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

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Olivet, near Orleans, in 1499. He learned Greek and Latin from his childhood, and was made tutor to Claudius de l‘Aubespine, who was afterwards secretary of state. Hervet going then to Paris, assisted Edward Lupset, an Englishman, in an edition of Galen, and, following Lupset into England, was entrusted with the education of Arthur Pole; from thence he was called to Rome by cardinal Pole, to translate the Greek authors into Latin. He gained the friendship of this cardinal, and of all the illustrious men in Italy; distinguished himself at the council of Trent; was grand-vicar of No}’on and Orleans, and afterwards canon of Kheims, in which last city he passed the remainder of his life, wholly devoted to study. He died September 12, 1584. He left many works in Latin and in French: the principal are, Latin translations from several works of the Fathers; two discourses delivered at the council of Trent, 4 to, one to prove the clergy should not be ordained without a title; the other, that marriages contracted by gentlemen’s children, without consent of parents, are null: several controversial tracts in French; a French translation of the Council of Trent, &c. Hervet has been mentioned by Wood in his “Athenae,” but it does not appear that he was a member of the university of Oxford, although he might reside there while in England. He acquired such knowledge of the English language, as to translate into it; 1. Xenophon’s Treatise of Householde," 1532, 8vo; and

, an English divine of exemplary piety and virtue, was born at Hardingstonc, a village about a mile from Northampton, on Feb. 26, 1713-14. His father was minister of the parish of Collingtree, within two miles of Hardingstone. He received his early education at the free grammar-school of Northampton, where he attended for nearly ten years, learning the Latin and Greek languages; and would have made a much greater progress if he had not been impeded by the caprice of his master, who, it is said, would not suffer any of his boys to learn faster than his own son. At the age of seventeen he was entered of Lincoln-college, Oxford, and resided in the university about seven years, but without proceeding farther than his bachelor’s degree. His time, however, was not mispent. Besides a very considerable stock of learning which he accumulated here, he imbibed those habits of regularity and principles of piety which gave a colour to his future life and writings, and made him one of the most useful and popular preachers of his time.

His liberality and independence of mind began to appear while at Oxford, where he had a small exhibition of twenty pounds a year; but when his father, after he entered the church, urged him to take some curacy in or near Oxford, and to hold his exhibition, he would by no means comply, as he thought it unjust to detain it, after he was in orders, from some other person who might want it to promote their education. He then, in 1736, left Oxford, and became his father’s curate, and afterwards went to London; but, after a short stay, accepted the curacy of Dummer in Hampshire. Here he continued about a year, until he was invited to Stokes Abbey in Devonshire, the seat of his worthy friend Paul Orchard, esq. with whom he lived upwards of two years. It was to this gentleman’s son that he dedicated the second volume of his “Meditations.”

From 1738 to 1743, he resided either at Stokes abbey orat Biddeford; and during this period he planned and probably wrote a considerable part of his “Meditations.” An excursion to Kilkhampton in Cornwall occasioned him to lay the scene of the “Meditations among the Tombs” in that church. In 1743 he returned to Weston-Favel, and oftV elated as curate to his father till 1750, when his health became so much impaired by his study and duty, that his friends conveyed him to London for change of air and scene. The purpose was not, however, answered, for he was seized in April 1752 with a severe illness, which nearly proved fatal. On his recovery, and his father’s death, which happened about the same time, he returned to Weston, where he constantly resided during the remainder of his life, having accepted the two livings of Weston-Favel and Collingtree.

His labours both in the ministerial office and in his study were pursued by him as long as possible; but his constitution, originally weak, and greatly injured by his late illness, soon exhibited the usual symptoms and concomitants of rapid decay, attended with a hectic cough, which proved fatal on Christmas-day, 1758, in the forty-fourth year of his age. His death, throughout the district over which he extended his services, was deemed a public loss. By the poor it was felt to be so in every sense. In the exercise of his charity he was unbounded, but he was alsa judicious. He chose to clothe the poor rather than to give them money, and intrusted some friend to buy linen, coarse cloth, stockings, shoes, &c. for them at the best hand, alleging that the poor could not purchase on such good terms what they wanted at the little shops and with small sums of money. But when money promised to be serviceable to a family distressed by sickness or misfortune, he would frequently give five or more guineas at a time, taking care that it should not be known whence the money came. It would be endless to enumerate the personal virtues of Mr. Hervey. He was the father, the instructor, the guide, and the friend of all to whom kindness or instruction was necessary. His piety was constant, ardent, and sincere. It appears in all his writings, but not in them more than in his life and conversation. He viewed every object of art or nature only as it made part of the great Creator’s works, and was ever ready to give such a turn to common incidents or appearances as might suggest some pious reflection or useful hint

His learning was of the superior kind, Greek was almost as familiar to him as his native language. He was master of the classics, and in the younger part of his life had written some verses, which shewed no contemptible genius for poetry, but these he afterwards suppressed. His “Meditations” are indeed a species of poetical composition as far as respects imagery and fancy. He had, too, a critical knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, and delighted in those studies which tend to explain the sacred text. His Life is prefixed to his “Letters,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, a political and poetical writer of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John first earl of Bristol, by his second wife, Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir to sir Thomas Felton of Playford in the county of Suffolk, bart. He was born Oct. 15, 1696, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1715, previously to which, on Nov. 7, 1714, he had been made gentleman of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. He came into parliament soon after the accession of George I. and was appointed vice-chamberlain to the king in 1730, and a privy counsellor. In 1733 he was called up by writ to the house of peers, as lord Hervey of Ickworth; and in 1740 was constituted lord privy seal, from which post he was removed in 1742. He died Aug. 5, 1743, in the forty-seventh year of his age, a short period, but to which his life had been protracted with the greatest care and difficulty. Having early in life felt some attacks of the epilepsy, he entered upon and persisted in a very strict regimen, which stopped the progress of that dreadful disease, but prevented his acquiring, or at least long enjoying, the blessing of sound health. It is to this rigid abstemiousness that Pope malignantly alludes in the character he has given of lord Hervey, under the name of Sporus, in the line “the mere white curd of asses milk.” But lord Hervey affords a memorable instance of the caution with which we ou^ht to read the characters drawn by Pope and his associates; nor can too much praise be given to his late editors for the pains they have taken to rescue some of them from the imputations which proceeded from the irritable temper and malignity of that admired satirist. In the character of Sporus, Dr. Warton has justly observed, that language cannot afford more glowing or more forcible terms to express the utmost bitterness of contempt. Pope and his lordship were once friends; but they quarrelled at a time when the poetical world seemed to be up in arms, and perpetually contending in a manner disgraceful to their characters. In the quarrel between Pope and lord Hervey, it appears that Pope was the aggressor, and that lord Hervey wrote some severe lines in reply, and An Epistle from a Nobleman to a Doctor of Divinity.“1733. (Dr. Sherwin). In answer to this, Pope wrote the” Letter to a Noble Lord, on occasion of some libels written and propagated at court in the year 1732-3,“which is printed in his Works, and, as Warburton says,” is conducive to what he had most at heart, his moral character,“to which, after all, it conduced very little, as he Violated every rule of truth and decency in his subsequent attack on lord Hervey in the” Prologue to the Satires,“under the character of Sporus, whic,h, we agree with Mr. Coxe,” cannot be read without disgust and horror disgust at the indelicacy of the allusions, and horror at the malignity of the poet, in laying the foundation of his abuse on the lowest species of satire, personal invective; and what is still worse, on sickness and debility."

