, first a merchant of Amsterdam, then of Dublin, where he was raised by king William, upon his expedition into Ireland, to very great places. Dying in 1703, he left two sons and two daughters; but the sons soon after dying, his whole fortune, which was considerable, fell to the daughters. In 1709, the widow and the two young ladies came to England, where they were visited by persons of the first quality; and Swift, lodging near them, used to be much there, coming and going without any ceremony, as if he had been one of the family. During this familiarity, he became insensibly a kind of preceptor to the young ladies, particularly the eldest, who was then about twenty years old, was much addicted to reading, and a great admirer of poetry. Hence admiring, as was natural, such a character as that of Swift, she soon passed from admiration to love; and, urged a little perhaps by vanity, which would have been highly gratified by an alliance with the first wit of the age, she ventured to make the doctor a proposal of marriage. He affected at fust to believe her 'in jest, then to rally her on so whimsical a choice, and at last to put her off without absolute refusal; and, while he was in this situation, he wrote the poem called “Cadenus and Vanessa.” It was written in 1713, a short time before he left Vanessa and the rest of his friends in England, and returned to the place of his exile, as he used frequently to call it. In 1714, Mrs. Vanhomrigh died and, having lived very expensively, left some debts, which it not being convenient for her daughters, who had also debts of their own, to pay at present, to avoid an arrest they followed the dean into Ireland.

The first remarkable event of his life, after his settlement at the deanery, was his marriage to Mrs. Johnson, after a most intimate friendship of more than sixteen years. This was in 1716; and the ceremony was performed by Dr. Ashe, then bishop of Clogher, to whom the dean had been a pupil in Trinity college, Dublin. But, whatever were the motives to this marriage, the dean and the lady continued to live afterwards just in the same manner as they had lived before. Mrs. Dingley was still the inseparable companion of Stella wherever she went; and she never resided at the deanery, except when the dean had his fits of giddiness and deafness. Till this time he had continued his visits to Vanessa, who preserved her reputation and friends, and was visited by many persons of rank, character, and fortune, of both sexes but now his visits were less frequent. In 1717 her sister died; and the whole remains of the family fortune centering in Vanessa, she retired to Selbridge, a small house and estate about twelve miles from Dublin, which had been purchased by her father. From this place she wrote frequently to the dean; and he answered her letters: she pressed him to marry her, but he rallied, and still avoided a positive denial. She pressed him still more, either to accept or refuse her as a wife; upon which he wrote an answer, and delivered it with his own hand. The receipt of this, which probably communicated the fatal secret of his marriage with Stella, the unhappy lady did not survive many weeks; she was, however, sufficiently composed to cancel a will she had made in the dean’s favour, and to make another, in which she left her fortune to her two executors, Dr. Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne, and Mr. Marshall, one of the king’s Serjeants at law.

From 1716 to 1720, is a chasm in the dean’s life which it has been found difficult to fill up; lord Orrery thinks, with great reason, that he employed this time upon “Gulliver’s Travels.” This work is. a moral and political romance, in which Swift had exerted the strongest efforts of a fine irregular genius: but while his imagination and wit delight, it is hardly possible not to be sometimes offended with his satire, which sets not only all human actions, but human nature itself, in the worst light. The truth is, Swift’s disappointments had rendered him splenetic and angry with the whole world; and he frequently indulged himself in a misanthropy that is intolerable: he has done so particularly in some parts of this work. About this time the dean, who had already acquired the character of a humourist and wit, was first regarded, with general kindness, as the patriot of Ireland. He wrote “A proposal for the use of Irish manufactures,” which made him very popular; the more so, as it immediately raised a violent flame, so that a prosecution was commenced against the printer. In 1724 he wrote the “Drapier’s Letters,” those brazen monuments of his fame, as lord Orrery calls them. A patent having been iniquitously procured by one Wood to coin 180,0001. in copper, for the use of Ireland, by which he would have acquired exorbitant gain, and proportionably impoverished the nation; the dean, in the character of a draper, wrote a series of letters to the people, urging them not to receive this copper money. These letters united the whole nation in his praise, filled every street with his effigy, and every voice with acclamations; and Wood, though supported for some time, was at length compelled to withdraw his patent, and his money was totally suppressed . Prom this time the dean’s influence in Ireland was almost without bounds: he was consulted in whatever related to domestic policy, and particularly to tra/le. The weavers always considered him as their patron and legislator, after his proposal for the use of the Irish manufactures; and when elections were depending for the city of Dublin, many corporations refused to declare themselves till they knew his sentiments and inclinations. Over the populace he was the most absolute monarch that ever governed; and he was regarded by persons of every rank with veneration and esteem.

Who gladly would your sufferings share."

The most inexcusable part of Swift T s conduct certainly appears in this unhappy affair, for which no proper apology can be made; and which the vain attempts of his friends have only tended to aggravate . One attributes his singular conduct to a peculiarity in his constitution; but, if he knew that he was unfit to enter into the married state, how came he to unite one lady to himself by the ceremony of marriage, and explicitly to declare his passion to the other? What can we think also of the sensibility of a man, who, strongly attached as he seems to have been to both, could silently throw down a paper before the one, which proved her “death-warrant,” and could throw the other (his beloved Stella) into unspeakable agonies, in her last illness, and quit her for ever, “only for adjuring him, by their friendship, to let her have the satisfaction of dying at least, though she had not lived, his acknowledged wife.” Another apologist insinuates, upon something like evidence, that Stella bore a son to Swift, and yet labours to excuse him for not declaring her his wife, because she had agreed at the marriage that it should remain a secret, unless the discovery should be demanded by urgent necessity. But what could be meant by urgent necessity, unless it alluded to the birth of children, he confesses it would be hard to say. The truth is, probably, what has been saicl by Dr*, Johnson, that the man whom Stella had the misfortune ttf love, was fond of singularity, and desirous to make a mode of happiness for himself, different from the general course of things, and the order of Providence. He wished for all the pleasures of perfect friendship, without the uneasiness of conjugal restraint. But with this state poor Stella was not satisfied; she was never treated as a wife, and to the world she had the appearance of a mistress. She lived sullenly on, hoping that in time he would own and receive her. This, as we have seen, he did at last offer to do but not till the change of his manners, and the depravation of his mind, made her tell him that it was too late.

There are some particulars relating to Swift’s conversation and manners which may not improperly conclude thi article. He had a rule never to speak more than a minu at a time, and to wait for others to take up the conversetion. He greatly excelled in punning and he used to say, “that none despised that talent, but those who were without it.” He excelled no less in telling a story, but in the latter part of his life he used to tell the same too often: he never dealt in the double entendre, or profaneness upon sacred subjects. He loved to have ladies in the company, because it preserved, he said, the delicacy of conversation: yet it is certain there are in his writings the greatest indelicacies. He kept his friends in some degree of awe, yet was more open to admonition than flattery. Though he appeared churlish and austere to his servants, yet he was in reality a most kind and generous master; and he was also very charitable to the poor. In the mean time, it must be owned, that there was not any great softness or sympathy in his nature; although, perhaps, not quite so much misanthropy as appears in his writings: and all allow, that he grew covetous, as he grew old. As an ecclesiastic, he was scrupulously exact in the exercise of his function, as well with regard to spiritual as temporal things. His manner was without ceremony, but not rustic; for he had a perfect knowledge of all the modes and variations of politeness, though he practised them in a manner peculiar to himself. He was naturally temperate, chaste, and frugal; and being also high-spirited, and considering wealth as the pledge of independence, it is not strange that his frugality should verge towards avarice.

As to his political principles, if his own account may be taken, he abhorred Whiggisrn only in those who made it consist in damning the church, reviling the clergy, abetting the dissenters, and speaking contemptuously of revealed religion. He always declared himself against a popish successor to the crown, whatever title he might have by proximity of blood; nor did he regard the right line upon any other account, than as it was established by law, and had much weight in the opinions of the people. That he was not at any time a bigot to party, or indiscriminately transferred his resentment from principles to persons, was. so evident by his conduct, that he was often rallied by the ministers, for never coming to them without a Whig in his sleeve; and though he does not appear 'to have asked any thing for himself, yet he often pressed lord Oxford in favour of Addison, Congreve, Rowe, and Steele. He frequently conversed with all these, choosing his friends by their personal merit, without any regard to their political principles; and, in particular, his friendship with Mr. Addison continued inviolable, and with as much kindness, as when they used to meet at lord Halifax’s or lord Somers’s, who were leaders of the opposite party.