The man, however, whom Pope thus affected to despise, possessed very considerable talents both as a statesman and a man of literature. Dr. Middleton, in his dedication to the “Life of Tuily,” has praised his good sense, consummate politeness, real patriotism, his knowledge and defence of the laws of his country, his accurate skill in history, and his unexampled and unremitted diligence in literary pursuits. To Middleton’s work he contributed the translations of the passages from Cicero. Lord Hervey also wrote some of the best political pamphlets in defence of Sir Robert Walpole’s administration, of which lord Orford has given a long list. One attributed to him was entitled, “Sedition and Defamation displayed,' 7 and contained a severe invective against Pulteney and Bolingbroke. In answer to this, Pulteney wrote” A proper reply to a late scurrilous libel, &c.“and treated lord Hervey with such contempt, that the latter challenged him: a duel ensued, and Pulteney slightly wounded his antagonist. It afterwards appeared that lord Hervey did not compose this pamphlet, and Pulteney acknowledged his mistake. It was written by Sir William Yonge, secretary at war, a circumstance of which lord Orford appears to have bea ignorant. Though sometimes too florid and pompous, lord Hervey was a frequent and able speaker in parliament, and possessed more than ordinary abilities, and much classical erudition. He was remarkable for his wit, and the number and appositeness of his repartees. Although his manner and figure were, at first acquaintance, highly forbidding, yet he seldom failed to render himself, by his lively conversation, an entertaining companion to those whom he wished to conciliate. Hence he conquered the extreme prejudice which the king had conceived against him; and from being detested, became a great favourite. He was particularly agreeable to queen Caroline, as he helped to enliven the uniformity of a court with sprightly repartees, and lively sallies of wit. His defects were, extreme affectation, bitterness of invective, prodigality of flattery, and great servility to those above him. Of his poetical effusions, which are easy, elegant, and sufficiently satirical to” have made Pope feel, the best are in Dodsley’s collection. The advice of George II. to him must not be forgotten, although in our days it is less likely to be taken than at that period “My lord Hervey, you ought not to write verses 'tis beneath your rank leave such work to little Mr. Pope it is his trade”

, third earl of Bristol, second son of the preceding, was born May 19, 1724. Chusing a maritime life, he passed through the subordinate stations, and was a lieutenant in the year 1744. In the same year he first saw miss Chudleigh at the house of Mrs. Hammer, her aunt, in Hampshire, where they were privately married, Aug. 4, in that year. A few clays after, Mr. Hervey was obliged to embark for Jamaica in vice-admiral Davers’s fleet. At his return his lady and he lived together, and were considered by their relations as man and wife. In January 1747, he was advanced to the rank of post-captain, and in the same year his lady brought him a son, though she continued a maid of honour to the year 1764. This circumstance gave occasion to the following amigmatical epigram by the late lord Chesterfield:

Soon after this event, a coolness arose between captain Hervey and his wife, which increased till they both became desirous of a separation. In Jan. 1747, he was appointed to the command of the Princessa, and served in the Mediterranean under admirals Medley and Byng and after the peace, in Jan. 1752, he obtained the Phoenix of 22 guns. In the course of two wars, the courage, zeal, and activity of captain Hervey were distinguished in the Mediterranean, off Brest, at the Havannah, and in other places. During the same period he was gradually advanced to the command of a 74 gun ship; and at the peace in 1763 he was appointed one of the grooms of the bed-­chamber to the king. In 1771 he was created one of the lords of the admiralty; and in 1775, on the death of his brother without issue, he became earl of Bristol, after having represented the borough of Bury St. Edmund’s in four parliaments. He now resigned his places, and was created an admiral. In the beginning of the American war, captain Hervey was a strenuous advocate for the measures of the ministry; but, changing his politics in the year 1778, continued to the end of it as violent an opponent; not without very striking appearances of inconsistency on several occasions. He died in 1779, when his titles, and as much of his estate as he could not leave away, devolved to his brother the bishop of Derry, as he left no legitimate heir. The affair of his marriage, which attracted much public notice at the time, was briefly thus: After nine years of preparation, his wife, who had long lived with the Juke of Kingston, obtained her suit in the commons, in 1768, by which it was decided that their marriage never had been legal, and was void. She then was married to the duke of Kingston in 1769. But, it appearing afterwards that the decision had been fraudulently obtained, she was indicted in 1775 for bigamy, tried in the House of peers, and found guilty, but, as a peeress, was discharged from corporal punishment. She afterwards died abroad in 1788, The following well-drawn character of lord Bristol, written by a contemporary peer in the sea-service, lord Mulgrave, seems to justify the insertion of his name in this place; though it may be in some degree heightened by personal partiality.

u He engaged in the sea service when he was ten years old: the quickness of his parts, the decision of his temper, the excellency of his understanding, the activity of his mind, the eagerness of his ambition, his indefatigable industry, his unremitting diligence, his correct an-d extensive memory, his ready and accurate judgment, the promptitude, clearness, and arrangement with which his ideas were formed, and the happy perspicuity with which they were expressed, were advantages peculiar to himself, His early education under captain William Hervey and admiral Byng (two of the best officers of their time), with his constant employment in active service from his first going to sea till the close of the last war , had furnished ample matter for experience, from which his penetrating genius and just observation, had deduced that extensive and systematic knowledge of minute circumstances and important principles^ which is necessary to form an expert seaman and a shining officer: with the most consummate professional skill, he possessed the most perfect courage that ever fortified an heart or brightened a character; be loved enterprize, he was cool in danger, collected in distress, decided in difficulties, ready and judicious in his expedients, and persevering in his determinations; his orders in the most critical situations, and for the most various objects, were delivered with a firmness and precision which spake a confidence in their propriety, and facility in their execution, that ensured a prompt and successful obedience in those to whom they were addressed.

"Such was his character as an oiVicer, which made him deservedly conspicuous in a profession, as honourable to the individual as important to the public: nor was he without those qualifications and abilities which could give full weight to the situation in which his rank and connections had placed him in civil life; his early entrance into his profession had indeed deprived him of the advantages of a classical education; this defect was however more than balanced by the less ornamental, but more solid instruction of the school he studied in as a member of parliament, he was an eloquent, though not a correct speaker those who differed from him in politics, confessed the extent of his knowledge, the variety of his information, and the force of his reasoning, at the same time that they admired the ingenuity with which he applied them to the support of his opinions.

"He was not more eminent for those talents by which a country is served, than distinguished by those qualities which render a man useful, respected, esteemed, and beloved in society. In the general intercourse of the world, he was an accomplished gentleman and agreeable companion his manners were noble as his birth, and engaging as his disposition he was humane, benevolent, compassionate, and generous his humanity was conspicuous in his profession when exercised towards the seamen, the sensibility and attention of a commander they adored, was the most flattering relief that could be afforded to the sufferings or distresses of those who served with him; when exerted towards her enemies, it did honour to his country, by exemplifying in the most striking manner that generosity which is the peculiar characteristic and most distinguished virtue of a brave, free, and enlightened people. In other situations his liberality was extensive without ostentation, and generally bestowed where it would be most felt and least secn/upon modest merit, and silent distress. His friendships were warm, and permanent beyond the grave, extending their influence to those who shared the affections or enjoyed the patronage of their objects. His resentment was open, and his forgiveness sincere; it was the effect, perhaps the weakness, of an excellent mind, that with him, an injury which he had forgiven was as strong a claim to his protection, as a favour received could be to his gratitude.

, brother to the preceding, and fourth earl of Bristol, was born in August 1730. He was educated at Westminster school, and was admitted fellow commoner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, Nov. 10, 1747, where his application to study was as remarkable as it was unusual in persons of his rank. He took his master’s degree, as nobleman, in 1754. While at college his good sense, good nature, and affability, gained him the love and esteem of all who knew him. At first he was designed for the bar, and, leaving Cambridge, went to one of the inns of court, but he afterwards turned his thoughts to the church, and went into holy orders. He was perhaps a singular instance of a man of his learning, family, and connexions, that never attained any ecclesiastical preferment until he was made a bishop, although he held a lay office under government, and in his father’s department, that of & principal clerk of the privy seal.

On the death of Dr. Chapman in 1760, his lordship applied to his relation the countess of Portsmouth for the jnastership of Magdalen college, Cambridge, but she had disposed of it. Having no clerical function at this time, he indulged his taste in visiting the continent; and being at Naples in 1766, when mount Vesuvius was in great agitation previous to its eruption, his curiosity led him into no small danger, for, approaching too near, Ue was very much wounded by an explosion, in one of his arms.

During his brother’s being lord lieutenant of Ireland, he was promoted to the see of Cloyne, in Feb. 1767, and translated to that of Derry in 1768. When appointed to the former, he refused to take an English chaplain over with him, but made choice of Mr. Skelton, with whom he was no otherwise acquainted than by his writings against deism and infidelity. 1 The rev. Philip Skelton, a very learned and pious divine, and author of many excellent works, is the person here intended; but Skelton, who had his oddities as well as his new patron, rendered this deSign abortive. Skelton’s principal work, “Deism revealed,” had been published some years, and was much admired by Dr. Hervey, who, before he got his bishopric, wrote to the author, informing him, that as he expected soon to be raised to a station of some eminence in the Irish church, he hoped then to be able to prove the high opinion he entertained'for the author of “Deism revealed.” Accordingly, on obtaining the bishopric of Cloyne, his lordship sent him another letter to this effect, that having some time before made a sort of an engagement with him, he begged leave now to fulfil it, aud therefore requested him to come up to Dublin (from Fintona in the county of Tyrone), and preach his consecration sermon, assuring him that, upon his compliance, he would promote him in the church as high as he was able. Skelton, in his answer, informed his lordship, he would comply with his request, though he was content with the living he had; and if he consented to go to the diocese of Cloyne, it would be only to be nearer the sun, and nearer his lordship. He then prepared a sermon for the occasion, but when the day approached, finding himself somewhat unwell, and the weather very cold, he thought he could not with safety go to Dublin, and of course the bishop was disappointed. However, he sent his lordship the sermon, who, though asta nished at the ability it displayed, was still offended with Mr. Skelton, as he imagined his excuse for his absence was not sufficient. Upon this, he informed him by letter, that the chain of their friendship was broken in two; to which Mr. Skelton replied, that if it were broken, it was of hte lordship’s own forging, not of his. Yet the bishop, after his promotion to the see of Derry, came to Fintona to pay him a visit, and Skelton happening to be abroad, left word that he had come fifteen miles out of his road to see him. Of this visit Mr. Skelton took no notice, a rudeness certainly unpardonable in the case of a gentleman who had sought him out purely for his merit’s sake.

Soon after his translation to Derry, he made a parochial visitation, by which the residence of his clergy, and the erection of their parsonage-houses, were settled and provided for. He also instituted a fund for the support of the superannuated curates of his diocese, regulations which made him extremely popular in his diocese. In 1770, the corporation of Londonderry presented him with the freedom of their city, in a gold box, a compliment never before paid to his predecessors, “because his lordship had effected, what none of his predecessors had before so much as considered, the two most important points in this town a bridge and a colliery.” In this same year, he had the liberality to offer the Roman catholic, or titular bishop of Derry, a considerable sum of money, in order to build a chapel, that he might not be obliged to officiate to his congregation in the open air; with only this condition, that he should pray for the king and royal family. But, although the titular bishop had never failed to do so, he thought proper not to accept the donation, lest it should be said that his motive for loyalty was his lordship’s benefaction.

In 1779, on the death of his elder brother, he became earl of Bristol, with a noble estate, the produce of which he expended in acts of munificence and liberality. One of his first donations, after this accession of fortune, was 1000l. towards an augmentation of an endowment for the widows and clergy of his diocese. He became, however, about this time, rather eccentric in his political conduct, and was among the leaders of the Irish patriots, as they were called, during the A'merican war, and a member of the famous convention of delegates from the volunteers, held in Dublin in 1782; on which occasion he was escorted from Derry to Dublin by a regiment of volunteer cavalry, and received military honours in every town through which he passed in that long journey. As an amateur, connoissieur, and indefatigable protector of the fine arts, he was generally surrounded by artists, whose talents his judgment directed, and whose wants his liberality relieved. His love of the sciences was only surpassed by his Jove to his country, and by his generosity to the unfortunate of every country; neither rank nor power escaped his resentment when any illiberal opinion was thrown out against England. At a dinner with the late king of Prussia and the prince royal of Denmark, at Pynnont, in 1797, he boldly said, after the conversation about the active ambition of England had been changed into inquiries about the delicacy of a roasted capon, that he did not like neutral animals, let them be ever so delicate. In 1798 he was arrested by the Frencb in Italy, and confined in the castle of Milan; was plundered by the republicans of a valuable and well-chosen collection of antiquities, which he had purchased with a view of transmitting to his native country; and was betrayed and cheated by many Italians, whose benefactor he had been. But neither the injustice nor the ingratitude of mankind changed his liberal disposition, he no sooner recovered his liberty, than new benefactions forced even the ungrateful to repent, and the unjust to acknowledge his elevated mind. The earl of Bristol was one of the greatest English travellers (a capacity in which his merits have been duly appreciated by the celebrated Martin Sherlock); and there is not a country in Europe where the distressed have not obtained his succour, and the oppressed his protection. He may truly be said to have clothed the naked, and fed the hungry; and, as ostentation never constituted real charity, his left hand did not know what, his right hand distributed. The tears and lamentations of widows and orphans discovered his philanthropy when he was no more; and letters from Swiss patriots and French emigrants, from Kalian catholics and German protestants, proved the noble use his lordship made of his fortune, indiscriminately, to the poor, destitute, and unprotected of all countries, of all parties, and of all religions. But, as no man is without his enemies, and envy is most busy about the most deserving, some of his lordship’s singularities have been the object of calumny and ridicule. He certainly did retain that peculiarity of character for which his family were formerly distinguished, and which induced the mother of the late marquis Townsbend, a woman of uncommon wit and humour, to say that there were three sorts of people in the world, “men, women, and /fewys.”His lordship died at Aibano, near Rome, July 8, 1803, and his remains, being brought to England, were interred in the family vault at Ickworth, near Bury, where, at the time of his death, he was building a magnificent viila on the Italian model. His lordship married, in early life, Elizabeth, daughter of sir Jenny n Davers, bart. by whom he had several children. He was succeeded in titles and estate by Frederic-William, his second son, now fifth earl of Bristol.

, chancellor of Bavaria at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and of a noble family in Augsburg, published some works in which his learning was more displayed than his judgment, in supporting the most extravagant systems. These are, 1. “Chronoiogia nova et vera,” two parts, 1622 and 1626, 4to. 2. “Admiranda Ethicae Theologicae Mysteria propalata, de antiquissima veterum nationum superstitione, qua lapis Magnes pro Deo habitus colebatur,” Monach. 1626, in 4 to. It was here supported, as the title intimates, that the ancient Egyptians worshipped the magnet, &c. 3. “An Apology for the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, against the falsehoods of Bzovius.”

, a German pretestant theologian, was born at Wesel in the duchy of Cleves, in 1526. He taught theology in several cities of Germany, but was of so turbulent a spirit as to be exiled almost from every one. He adopted several absurd and singular opinions in the zeal of his controversies with the Calvinists, particularly Beza. He died in 1588. His works are, 1. “Commentaries on the Psalms.” 2. “On Isaiah.” 3. “On all the Epistles of St. Paul.” 4. “A Treatise on Justification and the Lord’s Supper.” 5. “Sexcenti errores, pleni Blasphemiis in Deum, quos Romana pontificiaque Ecclesia contra Deum furenter defendit.” This is scarce. 6. Other miscellaneous productions, now forgotten.

, a very ancient Greek poet, is thought by some to have been contemporary with Homer, but there is more re.ason to think he was at least thirty years older. His father, as he tells us, was an inhabitant of Cuma, in one of the Æolian isles, now called Taio Nova and removed from thence to Ascra, a village of Bceotia at the foot of mount Helicon, where Hesiod was probably born, and called, as he often is, Ascraeus from it. Of what quality his father was, is no where said; but that he was driven by misfortunes from Cuma to Ascra, Hesiod himself informs us. His father seems to have prospered better at Ascra, than he did in his own country; yet his son could arrive at no higher fortune, than that of keeping sheep at the top of Helicon, where the Muses met with iiim, and received him into their service.