, a near relation to the celebrated dean of St. Patrick’s, being grandson to Godwin Swift, the dean’s uncle, was in 1739 recommended by Swift to the notice of Pope, as “the most valuable of any in his family.” “He was first,” says the dean, “a student in this university [Dublin], and finished his studies in Oxford, where Dr. King, principal of St. Mary Hall, assured me, that Mr. Swift behaved with reputation and credit: he hath a very good taste for wit, writes agreeable and entertaining verses, and is a perfect master, equally skilled in the best Greek and Roman authors. He hath a true spirit for liberty, and with all these advantages is extremely decent and modest. Mr. Swift is heir to a little paternal estate of our family at Goodrich, in Herefordshire. He is named Deane Swift, because his great grandfather, by the mother’s side, was admiral Deane, who, having been one of the regicides, had the good fortune to save his neck by dying a year or two before the Restoration.” He published, in 1755, “An Essay upon the Life,' Writings, and Character of Dr. Jonathan Swift;” in 1765, the eighth quarto volume of the dean’s works; and, in 1763, two volumes of his “Letters.” Mr. Swift died at Worcester, July 12, 1783: he had long meditated a complete edition of his relation’s works, and had by him many new materials for that purpose.

, a learned traveller, and probably a descendant of the preceding, was the youngest son of the late sir John Swinburne, bart. of Capheaton, in Northumberland, the long-established seat of that ancient Roman Catholic family. He was educated at Scorton school, in Yorkshire, and afterwards studied at Paris, Bourcleaux, and in the royal academy at Turin. He made the usual tour of Italy; and, in 1774, travelled with his lady on the Continent, for the express purpose of indulging their taste for antiquities and the fine arts. He spent six years in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany; formed an intimacy with some of the most celebrated literati of those coun­^ries, and received some signal marks of esteem from the sovereigns of the courts he visited. On his return to England he retired to his seat at Hamsterley, in the bishopric of Durham, which thenceforth became his principal residence. He published his Travels in Spain in a quarto volume, 1779; four years after, vol. I. of his Travels in the Two Sicilies, and a lid two years after. Both these works have been reprinted in octavo, the first in two, the other in four, volumes, with improvements. The learning and ingenuity of Mr. Swinburne have been generally acknowledged, and the warmth and animation of his descriptions discover an imagination highly susceptible of every bounty of nature or art; but he is perhaps too apt to relinquish simplicity for profusion of ornament. He was the first who brought us intimately acquainted with Spain, and the arts and monuments of its ancient inhabitants. By the marriage of his only daughter to Paul Benfield, esq. he became involved in the misfortunes of that adventurer, and obtained a place in the newly-ceded settlement of Trinidad, where he died in April 1803. His library had been sold by auction, by Leigh and Sotheby, the preceding year.

, deserves a fuller account than can now be given of a learned and diligent man, unfortunately altogether un patronized, who undertook, and in part executed, a translation of the works of Plato. His proposals for this great undertaking were published in a quarto tract in 1759; and he produced successively, between that time and 1767, translation of the “lo, a discourse on poetry,” of “The Greater Hippias,” “The Lesser Hippias,” “The Banquet, Part I.” and “The Banquet, Part II.” He is said to have lived for some years, and finally to have died, in great indigence. The Gentleman’s Magazine places his death on April the 1st, 1787, and adds, that he was born in 1710, and educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. April 30, 1734. In an account published by the society called the Literary Fund, the following narrative of his death is given: “During the summer recess of the year 1788, an event took place, which tarnished the character of English opulence and humanity, and afflicted the votaries of knowledge. Floyer Sydenham, the well-known translator of Plato, one of the most useful, if not one of the most competent Greek scholars of his age; a man revered for his knowledge, and beloved for the candour of his temper and the gentleness of his manners, died in consequence of having been arrested, and detained, for a debt to a victualler, who had, for some time, furnished his frugal dinner. At the news of that event, every friend of literature felt a mixture of sorrow and shame; and one of the members of a club at the prince of Wales’s coffeehouse proposed, that it should adopt, as its object and purpose, some means to prevent similar afflictions, and to assist deserving authors and their families in distress.” Whether the account reported to these gentlemen, of the time and manner of Sydenham’s death was accurate or not, the friends of literature and humanity will feel great consolation in finding that it gave occasion to a society so benevolent in its designs; which arose 3 after a few changes and modifications, out of the proposal above-mentioned. The society is now in a flourishing and improving state, and has given very timely and important assistance to many deserving authors.

His application to the study of physic was, as he himself relates, produced by an accidental acquaintance with Dr. Cox, a physician eminent at that time in London, who in some sickness prescribed to his brother, and, attending him frequently on that occasion, inquired of him what profession he designed to follow. The young man answering that he was undetermined, the doctor recommended physic to him, and Sydenham having determined to follow his advice, retired to Oxford for leisure and opportunity to pursue his studies.

Among other reports respecting this great man, it has also been said that he composed his works in English, but was obliged to have recourse to Dr. Mapletoft to translate them into Latin. This has been asserted by Ward in his Lives of the Gresham professors, but without bringing any proof*; and it is observable that his “Processus Integri,” published after his death, discovers alone more skill in the Latin language than is commonly ascribed to him. It is likewise asserted by sir Hans Sloane, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, that Dr. Sydenham was particularly versed in the writings of the great Roman orator and philosopher; and there is evidently such a luxuriance in his style, as may discover the author who gave him most pleasure, and most engaged his imitation.

be drawn from his first assertion, who took up arms in rkfrnce of the

His works have been collected and frequently printed at London in one volume 8vo. The last edition is that by John Swan, M. D. of Newcastle in Staffordshire, 1742. To this is prefixed a life of Dr. Sydenham, by Dr. Johnson, which we have chiefly followed in the preceding account. His works were also printed at Leipsic in J 711, at Geneva in 1716, in 2 vols. 4to, and at Leyden in 8vo. They were written by himself in English, but translated afterwards into Latin, of which it is our opinion he was fully capable, although these translations, as already noticed, have been attributed to Dr. Mapletoft and others. The last English edition is that by Dr. George Wallis, 1788, 2 vols. 8vo, with notes and opinions of subsequent medical writers. Sydenham has frequently been called the father of physic among the moderns. He tells us, in the preface to his works, that “the increase and perfection of the medical art is to be advanced by these two means: by composing an history of distempers, or a natural and exact description of distempers and their symptoms; and by deducing and establishing a method of cure from thence.” This is the way which that great delineator of the right road to real knowledge in all its various branches, lord Bacon, had pointed out; and its being more closely pursued by Sydenham than by any modern physician before him, is what has justly entitled him to those high encomiums which have ever been paid him. Sir Richard Blackmore allows, and all are now convinced, that Sydenham, “who built all his maxims and rules of practice upon repeated observations on the nature and properties of diseases, and the power of remedies, has compiled so good an history of distempers, and so prevalent a method of cure, that he has improved and advanced the healing art much more than Dr. Willis with all his curious speculations and fanciful hypotheses.” He relates of himself, in his dedication to Dr. Mapletoft, that ever since he had applied himself to the practice of physic, he had been of opinion, and the opinion had been every day more and more confirmed in him, that the medical art could not be learned so surely as by use and experience; and that he, who should pay the nicest and most accurate attention to the symptoms of distempers, would infallibly succeed best in searching out the true means of cure. “For this reason,” says he, “I gave myself up entirely to thjs method of proceeding, perfectly secure and confident, that, while 1 followed nature as my guide, I could never err.” He tells him afterwards, that Mr. Locke approved his method, which he considered as no small sanction to it; and what he says upon this occasion of Mr. Locke is worth transcribing: “Nosti prseterea, quern huic meiE methodo suffragantem habeam, qui earn intimius per omnia perspexerat, utrique nostrum conjunctissimum dominum Joannem Locke; quo quidem viro, sive ingenio judicioque acri & subacto, sive etiam antiquis, hoc est, optimis moribus, vix superiorem quenquam, inter eos qui nunc.sunt homines repertum in confido; paucissimns rertci pares.” There are some Latin elegiac verses by Mr. Locke, addressed to Sydenham, prefixed to his 4< Treatise upon Severs." Mr. Granger has remarked that Sydenham received higher honours from foreign physicians than from his countrymen. This, however, applies only to his contemporaries, for no modern English physician has ever mentioned Sydenham unless in terms of high veneration. The encomiums of Boerhaave and Haller are well known to medical readers. His great merit consists in the accurate descriptions which he has left us of several diseases which first became conspicuous in his time. His account of the smallpox, and of his medical treatment of that disease, is admirable, and contributed in no small degree to establish his celebrity. He was the first person who introduced the cooling regimen in fevers, a method of treatment frequently attended with the happiest effects, though it must be acknowledged that he did not sufficiently distinguish between the typhus and the inflammatory fever, and on that account he sometimes carried his bleedings to an excess. He contributed also essentially to introduce the Peruvian bark as a cure for intermittents.

He had an elder brother William, who was some time gentleman commoner of Trinity college in Oxford, and, entering into the parliament’s army, acquitted himself so well, that he rose, by several gradations, to the highest post and dignities. In 1649, he was appointed governor of the Isle of Wight, and made vice-admiral of that isle and Hampshire. In 1653, he was summoned to parliament for Dorsetshire; in 1654, made commissioner of the treasury, and member of the privy-council; and in 1658, summoned to parliament by the protector Richard Cromwell. This connection, together with his own principles and former engagements, would probably hinder Dr. Sydenham from being a very popular physician, during the period of his flourishing, that is, in the reigns of Charles II. and James II.; yet he seems to hare owed more of his neglect to the envy of his contemporary brethren.

His biographer remarks that Dr. Sydenham’s skill in physic “was not his highest excellence that his whole character was amiable that his chief view was the benefit of mankind, and the chief motive of his actions the will of God, whom he mentions with reverence, well becoming the most enlightened and most penetrating mind. He was benevolent, candid, and communicative, sincere, and religious qualities, which it were happy if they could copy from him, who emulate his knowledge, and imitate liia methods.”

, a divine of the church of England, but to whom that church was little indebted, was the son of Mr. Arthur Sykes, of Ardely or Yardly in Hertfordshire, and was born in London about 1684. He was educated at St. Paul’s school under the celebrated Mr. Postlethwayte, and was admitted of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, in 1701, under the care of the rev; Charles Kidman, B. D. tutor of that college. In Feb. 1701-2 he was appointed a scholar of the house. While an undergraduate he wrote some Hebrew verses on the death of king William, which were printed in the Cambridge collection on that occasion. He took the degree of B. A. in 1704-5, and proceeded M. A. in 1708, After leaving college he was employed for some time as one of the assistants at St. Paul’s school, but quitted this situation as inconsistent with the prosecution of his private studies. In 1712-13 he was collated to the vicarage of Godmersham in Kent by archbishop Tenison, who had a great personal regard for him, and was a generous patron to the members of Corpus Christi) of which he had himself been fellow. In April 1714 he was instituted to the rectory of Dry-Dray ton in Cambridgeshire, on the presentation of the duchess dowager of Bedford, and in August following he resigned his vicarage of Godmersham in Kent. In Nov. 1718, he was instituted to the rectory of Rayleigh in Essex, which he retained to his death, but now resigned the living of DryDrayton. In Dec. following, at a meeting of the governors and directors of King-street chapel, Golden-square, he was unanimously appointed afternoon preacher at that place, which is a chapel of ease to St. James’s Westminster, of which his friend Dr. Clarke was then rector. In 1721, on the morning preachership becoming vacant by Dr. Wilcocks’s promotion to the see of Gloucester, Mr. Sykes was unanimously appointed to succeed him. In January 1723-4 he was collated to the prebend of AltonBorealis in the cathedral of Salisbury, by bishop Hoadly, and three years afterwards his lordship appointed him to the pnrcentorship of the same cathedral, vacant by the death of their common friend Dr. Daniel Whitby. In April 1725, upon the nomination of Dr. Clarke, he was appointed assistant preacher at St. James’s church, Westminster. In 1726 he proceeded to take the degree of D. D. in the university of Cambridge. In Feb. 1739 he was advanced to the deanry of St. Burien in Cornwall, which is in the patronage of the crown; and on October 15, 1740, he was collated to a prebend in the cathedral of Winchester, through the friendship of his former patron bishop Hoadly, who had been translated to the see of Winchester in 1734. His ecclesiastical promotions seem to have ended here.

During many years Dr. Sykes had been greatly afflicted with the gout and stone, but had received much relief from the pains of the latter disorder, for fifteen or sixteen years before his death, by the medicine purchased by parliament of Mrs. Stephens, for the public use. And upon the whole he enjoyed a general state of good health and spirits, until he was seized with a stroke of the palsy, while attending the funeral of a friend, on Monday evening, Nov. 15, 1756, and died, at his house in Cavendish-square, at two o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday the 23d, in the seventythird year of his age. He was buried near the pulpit in the parish church of St. James’s Westminster 6n the 30th of November. Dr. Gregory Sharpe, who succeeded him in King-street chapel, and was afterwards master of the Temple, and who had long been in habits of friendship with the deceased, officiated upon this occasion.

Dr. Sykes was a divine of the school of Clarke and Hoadly 3 who, while they made it the business of their lives to oppose the distinguishing doctrines of the established church, were content to enjoy both its dignities and emoluments. Such men have been well represented by an ingenious critic , as holding a grand debate between conviction and interest, and endeavouring to accommodate matters with as much ease as possible between both; a sort of half-way reformers, who endeavour to find out the secret band which will unite the two opposite extremes, and coalesce, in one mass, the most heterogeneous qualities of inward persuasion and outward profession. They subscribe articles which they do not believe, and reconcile it to their conscience by calling them articles of peace and not of faith; and by this principle of accommodation they endeavour to secure the character of the “children of light,” without wholly relinquishing the good things which fall to the share of the “children of the world.”

Such was Dr. Sykes, who in all his controversial writings (and the greater part of his writings were of that kind) endeavoured.- to lay open the church to persons of the most opposite sentiments, especially those approaching the Socinian scheme, and therefore argues in one of his tracts, that “a latitude of opinion is intended and allowed by the legislature to subscribers, as they are members of the church of England,” which the more recent author of “The Confessional” has amply refuted. It was of course very natural for Dr. Sykes, at a subsequent period, to maintain, in other pamphlets, that the fences which the church has determined to secure against innovation are of no importance.

, a learned German, eminent for his great skill in Greek, was born at Marpurg, in the landgraviate of Hesse, in 1546, or, as Saxius says, 1536. His father, who was a farmer, gave him a liberal education, of which he made so good a use, as to become perfect in the Latin, French, and Greek languages, at a time when the latter was understood by very few. He was a school-master at Licha, for some of the first years of his life; but afterwards quitted that employment, and applied himself wholly to the revision and correction of ancient authors, the Greek particularly; many of which, still held in estimation, were published by him, from the presses of Wechel and Commelin. Among these were Aristotle, Herodotus, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Dion Cassius, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Theodoret, &c. He gave some assistance to Henry Stephens in compiling his ^ Thesaurus Graecoe linguae;“and was also the author of a Greek grammar, which was much valued, a Hebrew grammar, notes upon Clenardus, &c. For these and other services, he had an arinual stipend allowed him by the university of Marpurg. He was universally well spoken of by the learned, and died much lamented by them in 1596.” Unhappy event,“says Casaubon,” to the republic of letters for, a few days before his death, he sent me word by Commelin of many new labours projected and begun. The lovers of Greek have more especially reason to deplore the loss of him."

, the laborious and quaint translator of Du Bartas, was born in 1563, and died September 28, 1618. His death happened at Middleburg in Holland. By what circumstances he was induced, or compelled, to quit his native country we have not discovered; but John Vicars, his friend, who styles him “the best of Poets,” speaks of it as a reproach to his country.