Upon the death of the father, an estate was left, which ought to have been equally divided between the two brothers Hesiod and Perses; but Perses defrauded him in the division, by corrupting the judges. Hesiod was so far from resenting this injustice, that he expresses a concern for those poor mistaken mortals who place their happiness in riches only, even at the expence of their virtue. He lets us know, that he was not only above want, but capable of assisting his brother in time of need; which he often did, though he had been so ill used by him. The last circumstance he mentions relating to himself, is his conquest in a poetical contention. Archidamas, king of Eubosa, had instituted funeral games in honour of his own memory, which his sons afterwards took care to have performed. Here Hesiod was a competitor for the prize in poetry, and won a tripod, which he consecrated to the Muses. Plutarch, in his “Banquet of the Seven Wise Men,” makes Periander give an account of the poetical contention at Chalcis, in which Hesiod and Homer are made antagonists. Hesiod was the conqueror, and dedicated the tripod, which he received for his victory, to the Muses. We are told, that Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander had a dispute on this subject. The prince declared in favour of Homer; his father told him, “that the prize had been given to Hesiod;” and asked him, whether “be had never seen the verses Hesiod had inscribed upon the tripus, and dedicated to the. Muses on mount Helicon?” Alexander allowed it; but said, that Hesiod “might well get the better, when kings were not the judges, but ignorant ploughmen and rustics.” The authority of these relations is, however, questioned by learned men; especially by such as will not allow these two poets to have been contemporaries, but make Hesiod between thirty and forty years the older of the two, which agrees nearly with the chronology of the Arundelian marbles.

Hesiod, having entered into the service of the Muses, discontinued the pastoral life, and applied himself to the study of arts and learning. When he was grown old, for it is agreed by all that he lived to a very great age, he removed to Locris, a town about the same distance from, Parnassus as Ascra was from Helicon. The story of his death, as told by Solon in Plutarch’s “Banquet,” is very remarkable. The man with whom Hesiod lived at Locris, a Milesian born, ravished a maid in the same house; and though Hesiod was entirely ignorant of the fact, yet being maliciously accused to her brothers as an accomplice, he was injuriously slain with the ravisher, and thrown with him into the sea. It is added, that when the inhabitants of the place heard of the crime, they drowned the perpetrators, and burned their houses. We have the knowledge of some few monuments, which were framed in honour of this poet. Pausanias, in his Boeotics, informs us, that his countrymen, the Boeotians, erected to him an image with a harp in his hand; and relates in another place, that there was likewise a statue of Hesiod in the temple of Jupiter Olympicus. Ursinus and Boissard have exhibited a breast with a head, a trunk without a head, and a gem of him; and Ursinus says, that there is a statue of brass of him in the public college at Constantinople. The “Theogony,” and “Works and Days,” are the only undoubted pieces of this poet now extant: though it is supposed, that these poems are not perfect. The “Theogohy, or Generation of the Gods,” Fabricius makes indisputably the work of Hesiod; “nor is it to be doubted,” adds he, “that Pythagoras took it for his, who feigned that he saw in hell the soul of Hesiod tied in chains to a brass pillar, for what he had written concerning the nature of the gods.” This doubtless was the poem which gave Herodotus occasion to say, that Hesiod and Homer were the first who introduced a Theogony among the Grecians; the first who gave names to the gods, ascribed to them honours and arts, and gave particular descriptions of their persons. The “Works and Days” of Hesiod, Plutarch assures us, were used to be sung to the harp. Virgil has shewn great respect to this poet, and proposed him as his pattern in his Georgics, though in truth he has greatly excelled him. There is also in the works of Hesiod a large fragment of another poem, called the “Shield of Hercules,” which some have ascribed to him, and some have rejected. Manilins has given a high character of this poet and his works. Heinsi is in the preface to his edition of Hesiod remarks, that among all the poets, he scarce knew any but Homer and Hesiod, who could represent nature in her true native dress; and tells us, that nature had begun and perfected at the same time her work in these two poets, whom for that very reason he makes no scruple to call Divine. In general, the merit of Hesiod has not been estimated so highly; and it is certain that, when compared with Homer, he must pass for a very moderate poet: though in defining their different degrees of merit, it may perhaps be but reasonable to consider the different subjects on which the genius of each was employed. But his “Works and Days” is certainly an interesting and valuable monument of antiquity, as written so near what may be termed the origin of Greek poetry. The first edition of the “Opera et Dies” is supposed to have been printed at Milan in 1493, folio, and the first edition of Hesiod’s entire works, from the Aidine press, appeared at Venice, 1495, folio. Both are described in the Bibl. Spenceriana. The best editions since are those of Gra^vius, Amst. 1667, Gr. and Lat. Le Clerc, Amst. 1701, 8vo Robinson, Oxford, 1737, 4to; and Loesner, Leipsic, 1778, 8vo. All these are Gr. and Lat. We have English translations of the “Works and Days” by Chapman, 1618, 4to> and by Cooke, 1729 and 1740.

, or Hesselius, a celebrated professor of theology at Louvain, was born there in 1522. Being sent as a legate to the council of Trent, he greatly distirrguished himself by his profound erudition. He was particularly conversant in the works of St. Austin and St. Jerom, and was more remarkable for judgment than for eloquence. After having been afflicted by the stone, he died of an apoplexy at the early age of forty-four, in 1566, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain, of which he was a canon. He wrote a great number of controversial works against the protestants, which in his time were much esteemed. Also, 1. “Commentaries on St. Matthew, and several of the Epistles.” 2. “A famous Catechism,” containing a vast mass of moral and theological learning. His epitaph says, “Hoereses suo tern pore grassantes turn viva voce, turn editis libris strenue profligavit.” “The heresies which were spreading in his time he stoutly defeated both by speeches and books,” which means no more than that he wrote ably against the reformers.

was a celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, whom Isaac Casaubon has declared to be, in his opinion, of all the ancient critics, whose remains are extant, the most learned and instructive, for those who would apply themselves in earnest to the study of the Greek language. Who or what Hesychius was, and indeed at what time precisely he lived, are circumstances which there is not light enough in antiquity to determine; as Fabricius himself owns, who has laboured abundantly about them. He has left us a learned lexicon or vocabulary of Greek words, from which we may perceive that he was a Christian, or, at least, that he had a thorough and intimate knowledge of Christianity; for he has inserted in his work the names of the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, as well as of those ancient writers who have commented upon them. Some say that he was a disciple of Gregory of Nazianzen, and that he was extremely well versed in the sacred Scriptures: and Sixtus Sinensis is of opinion that he ought to be placed about the end of the fourth century. The first edition of Hesychius’s lexicon was published in folio by Aldus at Venice in 1513; then appeared one by Schrevelius, at Leyden, in 4to, in 1668, in Greek only. The best edition is in two volumes, folio; the first published by Albert! at Leyden in 1746 the second, completed by Ruhnkenius, after the death of Alberti, and published in 1766. This is a complete and excellent edition, abounding in learned and useful notes. It is reckoned one of the best editions existing of any ancient author. But, after all the labours of the acutest men, much yet remains to be corrected and discovered in this work.

, a celebrated physician, born at Utrecht in 1543, after having made himself master of every thing belonging to his art at Louvain, Paris, Padua, Turin, was invited to Leyden to be professor, where he is said to have been the first who taught anatomy by lectures upon human bodies. He died of the stone in 1601. There are several of his productions extant, but the most capital is, “A Treatise upon Disorders of the Head.” Heurnius published Hippocrates in Greek and Latin, with explanatory commentaries, which have undergone many editions: the fourth was at Amsterdam, 1688, in 12mo. Gerard “Vossius calls him” summum medicum;“and says, that he was his master” in scientia naturali." His works were published in folio at Leyden, in 1658. He had a sou named Otto, who also obtained some celebrity.

, a celebrated Saxon divine and scholar, was born in September 1690, at Sunderhausen in Thurmgia. He studied at home and at Gotha, when having determined for the clerical profession, he removed in 1708 to Halle. Hence, after a short stay, he went to Jena, where he pursued his theologic1 studies under the celebrated Budcleus, and his philological under Dauzius. In 1711, he returned to Halle; but, being obliged by iii Health to change the air, he took a literary tour to Eisenach, Cassel, Marpurg, and Giessen. At the latter of these places he settled, and took pupils in 1715; but in 1722 undertook the care of a school at Laubacb, In 1730 he was appointed a professor at Gotha, where he remained till 1738, when, by particular invitation, he g-n-e up that situation for a similar one of more profit at Eisenach. Heusinger was married, and had a son and two daughters. He died in March 1751. This philologer is highly praised by his biographer for learning, piety, good temper, and sound judgment. He published seve al editions of classical books as, “Julius Caesar,” with notes, G >tha, 1736; “u^sop’s Fables,” in Greek “Phajdrus;” “Three Orations of Cirevo;” “Cornelius Nepos,” Eisenach, 1747, and others; besides several valuable editions of mpdern philological works. His original productions consist chiefly of academical prolusions and disputations, of which his biographer gives a long list.

, was a nephew of the former, under whom he made his principal studies at Gotha. He was born in 1719, at Usingen in Wetteravia, near Eisenach; and, when prepared by his uncle for academical lectures, completed his education at Jena. There, after some time, he began to teach philology, and continued his lectures for six years; -but in 1750 removed to Wolfenbuttel, where he was at first second master of the principal school but in 1759 became head-master. These situations he filled with the greatest credit being a good grammarian, a sound critic, and an admirable interpreter of Greek and Latin authors. He died in 1778, having made himself famous by several very learned publications; the chief of which are, 1. “A specimen of observations on the Ajax and Electra of Sophocles,” 1746, at Jena. 2. “An edition of Plutarch on Education, with the version of Xylander corrected, and his own annotations,” Leipsic, 1749. This tract, however, Wyttenbach pronounces to be one of those that are falsely ascribed to Plutarch. 3. “Flavii Mallii Theodori, de metris liber;.” from old manuscripts. This was printed in 4to, at Wolfenbuttel, in 1759. J. F. Heusinger was twice married, and left a son, who was also a man of learning.

, or Hevelke, a celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was born at Dantzic January 28, 1611. His parents, who were of rank and fortune, gave him a liberal education; in which he discovered early a propensity to natural philosophy and astronomy. He studied mathematics under Peter Crugerus, in which he made a wonderful progress; and learned also to draw, to engrave, and to work both in wood and iron in such a manner as to be able to frame mechanical instruments. In 1630 he set out upon his travels, on which he spent four years, visiting Holland, England, France, and Germany; and on his return was so taken up with civil affairs, that he was obliged to intermit his studies for some years, until his master, Crugerus, who foresaw his future fame, recalled him to the study of astronomy; and in 1639 Hevelius began to apply himself entirely to it, by building an observatory upon the top of his house, which he furnished with instruments for making the most accurate observations. He constructed excellent telescopes himself, and began his observations with the moon, whose various phases and spots he noted very accurately; “with a view,” as he says, “of taking lunar eclipses with greater exactness, and removing those difficulties which frequently arise for want of being able to settle more precisely the quantity of an eclipse.” When he had finished his course of observations, and prepared a great number of fine engravings, he published his work at Dantzick, 1647, under the title of “Selenographia, sive, Luna3 descriptio;” to which he added, by way of appendix, the phases of the other planets, as they are seen through the telescope, with observations upon them, upon the spots of the sun and Jupiter in particular; all engraved by himself upon copper, and distinctly placed before the eyes of the reader. At the entrance of this work there is a handsome mezzotinto of himself by Falek, as he then was, in his thirty-sixth year, with a just encomium, although in bad Latin verse.

After this, Hevelius continued to make his observations upon the heavens, and to publish, from time to time, whatever he thought might tend to the advancement of astronomy. In 1654 he published two epistles; one to the famous astronomer Ricciolus, “De motu Lunae libratorio;” another to the no less famous Bulialdus, “De utriusque luminaris defectu.” In 1656, a dissertation “De natura Saturni faciei, ejusque phasibus certa periodoredeuntibus.” In 1661, “Mercurius in sole visus.” In 1662, “Historiola de nova stella in collo Ceti.” In 1665, “Prodromus Cometicus, or the history of a Comet, which appeared in 1664.” Jn 1666, “The History of another Comet, which appeared in 1665;” and, in 1668, “Cometographia, cometarum naturam, et omnium a mundo condito historian! exhibens.” He sent copies of this work to several members of the royal society at London, and among the rest to Hooke; who in return sent Hevelius a description of the dioptric telescope, with an account of the manner of using it; and at the same time recommended it to him as greatly preferable to telescopes with plain sights. This gave rise to a dispute between them; the point of which was, “whether distances and altitudes could be taken with plain sights nearer than to a minute.” Hooke asserted that they could not; but that, with an instrument of a span radius, by the help of a telescope, they might be determined to the exactness of a second. Hevelius, on the other hand, insisted, that, by the advantage of a good eye and long use, he was able with his instruments to come up even to that exactness; and appealing to experience and facts, sent by Way of challenge eight distances, each between two different stars, to be examined by Hooke. Thus the affair rested for some time with outward decency, but not without some inward animosity. In 1673 Hevelius published the first part of his “Machina Ccelestis,” as a specimen of the exactness both of his instruments and observations; and sent several copies as presents to his friends in England, but omitted Hooke. This, it is supposed, occasioned Hooke to print, in 1674, “Animadversions on the first part of the Machina Ccelestis;” in which he treated Hevelius with great disrespect, and threw out several unhandsome reflections, which were greatly resented; and the dispute grew afterwards so public, and rose to such a height, that, in 1679, Halley went at the request of the royal society, to examine both the instruments and the observations made with them. Halley gave a favourable judgment of both, in a letter to Hevelius; and Hooke, merely from his mode of managing the controversy, was universally condemned, though the preference has since been given to telescopic sights. Hevelius, however, could not be prevailed with to make use of them: whether he thought himself too experienced to be informed by a young astronomer, as he considered Hooke; or whether, having made so many observations with plain sights, he was unwilling to alter his method, lest he might bring their exactness into question; or whether, being by long practice accustomed to the use of them, and not thoroughly apprebending the use of the other, nor well understanding the difference, is uncertain. Besides Halley’s letter, Hevelius received many others in his favour, which he took the opportunity of inserting among the astronomical observations in his “Ami us Ciimuctericus,” printed in 1685. In a long preface prefixed to this work, he spoke with more conn“­dence and greater indignation than he had done before; and particularly exclaimed against Hooke’s dogmatical and magisterial manner of assuming a kind of dictatorship over him. This revived the dispute, and caused several learned men to engage in it. The book itself being sent to the royal society, an account was given of it at their request by Dr. Wallis who, among other things took notice, that” Hevelius’s observations had been misrepresented, since it appeared from this book, that he could distinguish by plain sights to a small part of a minute.“About the same time, Molynea;jx also wrote a letter to the society in vindication of Hevelius against Hooke’s” Animadversions.“Hooke drew up an answer to this letter, which was read likewise before the society; in which he observed,” that he was not the aggressor, and denied that he had intended to depreciate Hevelins."

In 1679, Hevelius had published the second part of his “Machina Ccelestis;” but the same year, while he was in the country, he had the misfortune to have his house at Dantzic burnt down. By this calamity he is said to have sustained several thousand pounds damage; having not only his observatory and all his valuable instruments and astronomical apparatus destroyed, but also a great number of copies of his “Machina Ccelestis;” which accident has made this second part very scarce, and dear. In 1690, were published a description of the heavens, called, “Firmamentum Sobiescianum,” in honour of John III. king of Poland; and “Prodromus astronomix, & novae tabula; solares, uua cum catalogo fixarum,” in which he lays down the necessary preliminaries for taking an exact catalogue df the stars. Both these works, however, were posthumous; for Hevelius died January 28, 1687, which was the day of his birth, on which he entered upon his 77th year. He was a man greatly esteemed by his countrymen, not only on account of his skill in astronomy, but as an excellent and worthy magistrate. He was made a burgomaster of Dantzic; which olHce he is said to have executed with the utmost integrity and applause. He was also very highly esteemed by foreigners; and not only by foreigners skilled in astronomy and the sciences, but by foreign princes and potentates: as appears abundantly evident from a collection of their letters, which were printed at Dantzic in 1683.