He was, in 1597, a candidate for the office of secretary to the company of merchant adventurers at Stade, of which he was a member; on which occasion the unfortunate earl of Essex interested himself in his favour, and wrote two letters in his behalf, dated from the court on the last of April; a private one to Mr. Ferrers, the deputy-governor, recommending Mr. Sylvester as an able and honest man; and a general one to the company, to the same purpose, in which he mentions that he had received a very good report of his sufficiency and fitness for the post of secretary, being both well qualified with language, and many other good parts, and honest and of good conversation; two especial motives of his lordship’s request in his behalf. Sylvester’s translation of Du Bartas is dedicated to king James;^nd among those who pay him the highest compliments appears Ben Jonson, whom tradition makes an intimate friend, and, as some think, a relation. He translated also the Quatrains of Pibrac, and many other pieces of French poetry; with some from the Latin of Fracastorius, &c. One of his own pieces has the ridiculously quaint title of “Tobacco battered, and the pipes shattered, (about their ears that idlely idolize so base and barbarous a weed; or at least-wise over-love so loathsome a vanitie:) by a volley of holy shot thundered from mount Helicon.” This may be supposed to have been written to please the great enemy of tobacco, James I. Not much can now be said in favour of his compositions, either the translations, or those that are original, although he gained greater reputation from the former than the latter. Dryden tells us, in the Dedication to the Spanish Fryar, that tf when he was a boy, he thought inimitable Spenser a mean poet, in comparison of Sylvester’s Dubartas," and ^ was wrapt into an ecstacy when he read these lines

, a celebrated physician of France, was the son of Nicholas du Bois, a camblet-weaver, who had eleven sons and four daughters. He was born at Amiens in Picardy, in 1478, and went through a course of classical learning, under his elder brother Francis Sylvius; who was principal of the college of Tournay at Paris, and was a great promoter of letters in that age of barbarism. There he learned the Latin language, in much greater purity than it had been taught for a long time; and hence it was, that his writings are distinguished to such advantage by the elegance of the style. He became a very accomplished scholar in Latin and Greek, and had some little knowledge of the Hebrew; and applied himself also to mathematics and mechanics so successfully, as to invent machines, which deserved public notice. When the time was come for giving himself entirely up to physic, to which study his inclination had always led him, he traced it to its sources; and engaged so deeply in the reading of Hippocrates and Galen, that he scarcely did any thing but examine and translate those two authors. He discovered from thence the importance of anatomy, and applied himself to it so ardently, that he became as great a master as that age would permit. He studied pharmacy with no less care, and took several journeys to see, upon the spot, the medicines which different countries produce. Upon his return to Paris, he read lectures, and explained in two years a course of physic from Hippocrates and Galen; which so much extended his reputation, that scholars from all parts of Europe resorted to him. But being prohibited at last from teaching as not having taken his degree, he went to Montpellier in 1520 for that purpose, but not being willing to pay the expences of graduation, he returned to Paris, and by an agreement with the faculty, recommenced his lectures, although only a bachelor of physic. In 1535 he taught in the college of Treguier, while Fernelius taught in tbat of Cornouailles; but the latter had few scholars, while the former had about five hundred. The reason of this difference was, that Sylvius dissected bodies, and read lectures upon botany and the preparation of medicines, advantages which the scholars of Fernelius had not. The professorship of physic in the royal college becoming vacant in 1548, Sylvius was nominated to fill it; which he did, after hesitating about it two years. He continued in it till his death, which happened Jan. 13, 1555. He was never married, and shewed even an aversion to women. His personal character was particularly obnoxious. His behaviour was rude and barbarous. He had nothing social in his temper, or ever departed from a certain pompous stiffness; and it was observed that when he attempted to relax, he did it aukwardly. The only witticism related of him is, that “he had parted with three beasts, his cat, his mule, and his maid.” His avarice was extreme, and he lived in the most sordid manner: he allowed his servants nothing but dry bread, and had no fire all the winter. Two things served him as a remedy against cold; he played at foot-ball, and carried a great log upon his shoulders: and he said that the heat which he gained by this exercise was more beneficial to his health than that of a fire. He was most rigid in demanding his fees from his scholars, yet was puzzled often what to do with his money, for when, in 1616, his house in the rue de St. Jacques was pulled down, the workmen found many pieces of gold, which he had probably hid and knew not where to find. This avarice, which was his ruling passion, exposed him to the wit of his contemporaries. Buchanan has a distich on him, beginning “Sylvius hie situs est, gratis qui nil dedit unquam, &c.” and a dialogue was published under the title of “Sylvius ocreatus,” or “Sylvius booted,” of which it was thought that Henry Stephens was the author, by the assumed name of Ludovicus Arrivabenus Mantuanus. It is founded on the supposition that Sylvius, wishing to pass Acheron without paying anything, went in boots that he might ford it. This satire was answered by John Melet, one of his pupils, who adopted the name of Claudius Burgensis, and entitled his performance “Apologia in Lud. Arrivabenum pro D. J. Silvio.”

The various works of Sylvius which had been published separately were collected by Ren6 Moreau, under the title *' J. Sylvii opecp. medica in sex partes digesta, castigata, &c.“Geneva, 1630, fol. with a life of the author, the satire and answer just mentioned, and Sylvius’s Latin poetry, which first appeared in 1584, 4to. He was a strenuous adherent to Galen, except in his love of judicial astrology, which Sylvius opposed. The French have some translations from his works, to which may be added, not in the preceding volume, a Latin and French grammar printed at Paris in 1531. He lived upon very bad terms with Vesalius, who occasioned him the greatest vexation he ever suffered. Sylvius, whose excellence lay in anatomy, had prepared a work upon that subject, which he considered as a master-piece. Upon this, Vesalius published, in 1541, his” Opus Anatomicum," which was so well written, and illustrated with so many beautiful figures, that it was universally admired. Two circumstances aggravated this grievance; Vesalius had been Sylvius’s pupil; and he had attacked Galen, whom Sylvius defended, even in his errors.

, a citizen and senator of ancient Rome, and consul in the year 391, has left us ten books of epistles; from which, as well as from other things, we collect, that he was a warm opposer of the Christian religion. This he shews particularly in the sixty-first epistle of the tenth book, addressed to the emperor Valentinian, whom he petitioned in favour of paganism. He was very unfortunate, after having enjoyed a high degree of favour at court. The emperor Theodosius thought proper to desire that he would pronounce his panegyric before him; but when he heard that Symmachus had been equally liberal in his praises of the tyrant Maximus, who reigned before him, and to whom Theodosius himself had submitted from political motives, he banished Symmachus, and persecuted him so even in his exile, that with all his prejudices in favour of paganism, he was obliged to take refuge in a Christian church to save his life. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks of him as a man of great learning and modesty; and his epistles shew him to have been a man of acute parts, and of eloquence, such as eloquence was in his time, that is, verbose and florid. Scioppius, Pareus, and other learned men, have written notes upon the epistles of Symmachus: 'but we know of no later edition of them than that of Leyden, 1653, 12mo. The first edition, which has no date, but probably was printed between 1503 and 1513, is very rare and valuable. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, wrote against Symmachus; and so did the Christian poet Prudentius.

, an ancient fathei: and bishop of the Christian church, flourished at the beginning of the fifth century. He was born at Cyrene in Africa, a town situated upon the borders of Egypt, and afterwards travelled to th neighbouring country for improvement, where he happily succeeded in his studies under the celebrated female philo-r sopher Hypatia, who presided at that time over the Platonic school at Alexandria, where also the eminent mathematicians Theon, Pappus, and Hero taught. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who wrote annotations on a piece of Synesius, called “De insomniis,” represents him as a man of prodigious parts and learning and says, that “there was nothing he did not know, no science wherein he did not excel, no mystery in which he was not initiated and deeply versed.” His works are in high esteem with the curious; and his epistles, in Suidas’s opinion, are admirable, and in that of Photius, as well as Evagrius, “elegant, agreeable, sententious, and learned.' 1 Synesius was a man of noble birth, which added no less weight to his learning, than that reflected lustre on his quality; and both together procured him great credit and authority. He went, about the year 400, upon an embassy, which lasted three years, to the emperor Arcadius at Constantinople, on the behalf of his country, which was miserably harassed by the auxiliary Goths and other barbarians; and it was then, as he himself tells \is, that” with greater boldness than any of the Greeks, he pronounced before the emperor an oration concerning government.“About the year 410, when the citizens of Ptolemais applied to Theophilus of Alexandria for a bishop, Synesius was appointed and consecrated, though he took all imaginable pains to decline the honour. He declared himself not at all convinced of the truth of some of the most important articles of Christianity. He was verily persuaded of the existence of the soul before its union with the body; he could not^ conceive the resurrection of the body; nor did he believe that the world should ever be destroyed. He also owned himself to have such an affection for his wife, that he would not consent, either to be separated from her, or to Jive in a clandestine manner with her; and told Theophilus, that, if he did insist upon making him a bishop, he must leave him in possession of his wife and all his notions. Theophilus at length submitted to these singular terms,” upon a presumption,“it is said,” that a man, whose life and manners were in every respect so exemplary, could not possibly be long a bishop without being enlightened with heavenly truth. Nor,“continues Cave,” was Theophilus deceived; for Synesius was no sooner seated in hit bishopric, than he easily acquiesced in the doctrine of the resurrection.“Baronius says in his Annals,” that he does not believe these singularities of Synesius to have been his real sentiments; but only that he pretended them, with a view of putting a stop to the importunities of Theophilus, and of warding off this advancement to a bishopric, which was highly disagreeable to him." That the advancement was highly disagreeable to Synesius, is very certain; but it is likewise as certain, that Baronius’s supposition is without all foundation. There is extant a letter of Synesius to his brother, of which an extract may be given, as illustrative of his character and opinions.