, an eminent anatomist, was born at Hexham, in Northumberland, November 14, 1739. He attended the grammar school of that town until he was apprenticed to his father, a surgeon and apothecary of reputation; after which he resided some time with Mr. Lambert, surgeon, at Newcastle. In 1759 he was sent to London, and resided with that distinguished anatomist, Mr. John Hunter, attending the lectures of his no less celebrated brother, Dr. Wm. Hunter. Young Hewson’s assiduity and skill having attracted the attention of the teachers, he was appointed to superintend the dissecting room, while Mr. Hunter went abroad with the army in 1760; and in 1762, after studying a year at Edinburgh, he became associated with Dr. Hunter, and occasionally delivered the anatomical lectures; and when Dr. Hunter’s spacious establishment was completed in Windmill-street, Mr. Hewson was allotted an apartment in the house. Here he pursued his anatomical investigations, and “his experimental inquiries into the properties of the blood;” an account of which he published in 1771, and he communicated to the royal society several papers containing an account of his discoveries of the lymphatic system in birds and fishes, for which he received the Copleyan medal, and was soon after elected a fellow of that body. In 1770, his connection with Dr. Hunter was dissolved, and he began a course of anatomical lectures alone in September 1772, in Craven-street; and published a second edition of his “Experimental Inquiry,” which he dedicated to sir John Pringle, as a testimony of gratitude for the undeviating friendship of that illustrious physician. In the spring of 1774, he published his work On the “Lymphatic system.” At this time his anatomical theatre was crowded with pupils, his practice was daily increasing, and his ardour for experimental research undiminished, when he was seized with a fever, occasioned by a wound received in dissecting a morbid body, which terminated fatally on the 1st of May 1774, in the thirty-fifth year of his age. His papers, which were afterwards collected together, were originally published in the 23d, 24th, 25th, and 28th volumes of the Philosophical Transactions, annis 1768 73.

, an English divine, descended from an ancient family at Pentre-Heylin in Montgomeryshire, the son of Henry Heylin, gent, hy Elizabeth, daughter of Francis Clampard, of Wrotham in Kent, and was born at Burford in Oxfordshire, Nov. 29, 1600. In 16J3 he was entered of Hart-hall in Oxford, and two years after chosen a demy of Magdalen-college. He had, while at school, given a specimen of his genius for dramatic poetry, in a tragi-comedy on the wars and fate of Troy; and now composed a tragedy, entitled “Spurius,” which was so approved by his society, that the president, Dr. Langton, ordered it to be acted in his apartments. After this, he read cosmographical lectures in the college, which being a very unusual thing, and he very conversant in that branch of science, so.much recommended him to the society, that he was chosen fellow in 16 1 y. In 1621 he published his u Microcosm us, or Description of the World;" the chief materials of which were the lectures just mentioned. It was universally approved, and so speedily sold, that, in 1624, it was reprinted in the same size, but with considerable additions, and again presented to prince Charles, to whom it had been dedicated. It was soon after put into the hands of the king, who seemed at first greatly pleased with it; till meeting with a passage in it, where Heylin gave precedency to the French king, and styled France the more famous kingdom, he took so much offence, that he ordered the lord-keeper to suppress the book. Heylin, to make his peace with the king, declared that the error, in one of the exceptionable passages, was entirely the printer’s, who had put is instead of was; and that when he himself mentioned the precedency of France before England, he did not speak of England as it then stood augmented by Scotland, and besides he took what he did say from Camden’s Remains. James being satisfied with this apology, Heylin took care that the whole clause, which gave so much disgust, should be left out in all future impressions. The work was afterwards successively enlarged, till it became a great folio, and has since been often reprinted in that size.

In 1625 he went over to France, where he continued about six weeks, and took down in writing an account of his journey; the original manuscript of which he gave to his friend lord Danvers, but kept a copy for himself, which was published about thirty years after. Jn April 1627, he answered, pro forma, upon these two questions: 1. <* An ecclesia unquam fuerit invisibles“” Whether the church was ever invisible?“2.” An ecclesia possit errare“”Whether the church can err“both which determining in the affirmative, a great clamour was raised against him as a papist, or at least a favourer of popery. Wood says, that Prideaux, the divinity-professor,” fell foul upon him for it, calling him Bellarminian, Pontifician, and I know not what." Heylin was not easy under the charge of being popishly affected; for which reason, to clear himself from that imputation, he took an opportunity, in preaching before the king on John iv. 20, of declaring vehemently against some of the errors and corruptions of the Romish church. In 1628, lord Danvers, then earl of Danby, recommended him to Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; by whose interest also, in 1629, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty. On Act-Sunday 1630, he preached before the university of Oxford at St. Mary’s on Matth. xiii. 25, whence he took occasion to deliver his sentiments very freely in regard to an affair which at first sight had a specious appearance of promoting the honour and emolument of the ecclesiastical state, but was in reality a most iniquitous scheme, injurious to the laity, and of no service where it was pretended to avail. This was a feoffment, that some designing persons had obtained, for the buying in of impropriations; but Heylin, seeing through the disguise, exposed very clearly the knavery of the designers. About this time he resigned his fellowship, having been married near two years; in concealing which marriage he acted very unstatutably, not to say dishonestly, nor did his friends attempt to justify him for it. What rendered it more irregular was, that he was married in Magdalen-college chapel.

In 1631 he published his “History of that most famous Saint and Soldier of Jesus Christ, St. George of Cappadocia,” &c. to which he subjoined, “the institution of the most noble order of St. George, named the garter” &c. which work he presented to his majesty, to whom he was introduced by Laud, then raised to the see of London. It was graciously received by the king, and Heylin soon after reaped the fruits of it: for in Oct. 1631 he was presented to the rectory of Hemmingford in Huntingdonshire, to a prebend of Westminster in November following, and shortly after to the rectory of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, worth near 400l. per annum. In April 1633 he was created D. D. and gave fresh offence to the divinity-professor Prideaux by the questions he put up; which were, 1. “Whether the church hath authority in determining controversies of faith” 2. “Whether the church hath authority of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures” 3. “Whether the church hath authority of appointing rites and ceremonies” Of all which he maintained the affirmative. Prideaux, however, in the course of this dispute, is said to have laid down some tenets, which gave as much offence to Laud, who was chancellor of Oxford, and to the king, whom Laud informed of them, as Heylin’s had given to him as, “That the church was a mere chimera” “That it did not teach nor determine any thing.” “That controversies had better be referred to universities than to the church, and might be decided by the literari there, even though bishops were laid aside.” Heylin afterwards found an opportunity of revenging himself on Prideaux, for the rough treatment he had received from him. This divine, we are told, had delivered a lecture on the sabbath, somewhat freer than suited the rigid orthodoxy of the times; of which, however, not much notice was taken. But shortly after, when the king, by publishing the book of sports on Sundays, had raised a violent outcry throughout the nation against himself and Laud, Heyliu translated this lecture into English, and published it with a preface in 1633-4, to the great vexation of Prideaux, who suffered much in the esteem and affetion of the puritans. Williams, bishop of Lincoln and clean of Westminster, having incurred the king’s and Laud’s displeasure, and being suspended and imprisoned, Heylin was made treasurer of the church of Westminster in 1637; and was also presented by the prebendaries, his brethren, to the rectory of Islip near Oxford. This he exchanged in 1638, for that of South-Warnborough in Hampshire; and the same year was made one of the justices of the peace for that county. In 1639 he was employed by Laud to translate the Scotch liturgy into Latin; and was chosen by the college of Westminster their clerk, to represent them in convocation. But a cloud was gathering, which threatened to overwhelm all who, like him, had distinguished themselves as champions for royal or ecclesiastical prerogative. To shelter himself therefore from the impending storm, he withdrew from the metropolis, where he had long basked in the sun-shine of a court, to his parsonage; but not thinking himself secure there, retreated soon after to Oxford, then garrisoned by the king, and the seat of his residence. On this the parliament voted him a delinquent, and dispatched an order to their committee at Portsmouth, to sequester his whole estate, and seize upon his goods. In consequence of this severe decree, he was deprived of his most curious and valuable library, which was carried with his household furniture to that town. He was employed by the king at Oxford to write a periodical paper, published weekly in that city, entitled “Mercurius Aulicus;” but in 1645, when the king’s affairs became desperate, and the “Mercurius Aulicus” could be no longer supported, he quitted Oxford, and wandered from place to place, himself and his family reduced to the utmost straits. At Winchester he stayed for a while with his wife, &c. but that city being at length delivered up to the parliament, he was forced to remove again. In 1648 he went to Minster-Love! in Oxfordshire, the seat of his elder brother, which he farmed for the six or seven years following of his nephew colonel Heylin, and spent much of his time in writing. On quitting this farm, he went to Abingdon in Berkshire, where he also employed himself in composing treatises, which he published from time to time. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was restored to all his spiritualities, and undoubtedly expected from that prince some very eminent dignity in the church, as he had heroically exerted himself in behalf of it, -as well as of the? crown; and endured so much on that account, during their suffering condition. Here, however, he was utterly disappointed, being never raised above the sub-deanery of Westminster, One day when bishop Cosin came to see him, he said “I wonder, brother Heylin, thou art not a bishop, for we all know thou hast deserved it.” To which he answered, “I do not envy them, but wish they may do more than I have done.” He died May 8, 1662, and was interred before his own stall, within the choir of the abbey, leaving by his wife, Lretitia, daughter of Thomas Highgate, of Hayes in Middlesex, esq. four children.