“I should be exceedingly to blame if I did not return most hearty thanks to the inhabitants of Ptolemais, for thinking me worthy of such honours, as I own I do not think myself worthy of: yet it is highly incumbent on me to consider, not only the great things they offer, but how far it may be prudent in me to accept them. Now, the more I reflect upon it, the more I am convinced of my own inability to sustain the office and dignity of a bishop; and I will frankly tell you my thoughts upon this occasion. While I had nothing to support but the character of a philosopher, I acquitted myself, I may say, with tolerable credit; and this nas made some imagine that I am fit to be a bishop. But they have riot considered, with what difficulty the mind acquires a new bent; that is, adapts itself to a province it has hitherto been a stranger to. I for my part am afraid, that by quitting the philosopher, and putting on the bishop, I should spoil both characters, that my new honours should make me arrogant and assuming, destroying at once the modesty of the philosopher; and yet that I should not be able to support them with a becoming dignity. For only consider my way of life hitherto. My time has always been divided between books and sports. In the hours of study nothing can be more retired, but in our sports every body sees us; and you know very well, that no man is fonder of all kinds of recreations than myself. You know also, that I have an aversion to civil employments, as indeed my education, and the whole bent of my studies, have been quite foreign to them. But a bishop ought to be, as it were, a man of God, averse to pleasures and amusements, severe in his manners, and for ever employed in the concerns of his flock. It requires a happy complication of qualities to do all this as it should be done; to sustain such a weight of care and business; to be perpetually conversant with the affairs of men; and yet to keep himself unspotted from the world. It is true, I see this done- by some men, and I highly admire and revere them lor it; but I am myself incapable of doing it; and I will not burthen my conscience with undertaking what I know I cannot perform. But I have still farther reasons for declining this charge, which I will here produce; for though I am writing to you, yet I beg this letter may be made public: so that, whatever may be the result of this affair, or which way soever I may be disposed of, I may, at least, stand clear with God and man, and especially with Theophilus, when I shall have dealt thus openly and fairly. I say then, that God, the laws of the land, and the holy hands of Theophilus, have given me a wife: but I declare to all men, that I will neither suffer myself to be separated from her, nor consent to live like an adulterer in a clandestine manner: the one I think impious, the other unlawful. I declare further, that it will always be my earnest desire and prayer, to lywe as many children by her as possible. Again, let it be considered how difficult, or rather how absolutely impossible it is, to pluck up those doctrines, which by the means of knowledge are rooted in the soul to a demonstration. But you know, that philosophy is diametrically opposite to the doctrines of Christianity; nor shall I ever be able to persuade myself, for instance, that the soul had no existence before its union with the body, that the world and all its parts will perish together, and that the trite and thread-bare doctrine of the resurrection, whatever mystery be couched under it, can have any truth in it, as it is professed by the vulgar. A philosopher, indeed, who is admitted to the intuition of truth, will easily see the necessity of lying to the people; for Jight is to the eye, what truth is to the people. The eye cannot bear too much light; nay, if it is under the least indisposition, it is actually relieved by darkness: in like manner fable and falsehood may be useful to the people, while unvdling the truth may do them hurt. If, therefore, this method be consistent with the duties of the episcopal dignity; if I may freely philosophize at hyme, while I preach tales abroad; and neither teach nor unteach, but suffer people to retain the prejudices in which they were educated, I may indeed be consecrated; but if they shall say, that a bishop ought to go farther, and not only speak, but think like the people, I must declare off, &c.”

, a pious and learned archbishop of Tuam in Ireland, was the second son of Edward, bishop of Cork, &c. and was born April the 6th, 1659, at Inishonaner, of which parish his father was then vicar. He was educated at the grammar school at Cork, and thence admitted a commoner at Christchurch, Oxford, where he tooTt the degree of B. A. but on his father’s death returned to Ireland, and finished his studies in the university of Drabiin. His first preferment was two small parishes in the di-ocese of Meath, both together of about the yearly value of 100l. These he exchanged for the vicarage of Christchurch in the city of Cork, of the same value, but one of the most painful and laborious cures in Ireland. This he served for above twenty years, mostly without any assistant; preached twice every Sunday, catechised, and discharged all the other duties of his function. Some ecclesiastical preferments, tenable with his great cure, were given him at different times by the bishops of Cork and Cloyne, which at last increased his income to near 400l. per annum. In this situation an offer was made him by government;,' in 1699, of the deanery of Derry; but, although this uras a dignity, and double in value to all that he had, yet he; declined it from a motive of filial piety. He would not; separate himself from an aged mother, who either could not, or was unwilling, to be removed. Remaining therefore at Cork, he was chosen proctor for the chapter, in the convocation called in 1703. Soon after, the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, gave him the crown’s title to the deanery of St. Patrick’s, in Dublin. But the chapter disputed this title, and claimed a right of election in themselves; and to assert this right, they chose Dr. John Sterne, then chancellor of the cathedral, their dean. The title of the crown being thus thought defective, and, after a full discussion of the point, found to be so,Dr. King, archbishop of Dublin, proposed an accommodation, which took place, and in consequence Dr. Sterne continued dean, and the archbishop gave the chancellorship to Mr. Synge.

, a Jesuit, and a missionary from France to the court of Siam, who died in Bengal of a contagious disorder in 1694, is recorded as the author of twcr voyages to Siam, in 2 vols. at Paris, 1686 and 1689. It has, however, been since proved, that he was credulous in the extreme; was much flattered and imposed upon^ and has given a most exaggerated account of the power and wealth of the king of Siam; other narratives are therefore preferred to his. He went first with the two French ambassadors, the chevalier de Chamont, and the abbe de Choisi.

Agrieola was joint consul with Domitian in the year of Home 830, for the latter part of the year. His name does not appear in the Fasti Consulares, because that honour was reserved for the consuls who entered on their office en the kalends of January, and gave their name to -the H hole year. Tacitus, though not more than twenty, had given such an earnest of his future fame, that Agricola chose him for his son-in-law, and, thus distinguished, our ai thor began the career of civil preferment. The circumstances ofhis progress, however, are not precisely menIthongh Mr. Murphy has given us some ingenious conjectures to supply this deficiency. He was favoured by Vespasian and by Titus, and rose to preferment even under the tyrant Domitian. It would be difficult, says his biographer, to account for the success of a man who in the whole tenourof his conduct preserved an unblemished character, if he himself had not furnished a solution of the problem. Agricola, he tells us, had the address to restrain the headlong violence of Domitian, by his prudence, and the virtues of moderation: never choosing to imitate the zeal of those who, by their intemperance, provoked their fate, and rushed on sure destruction, without rendering any kind of service to their country. The conduct of Agricola plainly shewed that great men may exist in safety under the worst and most barbarous tyranny. We may be sure, that he who commends the mild disposition of his father-in-law, had the prudence to observe the same line of conduct. Instead of giving umbrage to the prince, and provoking the tools of power, he was content to display his eloquence at the bar. Domitian, however, certainly advanced our author’s fortune. It is no where mentioned that Tacitus discharged the office of tribune and aedile, but it may be presumed that he passed through these stations to the higher dignity of praetor, and member of the quindecemviral college, which he enjoyed at the secular games in the year of Rome 841, the seventh of Domitian.