Wood tells us, that he was “a person endowed with singular gifts, of a sharp and pregnant wit, solid and clear judgment. In his younger years he was accounted an excellent poet, but very conceited and pragmatical; in his elder, a better historian, a noted preacher, and a ready extemporaneous speaker. He had a tenacious memory to a miracle. He was a bold and undaunted man among his friends and foes, though of a very mean port and presence; and therefore by some of them he was accounted too high and proud for his function. A constant assertor of the church’s right and the king’s prerogative; a severe and vigorous opposer of rebels and schismatics. In some things too much a party-man to be an historian, and equally an enemy to popery and puritanism.” Much perhaps cannot be added to this character. He was undoubtedly biassed and warm to a great degree, which must be imputed to, although it cannot be defended by a reference to his sufferings. That he should be suspected of popery is not very wonderful, as in his history of the reformation he preceded Collier in many of those opinions which brought the same charge against the latter; and in his aversion to puritanism he departs farther from the orthodoxy of his own chuch than is consistent with a knowledge of or attachment to its doctrines. He had, as Swift justly observes, “according to the current opinion of the age he lived in, too high notions of regal power; led by the common mistake of the term supreme magistrate, and not rightly distinguishing between the legislature and administration.”

He was a very voluminous writer, and although few of his works can be recommended to general perusal, there are none perhaps of the whole series which may not be consulted with advantage, by those who have leisure and inclination to study the history of parties, in the distracted period in which he lived. Many of his lesser pieces were published together in 1681, in a folio volume, with a life of the author by the rev. George Vernon, which having given offence to his relations, a new life was published by his son-in-law Dr. Barnard, 1682, 12mo. It is from a comparison of both (Vernon’s has since been published in 12mo) that a proper judgment can be formed of Dr. Heylin. His other works of most note are, 1. “An Help to English History,” &c. 1641, 8vo, published under the name of Robert Hall, gent, republished with the additions of Christopher Wilkinson a bookseller, but with Heylin’s name in 1670, 8vo. It was again republished, and brought down to 1709 and in 1773 an improved edition was published by Paul Wright, D. D. in 1773, a lar^e 8vo. Capt. Beatson’s “Political Index” may be considered as a continuation of this work. 2. “History of the Sabbath,” 3636, 4to, intended to reconcile the public to that dreadful error in the conduct of the court, the “Book of Sports,” which did incalculable injury to the royal cause. 3. “Theologia Veterum; the Sum of the Christian Theology contained in the creed, according to the Greeks and Latins, &c. Lond. 1654, fol. reprinted 1673. 4. Ecclesia Vindicata; or the Church of England justified, 1. In the way and manner of her Reformation, &c. 2. In officiating by a public Liturgy. 3. In prescribing a set form of Prayer to be used by preachers before their sermons. 4. In her right and patrimony of tithes. 5. In retaining the episcopal government, and therewithal the canonical ordination of priests and deacons,” London 1657, in 4to, dedicated to Mr. Edward Davys, vicar of Shilton in Berkshire, formerly his master in the free-school of Burford in Oxfordshire. 5. “Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (the second monarch of Great Britain) from his birth to his burial,” London, 1658, in 8vo. This Life Wood supposes to be the same with that which was printed with and prefixed to “Reliquiae sacrae Carolina,” printed at the Hague, 1649, in 8vo. 6. “Examen Historicum or a discovery and examination of the mistakes and defects in some modern histories, viz. 1. In the Church History of Britain, by Tho. Fuller. To which is added, an Apology of Dr. Jo. Cosin, dean of Peterborough, in answer to some passages in the Church History of Britain, in which he finds himself concerned. 2. In the History of Mary Queen of Scots, and of her son King James VI,; the History of King James I. of Great Britain; and the History of King Charles I. from his cradle to his grave, by Will. Sanderson, esq. London, 1658, in a large 8vo. To this is ndded, An Appendix in an answer to some passages in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Post-haste Reply, &c. by Will. Sanderson, esq.” Soon after Dr. Thomas Fuller published a thin folio, entitled “The Appeal for injured Innocence,” which was commonly bound up with the remaining copies of his Church History in quires; and Mr. Sanderson wrote. a pamphlet, entitled “Peter pursued; or Dr. Heylin overtaken, arrested, and arraigned upon his three Appendixes: 1. Respondet Petrus. 2. Answer to Post-Haste Reply. 3. Advertisements on three Histories. viz. of Mary Queen of Scots, King James, and King Charles,” 1658, in 8 sheets in 4to. 7. “Historia QuinquArticularis: or a declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. Collected in the way of an Historicall Narration out of the public acts and monuments, and most approved authors of those scverall churches,” London, 1660, in 4to. This involved him in a controversy with some able writers. 8. “History of the Reformation of the Church of England from the first preparations to it made by King Henry VIII. until the legal settling and establishing of it underQueen Elizabeth,*' &c. London, 1661, 1670, and 1674, in folio. 9.” Cyprianus Anglicus r or the History of the Life and Death of William (Laud) Archbishop of Canterbury,“&c. London, 1668 and 1671, fol. 10.” Aerius Redivivus: or the History of the Presbyterians. Containing the beginning, progress, and successes of that sect. Their oppositions to monarchical and episcopal government. Their innovations in the church; and their inbroylments of the kingdoms and estates of Christendom in the pursuit of their designes. From the year 1536 to the year 1647," London, 1670 and 1672, in folio.

, a voluminous female writer, was the daughter of a tradesman of London, of the name of Fowler, and was born about 1693. An unfortunate marriage reduced her *o the necessity of depending on her pen, for the support of herself and two children, the eldest of whom was then only seven years of age. Her genius leading her to novel-writing, she took Mrs. Manley’s “Atalantis” for her model, and produced “The Court of Arimania,” “The New Utopia,” with other pieces of a like kind. The looseness of these works were the ostensible reason of Pope for putting her into his “Dunciad;” but it is most probable, that some provocation of a private and personal nature was the real motive to it. She seemed, however, to be convinced of her error; since, in the numerous volumes she published afterwards, she generally appeared a votary of virtue, and preserved more purity and delicacy of sentiment. Her latter writings are, 1. “The Female Spectator,” 4 vols; 2. “Epistles for the Ladies,” 2 vols. 3. “Fortunate Foundling,” 1 vol. 4. “Adventures of Nature,” 1 vol. 5. “History of Betsey Thoughtless,” 4 vofs. 6. “Jenny and Jemmy Jessamy,” 3 vols. 7. “Invisible Spy,” 2 vols. 8. “Husband and Wife,” 2 vols. all in 12mo; and a pamphlet, entitled “A Present for a Servant Maid.”