In the course of the following year, our author and his wife left the city of Rome, and absented themselves more than four years. Some writers, willing to exalt the virtue of Tacitus, and aggravate the injustice of Domitian, assert, that Tacitus was sent into banishment. This, however, is mere conjecture, without a shadow of probability to support it. Tacitus makes no complaint against Domitian: he mentions no personal injury: he received marks of favour, and he acknowledges the obligation. It may, therefore, with good reason be affirmed, that prudential considerations induced our author to retire from a city, where an insatiate tyrant began to throw off all reserve, and wage open war against all who were distinguished by their talents and their virtue.

Tacitus had been four years absent from Rome when he received the news of Agricola’s death, which happened in the year of Rome 846, and of the Christian sera 93. A report prevailed that he was poisoned by the emperor’s orders; his rapid course of brilliant success in Britain having alarmed the jealousy of Domitian, who dreaded nothing so much as a great military character: but Tacitus acknowledges that this report rested on no kind of proof. After this event, however, Tacitus returned to Rome/ and from that time saw the beginning of the most dreadful aera, in which Domitian broke out with unbridled fury, and made the city of Rome a theatre of blood and horror. At length this tyrant fell the victim of a conspiracy, and was succeeded by a virtuous emperor, Nerva, in whose reign, in the year of Rome 850, Tacitus succeeded the celebrated Verginius Rufus, as consul for the remainder of the year, and for that reason, as before noticed, his name is not to be found in the Fasti Consulares. In honour of Verginius, the senate decreed, that the rites of sepulture should be performed at the public expence. Tacitus delivered the funeral oration from the rostrum, and the applause of such an orator, Pliny says, was sufficient to crown the glory of a well-spent life.

Nerva died Jan. 27, in the year of Rome 851, having, about three months before, adopted Trajan as his successor. In that short interval the critics have agreed to place the publication of the “Life of Agricola,” by Tacitus, but Mr. Murphy assigns very good reasons for referring it to the reign of Trajan. The “Treatise on the Manners of the Germans,” it is generally agreed, made its appearance in the year of Rome 851. The “Dialogue concerning Oratory” was an earlier production, and probably was published in the reign of Titus or Domitian, who are both celebrated in that piece, for their talents and their love of polite literature.

The friendship that subsisted between Tacitus and the younger Pliny, and which is well known, was founded on the consonance of their studies and their virtues. When Pliny says that a good and virtuous prince can never be sincerely loved, unless we shew our detestation of the tyrants that preceded him, we may be sure that Tacitus was of the same opinion. They were both convinced that a striking picture of former tyranny ought to be placed in contrast to the felicity of the times that succeeded. Pliny acted up to his own idea in the panegyric of Trajan, where we find a vein of satire on Domitian running through the whole piece. It appears in his letters, that he had some thoughts of writing history on the same principle, but had not resolution to undertake that arduous task. Tacitus had more vigour of mind: he thought more intensely, and with deeper penetration, than his friend. We find that he had formed, at an early period, the plan of his history, and resolved to execute it, in order to shew the horrors of slavery, and the debasement of the Roman people through the whole of Domitian’s reign. From the year of Rome 853, when along with Pliny, he pleaded in the famous cause of Priscus, the proconsul of Africa, and in behalf of those who had been oppressed by him, Tacitus appears to have dedicated himself altogether to his history. At what time it was published is uncertain, but it was in some period of the reign of Trajan, who died in the year of Rome 870, A. D. 117. In this work he began from the accession of Galba, and ended with the death of Domitian, i. e. from the year of Rome 82-2 to 849, a period of twenty-seven years. Vossius says that the whole work consisted of no less than thirty books; but, to the great loss of the literary world, we have only four books, and the beginning of the fifth. In what remains, we have little after the accession of Vespasian. The reign of Titus is totally lost, and Domitian has escaped the vengeance of the historian’s pen.

Tacitus intended, if his life and health continued, to review the reign of Augustus, in order to detect the arts by which the old constitution was overturned to make way for the government of a single ruler. This, in the hands of such a writer, would have been a curious portion of history; but it is probable he did not live to carry his design into execution. The time of his death is not mentioned by any ancient author. It seems, however, highly probable that he died in the reign of Trajan, and we may reasonably conclude that he survived his friend PJiny. The commentators assume it as a certain fact, that he must have left issue, because they find that M. Claudius Tacitus, who was created emperor in A. D. 275, deduced his pedigree from our historian; and Vopiscus telts us that he ordered the image of Tacitus, and a complete collection of his works, to be placed in the public archives, with a special direction that twelve copies should be made every year, at the public expence. But when the mutilated state, in which our author has come down to posterity is considered, there is reason to believe that the orders of this prince, who reigned only six months, were never executed.

, an ingenious artist, born at Florence in 1213, was the person who introduced into Italy the art of designing in Mosaic, having learned it from some Greek artists, who were employed in the church of S. Mark at Venice. The chief of these artists was a man whose name was Apollonius. With him Taffi became associated, and they worked together at Florence, with great success. The most famous work of Taffi was a dead Christ, in a chapel at Florence; it was seven cubits long, and executed with abundance of care. He died in 1294, at the age of eighty one.

Although we cannot fix the exact time of his going to France, it appears that he attended Henry V. at the siege of Caen in 1417; and the following year, in conjunction with Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, lord Talbot took the strong castle of Dumfront: and was afterwards present at the siege of Rouen, on all which occasions he was esteemed one of the bravest of those officers who had contributed to the conquest of France. About 1422 we find him again in England, employed in suppressing some riots, in the counties of Salop, Hereford, &c. but he returned again to the continent before the year 1427, at which time he regained possession of the city of Mans, which had been a considerable time in the hands of the English, but had in part been retaken by the French, who were now attacked with such impetuosity, that all their troops were either killed or taken prisoners. The unexpected recovery of this important place, the capital of the province of Maine, as it was entirely owing to lord Talbot, contributed not a little to encrease his military fame. He then made himself master of the town of Laval, and having joined the earl of Warwick in the siege of Pontorson, carried that place too, which had before been the grand obstacle in preventing the regent, the duke of Bedford, from carrying the war beyond the Loire. On its surrender, the earl of Warwkk appointed lord Talbot and lord Ross governors of it.

After the siege of Orleans was raised, lord Talbot retired to Meun, which he fortified, and then seized another town in the neighbourhood, and threw a reinforcement into Bangenci, and on the disaster of Suffolk, he succeeded to the command of the remainder of the British troops. He was now however doomed to sustain a fatal reverse in the battle of Patay, which the French, encouraged by their enthusiasm, began in so sudden a manner that the English had no time to form themselves, and were still so possessed with the opinion that their enemies were assisted by a supernatural power, that all the efforts of lord Talbot were insufficient to make them sustain the attack of the enemy. He did all that became a brave man and an able general, and his enemies were astonished at his valour, for in conjunction with the lords Scales and Hungerford, and sir Thomas Rempstone, he sustained almost the whole fury of the French attack; but the general rout of his army was at last completed by the French with great slaughter, and lord Taibot, who was wounded in the neck, was taken prisoner, together with some other officers of distinction.

Lord Talbot had sustained a tedious captivity of three years and a half in the hands of the French, when the duke of Bedford found means to have him exchanged, Feb. 12, 1433, for Xaintrailles, a French officer of great reputation; and after paying a short visit to England, his lordship resumed his command in France, and Joan of Arc’s magic having no longer any influence, she having, according to the common accounts, been put to death as an impostor, or a witch, Lord Talbot, whose name was still an object of terror, extended his conquests, and took several fortified places, with his accustomed skill and bravery. In some instances he is accused of having treated the garrisons with improper severity, and perhaps the long duration of his captivity might have contributed to increase his animosity against the enemy. Among the places he took were the castle of Joigny, Beaumont upon the Oise, Creil, Pont de Maxeme, Neufville, Rouge Maison, Crespi in Valois, Clermont, St. Dennis, and Gisors. One of his exploits was performed in a singular manner. In the beginning of H37, the weather was so extremely cold, that the generals on both sides could not undertake any regular operation in the field, yet even this lord Talbot contrived to turn to advantage. He collected a body of troops, and putting white cloths, or shirts, over their other clothes, marched with them all night, and brought them to the very walls of Pontoise, unperceived by the garrison, who did not distinguish them from the snow with which the ground was covered. They then mounted the walls by means of scaling-ladders, and seizing the chief gates, lord Talbot made himself master of this important place, which exposed the Parisians to the continual incursions of the English garrison up to the very gates of Paris.

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

He was first buried at Roan in France, together with his eldest son, and the inscription for him is thus translated “Here lyeth the right noble knt. John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, earl of Wexford, Waterford, and Valence, lord Talbot of Goderich and Orchenfield, lord Strange of Blackmere, lord Verdon of Alton, lord Cromwell of Wingfield, lord Lovetofte of Worsop, lord Furnival of Sheffield, lord Faulconbridge, knight of the noble orders of the garter, St. Michael, and the golden fleece, great marshal to Henry VI. of his realm of France, who died in the battle of Bourdeaux, 1453.”

From his first admission into the university, he had fixed upon the law as a profession, and leaving Oxford before he proceeded farther in arts, was admitted a member of the society of Lincoln’s-inn, and was called to the bar a considerable time before his course of reading was expired. He set out with great success, and in 1719 was chosen member of parliament for Tregony in Cornwall. In April 1726 he was made solicitor-general, and likewise was chosen member for the city of Durham, probably assisted by his father’s interest, who was then bishop of that see. In Nov. 1733, George II. delivered to him the great seal, and he was then sworn of his majesty’s privy council, and likewise constituted lord high chancellor, and created a baron of Great Britain by the title of lord Talbot, baron of Hensol, in the county of Glamorgan. On these promotions, he resigned the chancellorship of the diocese of Oxford, which had been given him by his father, when bishop of that sec; and in August 1735, the honorary degree of doctor of laws was conferred upon him by that university. He died, in the height of his fame and usefulness, of an illness of only five days, Feb. 14, 1737, at his house in LincolnVinn-fields, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was interred at Barrington in Gloucestershire, where his estate was, in the chancel of the church.

It has been said of lord chancellor Talbot, that eloquence never afforded greater charms from any orator, than when the public attention listened to his sentiments, delivered with the most graceful modesty; nor did wisdom and knowledge ever support it with more extensive power, nor integrity enforce it with greater weight. In apprehension he so far exceeded the common rank of men, that he instantaneously, or by a kind of “intuition, saw the strength or imperfection of any argument; and so penetrating was his sagacity, that the most intricate and perplexing mazes of the law could never so involve and darken the truth, as to conceal it from his discernment. As a member of each house of parliament, no man ever had a higher deference paid to his abilities, or more confidence placed in his inflexible public spirit; and so excellent was his temper, so candid his disposition in debate, that he never offended those whose arguments he opposed. When his merit, and the unanimous suffrage of his country, induced his prince to intrust him with the great seal, his universal affability, his easiness of access, his humanity to the distress, which his employment too frequently presented to his view, and his great dispatch of business, engaged to him the affection and almost veneration of all who approached him. And by constantly delivering with his decrees the reasons upon which they were founded, his court was a very instructive school of equity, and his decisions were generally attended with such conviction to the parties, against whose interest they were made, that their acquiescence in them commonly prevented any farther expence. As no servile expedient raised him to power, his country knew he would use none to support himself in it. He was constant and regular in his devotions both in his family and in public. His piety was exalted, rational, and unaffected. He was firm in maintaining the true interest and legal rights of the church of England, but an enemy to persecution. When he could obtain a short interval from business, the pompous formalities of his station were thrown aside; his table was a scene where wisdom and science shone, enlivened and adorned with elegance of wit. There was joined the utmost freedom of dispute with the highest good breeding, and the vivacity of mirth with primitive simplicity of manners. Whtii he had leisure for exercise, he delighted in field-sports; and even in those trifles shewed, that he was formed to excel in whatever he engaged; and had he indulged himself more in them, especially at a time when he found his health unequal to the excessive fatigues of his post, the nation might not yet have deplored a loss it could ill sustain. But though he was removed at a season of life when others but begin to shine, he might justly be said,” satis & ad vitam & ad gloriam vixisse" and his death united in one general concern a nation, which scarce ever unanimously agreed in any other particular; and notwithstanding the warmth of our political divisions, each party endeavoured to outvie the other in a due reverence to his memory.

, a very ingenious lady, the only child of Edward Talbot, second son of William, bishop of Durham, and nephew to the chancellor, was born in May 1720. She was born five months after the decease of her father, who died at the early age of twenty-nine, and being a younger brother, left his widow in a situation very inadequate to his rank in life. She was the daughter of the rev. George Martyn, prebendary of Lincoln, and had been married to Mr. Talbot only a few months. Happily, however, for her, the kind attentions of a dear and intimate friend were not wanting at that critical period. Catharine, sister to Mr. Benson, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, who had been the companion of her early youth, and whose brother was upon an equally intimate footing with Mr. Talbot, was residing with her at the time of his death, and was her great support in that heavy affliction; and they continued to live together and bestow all their joint attention upon the infant Catherine. But before she was five years of age, this establishment was broken up by the marriage of Miss Benson to Mr. Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury (See Secker), but then rector of the valuable living of Houghton-le-Spring in Durham. Mr. Seeker, mindful of his obligations to Mr. Edward Talbot, as mentioned in our account of him, immediately joined with his wife in the request that Mrs. and Miss Talbot would from that time become a part of his family. The offer was accepted, and they never afterwards separated; and upon Mrs. Seeker’s death, in 1748, they still continued with him, and took the management of his domestic concerns.

Besides her mother’s instructions, which were chiefly confined to religious principles, Miss Talbot enjoyed the benefit of a constant intercourse with the eminent divine with whom they lived; and his enlightened mind soon discovered the extent of her early genius, and was delighted to assist in its improvement. Hence, although she never studied the learned languages, unless perhaps a little Latin, she reaped all the advantages of Mr. Seeker’s deep and extensive learning, of his accurate knowledge of the Scriptures, and of his critical and unwearied research into the sciences and languages more immediately connected with that important study. Yet though so much attention was bestowed on serious pursuits, the lighter and more ornamental parts of female education were not neglected; and for the acquirement of these there was abundant opportunity in the different situations in which Mr. Seeker’s rapid progress in the church placed him. From the time that she was seven years old, she lived, almost constantly, in or near large cities; and was consequently enabled to acquire every useful branch of education, and all elegant accomplishments. She made some progress in music, but much more in drawing and painting in water-colours. Nor were the sciences and modern languages neglected; she had a competent knowledge of French and Italian, and late in life she taught herself German. She studied also geography and astronomy with much care and attention, and her master in the latter of these sciences, a Mr. Wright, was the means of her becoming acquainted with the celebrated Mrs. Carter, with whom she formed a strict friendship, the amiable turn of which may be seen in their correspondence lately published. Miss Talbot formed also other friendly connections with persons of merit and rank, who highly esteemed her.

But Miss Talbot ought not to be considered by posterity merely as an author. Great as her talents, and brilliant as her accomplishments were, she possessed qualities of infinitely more importance, both to herself and society. Her piety was regular, constant, and fervent. It was the spring of all her actions, as its reward was the object of all her hopes. Her charity, including the whole meaning of the word, in its apostolic sense, was extended to all her acquaintance, rich as well as poor; and to the latter she gave, not only such relief as her circumstances would allow (for she was never rich) but what was infinitely more valuable to her, no small portion of her time. There is reason to believe that she was often Dr. Seeker’s almoner, for there can be no doubt that he, who when he became archbishop of Canterbury, constantly bestowed in charity upwards of 2,000l. a year, had been equally bountiful before in proportion to his income.

On the death of this affectionate friend in 1768, who bequeathed Mrs. Talbot and her daughter about 400l. a year, they removed from Lambeth-palace to a house in Grosvenor-street, but in the following year the declining state of Miss Talbot’s health obliged them to leave London for a cooler and better air. Their kind and constant friend, the late marchioness Grey, lent them for this purpose her house at Richmond, together with every thing she could think of to contribute to their comfort or amusement; and from this delightful retreat Miss Talbot only returned in time to breathe her last in her mother’s house in town, Jan. 9, 1770, in the forty- ninth year of her age. Her chief disorder, added to a very weak, and now completely worn-out constitution, was a cancer, which had been for three years preying upon her enfeebled frame.

, a Roman catholic writer, of considerable celebrity in his day, was the son of sir William Talbot, and was born in 1620, of an ancient family in the county of Dublin. He was brother to colonel Richard Talbot, commonly called, about the court of England, “Lying Dick Talbot,” whom James II. created duke of Tyrconnell, and advanced to the lieutenancy of IrelandPeter was received into the society of the Jesuits in Portugal in 1635, and after studying philosophy and divinity, went into holy orders at Rome, whence he returned to Portugal, and afterwards to Antwerp, where he read lectures on moral theology. He was supposed to be the person who, in 1656, reconciled Charles II. then at Cologn, to the popish religion, and Charles is reported to have sent him secretly to Madrid to intimate to the court of Spain his conversion. He was also sent by his superiors to England to promote the interests of the Romish church, which he appears to have attempted in a very singular way, by paying his c ourt to Cromwell, at whose funeral he attended as one of the mourners, and even joined Lambert in opposing general Monk’s declaration for the king. He fled therefore at the restoration, but was enabled to return the year following, when the king married the infanta of Portugal, and he became one of the priests who officiated in her family. His intriguing disposition, however, created feome confusion at court, and he was ordered to depart the kingdom. The Jesuits, too, among whom he had been educated, thought him too busy and factious to be retained in their society, and it is supposed that by their interest pope Clement IX. was prevailed upon to dispense with his vows, and to advance him to the titular archbishopric of Dublin, in 1669. On his return to Ireland he recommenced his services in behalf of the church of Rome, by excommunicating those regulars and seculars of his own persuasion who had signed a testimony of their loyalty to the king. His ambition and turbulence led him also to quarrel with Plunket, the titular primate, a quiet man^ over whom he claimed authority, pretending that the king had appointed him overseer of all the clergy of Ireland; but when this authority was demanded, he never could produce it. In 1670, when lord Berkeley landed as lord lieutenant, Talbot waited upon him, and being courteously received, had afterwards the presumption to appear before the council in his archiepiscopal character, a thing without a precedent since the reformation. He was, however, disniissed without punishment; but when the popish plot was discovered in England in 1678, he was imprisoned in the castle of Dublin, on suspicion of being concerned in it, and died there in 1680. He was a man of talents and learning, but vain, ambitious, and turbulent. Sotwell, Harris, and Dodd have enumerated several of his publications, which, says Dodd, are plausible, and generally in defence of the Jesuits, but some of them are virulent against the English church.

, one of our earliest antiquaries, was born at Thorp, in Northamptonshire, and was educated at Winchester school, whence he was admitted of New college, Oxford, in 1525. He left the university in 1530, but took the degree of D. D. either there or in some other place. In 1541 he was made a prebendary of Wells, and April 9, 1547, treasurer of the cathedral church of Norwich, which he possessed at the time of his death, Aug. 27, 1558. He was a very diligent searcher into the antiquities of his country, and his collections proved of great service to Leland, Bale, Caius, Camden, and others. He also furnished archbishop Parker with many Saxon books, some of which he had from Dr. Ovvtn, physician to Henry VIII. He left his Mss. to New college. He was the first of our countrymen who illustrated Antoniiins’s Itinerary with various readings and notes, which were of great use to Camuen, and are printed by Hearne at the end of the third volume of Leland’s Itinerary from a ms in the Bodleian library, which belonged to John Stowe, and is in his ha 1 iwriting; but Talbot’s notes reach only to the sixth her. Two other copies are in Bene't college library a fourth is in Caius college library, with additions by Dr. Caius; and a fifth in the Cotton library. Camden followed his settlement of the stations in most instances, but William B 1 ir ton frequently differs from him in his “Commentary on Antoninus his Itinerary.” His other Mss. are “Aurum ex Stercore vel de Ænigmaticis et PropliL j ticis,” in Corpus college, Oxford; and “De chartis quibusdamRegnm Britannorurn,” in Bene't college, Cambridge.

, professor of medicine and anatomy in the university of Bologna, was born in that city in 1546, and died there Nov. 7, 1599, in the fifty-third year of his age. There is little recorded of his life; his fame depends on his having practised the art of restoring lost parts of the body by insition, particularly the nose, which has been a topic of ridicule ever since it was mentioned by Butler in his Hudibras^ “So learned Taliacotius from, &c.” Addison has also a humorous paper on the same subject in the Tatler (No. 260), and Dr. Grey some remarks in his notes on Hudibras. Taliacotius, however, was not the inventor of this art, for he allows that Alexander Benedictus and Vesalius had given some account of the same art before him, and Ambrose Pare mentions a surgeon who practised it much and successfully. Charles Bernard, serjeant-surgeon to queen Anne, asserts, that though those who have not examined the history may be sceptics, there are incontestable proofs that this art was actually practised with dexterity and success. Other writers have doubted whether Taliacotius did more than write on the theory, but there seems no foundation for depriving him of the honours of success in practice also. Our readers may, indeed, satisfy themselves as to the practicability of the art, as far as the nose is concerned, by perusing a very recent treatise, “An account of two successful operations for restoring a lost Nose, from the integuments of the forehead, in the cases of two officers of his majesty’s army,” by J. C. Carpue, surgeon, 1815, 4to. The lips and ears were the other parts which Taiiacotius professed to restore; and his writings on the subject are, 1. “Epistola ad Hieronymum Merculiarem de naribus, multo ante abscissis> reficiendis,” Francf. 1587, 8vo. 2. “De Curtorum Chirurgia per insitionem libri duo/ 7 Venice, 1597, fol. and reprinted at Francfort, 1598, 8vo, under the title” Chirurgia nova de narium, aurium, labiorumque defectu, per insitionem cutis ex humero, arte hactenus omnibus ignota, sarciendo." The magistrates of Bologna had such a high opinion of Taliacotius’s success, that they erected a statue of him, holding a nose in his hand.

, an admired general, and mareschal of France, was born Feb. 14, 1652, the son of Roger d'Hostun, marquis of la Beaume. Like other young nobles of France, he chose the army for his profession, and at the age of sixteen had the royal regiment of Cravates, in which command he signalized himself for ten years. In 1672 he attended Louis XIV. into Holland, obtained soon after the confidence of Turenne, and distinguished himself on several occasions. He was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general in 1693, and in 1697 was employed in an embassy to England. On the renewal of war, he commanded on the Rhine in 1702, and soon after was created mareschal of France. He distinguished himself in the ensuing year against the Imperialists, and gained a brilliant advantage, which, however, he rather disgraced by his pompous manner of announcing it. He was less fortunate in 1704, when being engaged against the English in the plains of Hochstedt, near Blenheim, he was defeated and brought a prisoner to England, where he remained for seven years. Soon after this battle, he said, in a kind of peevish compliment to the duke of Marlborough, “Your grace has defeated the finest troops in Europe” “You will except, 1 hope,” said the duke, “the troops who beat them.” His residence in England, say the French historians, was not without its use to France; as he very much assisted in detaching queen Anne from tha party of the allies, and causing the recall of the duke of Marlborough. He returned to Paris in 1712, and was created a duke. In 1726 he was named secretary of state, which honour he did not long retain, but died March 3, 1723, at the age of seventy-six. He was a man of good talents and character; his chief fault being that he was rather inclined to boasting.

, a non-conformist divine of considerable eminence and learning, was born at Paisley, near Chesterfield, Nov. 1619, and educated at the public schools at Mansfield and Newark, whence he went to Pete rhouse, Cambridge, but being chosen sub-tutor to the sons of the earl of Suffolk, removed for that purpose to Magdalen college, and in 1642 travelled with them on the continent. On his return he was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and afterwards became senior fellow and president. In 1648 he was ordained at London, in the presbyterian form. In 1652 he left the university, and went to Shrewsbury, where he became minister of St. Mary’s. At the restoration, an event in which he rejoiced, he was inclined to conform, but probably scrupling to be re-ordained, which was the chief obstacle with many other non-conformists, he was ejected. In 1670 he again visited the continent as tutor to two- young gentlemen, and about three years afterwards returned to Shrewsbury, and preached in a dissenting meeting there, while unmolested. He lived also some time in London, but very privately. After reaching the very advanced age of eighty-nine, he died April 11, 1708, and was buried in St. Mary’s, Shrewsbury. His funeral sermon was preached by the celebrated Matthew Henry, who, in an account appended, gives him a very high character for piety, learning, and moderation. He was one of those of whom the great Mr. Boyle took early notice, and Jived in friendship with all his life. He published a few religious, chiefly controversial, tracts, but is principally remembered as the editor of a work once hi very high reputation, “A view of Universal History; or, chronological Tables,” engraved in his house and under his particular inspection, on sixteen large copper-plates.