When young, she attempted dramatic poetry, but with no great success; none of her plays being either much approved at first, or revived afterwards. She had also an inclination for the theatre as a performer, and was on the stage at Dublin in 1715. It would be natural to impute gallantry to such a woman, yet nothing criminal was ever laid to her charge. On the contrary, she is represented as not only good-natured, affable, lively, and entertaining, but as a woman also of strict decorum, delicacy, and prudence, whatever errors she might have committed in her younger years. She died Feb. 25, 1756.

, one of the oldest English dramatic writers, was born at North Mims, near St. Alban’s in Hertfordshire, and received the first rudiments of his education at Oxford; but the sprightliness of his disposition not being well adapted to the sedentary life of an acader mician, he went back to his native place, which being in the neighbourhood of the great sir Thomas More, he presently contracted an intimacy with that Maecenas of wit and genius, who introduced him to the knowledge and patronage of the princess Mary. Heywood’s ready aptness for jest and repartee, together with the possession of great skill both in vocal and instrumental music, rendered him a favourite with Henry VIII. who frequently rewarded him highly. On the accession of Edward VI. he still continued in favour, though the author of the “Art of English Poetry” says, it was “for the mirth and quickness of conceit, more than any good learning that was in him.” When his old patroness queen Mary came to the throne, he stood in higher estimation than ever, being admitted into the most intimate conversation with her, on account of his happy talent of telling diverting stories, which it is said he did to amuse her painful hours, even when she was languishing on her death-bed. His stories must have been diverting indeed if they soothed the recollections of such a woman.

At the decease of that princess, however, being a bigoted Roman catholic, perceiving that the protestant interest was likely to prevail under the patronage of her successor queen Elizabeth, and perhaps apprehensive that some of the severities, which had been practised on the protestants in the preceding reign, might be retaliated on those of a contrary persuasion in the ensuing one, and especially on the peculiar favourites of queen Mary, he thought it best, for the security of his person, and the preservation of his religion, to quit the kingdom. Thus throwing himself into a voluntary exile, he settled at Mechlin in Brabant, where he died in 1565, leaving several children behind him, to all of whom he had given liberal educations. His character in private life seems to have been that of a sprightly, humourous, and entertaining companion. As a poet, he was held in no inconsiderable esteem by his contemporaries, though none of his writings extended to any great length, but seem, like his conversation, to have been the result of little sudden sallies of mirth and humour. His longest work is entitled “A Parable of the Spider and the Fly,” and forms a pretty thick quarto in old English verse, and printed in the black letter, 1556. Our honest chronicler Holinshed describes this poem in the following words “One also hath made a booke of the Spider and the Flie, wherein he dealeth so profoundlie, and beyond all measure of skill, that neither he himselfe that made it, neither anie one that readeth it, can reach unto the meaning thereof.” Description of England, p. 229. By way of Frontispiece to this book, is a wooden print of the author at full length, and most probably in the habit he usually wore; for he is drest in a fur gown, somewhat resembling that of a master of arts, excepting that the bottom of the sleeves reach no lower than his knees. He has a round cap on his head, and a dagger hanging to his girdle; and his chin and lips are close shaven. There are seventy-seven chapters in this work, at the beginning of each of which is the portrait of the author, either standing or sitting before a table, with a book on it, and a window near it hung round with cobwebs, flies, and spiders. A perfect copy of this work is now of rare occurrence, and on that account only very dear, for, as Warton justly observes, there never was so dull, so tedious, and trifling an apologue, without fancy, meaning, or moral.

His other works are, a dialogue composed of all the proverbs in the English language; and three quarto pamphlets, containing six hundred epigrams. Of both of these there were numerous editions before the year 1598. None of his dramatic works, which are six in number, have extended beyond the limits of an interlude. The titles of them are as follow: 1. “A Play between Johan the husband, Tyb the wife, and sir Johan the priest,” 1533, 4to. 2. “A merry Play between the Pardoner and the Friar, the Curate and Neighbour Prat,” 1533, 4to. 3. “The Play called the Four Pp. A newe and a very merry Interlude of a Palmer, a Pardoner, a Potycary, a Pedlar,” N. D. D. C. 4to. 4. “A Play of Genteelness and Nobility,” N. D. Int. 4to. 5. “A Play of Love,” Int. 1533, 4to. 6. “A Play of the Weather, called, A new and a very merry Interlude of Weathers,” 1553, 4to, amply described in Cens. Lit. vol. III. Phillips and Winstanley have attributed two other pieces to him, viz. “The Pindar of Wakefield,” and “Philotas, Scotch.” But Langbaine rejects their authority, with very good reason, as both those pieces are printed anonymous, and both of them not published till upwards of thirty years after this author’s death. A poem of his, however, entitled “A Description of a most noble Lady,” princess Mary, occurs among the Harleian Mss. and some of his “witty sayings,” among the Cotton Mss. in the British Museum. He left two sons, both eminent men the eldest of whom, Ellis Heywood, was born in London, and educated at All Souls’ college in Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1547. Afterwards he travelled into France and Italy continued some time at Florence, under the patronage of cardinal Pole and became such an exact master of the Italian tongue, that he wrote a book in that language, entitled “II Moro,” Firenz. 1556, 8vo. He then went to Antwerp, and thence to Louvain, where he died in the twelfth year after his entrance into

the society of the Jesuits; which was about 1572.—The youngest, Jasper, was born in London about 1535, and educated at Merton college in Oxford of which he was chosen fellow, but obliged to resign, for fear of expulsion, on account of his immoralities, in 1558. He was then elected fellow of All Souls, but left the university, and soon after England. In 1561, he became a popish priest and the year after, being at Rome, was entered among the Jesuits. After he had passed two years in the study of divinity, he was sent to Diling in Switzerland; whence being called away by pope Gregory XIII. in 1581, he was sent into England, where he was appointed provincial of the Jesuits. After many peregrinations, he died at Naples Jan. 9, 1598. Before he left England the first time, he translated three tragedies of Seneca and wrote “Various Poems and Devices” some of which are printed in “The Paradise of Dainty Devices,” 1573," 4to.

, a nonconformist divine, the son of Richard Heywood, was born at Little Lever, in Bolton parish, Lancashire, in March 1629. In 1647 he was admitted pensioner in Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. B. but was afterwards called home, his father not being able to support him there. He lived retiredly for some time at home, but at length became a preacher, by the advice and solicitation of the neighbouring ministers, and having preached some time about the country occasionally, he was invited to Coley chapel, in the parish of Halifax, Yorkshire; soon after which, Aug. 4, 1652, he was ordained in Bury church, Lancashire, according to the forms used after the established church was overthrown. He married to his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of the rev. Mr. Angier of Denton in Lancashire, in 1655, by whom he had several children. He had occasional disputes with part of his congregation, who after abolishing what they called ecclesiastical tyranny, became themselves the most capricious tyrants. Some were displeased with him, because he would not admit all comers promiscuously to the Lord’s table without distinction; others, because he would not thank God for killing the Scots. Once he was carried before cornet Denham, by some of colonel Lilburne’s soldiers, and the cornet told him, that he was one of the Cheshire rebels; but by the mediation of friends he was dismissed.

His annual income from Coley did not exceed 36l. per annum, but he had a lecture for which he had a consideration, and a small paternal estate in Lancashire. After the restoration he was deprived of his little preferment, but contrived occasionally to preach, and was sometimes brought into trouble, particularly a tedious imprisonment in York castle. After a long and fatiguing life, he died March 4, 1702. He appears to have been an able, laborious, and conscientious divine. Watson gives many interesting extracts from his Diary, and a more full and curious life of him was published in 1798, by the rev. Mr. Fawcett. He printed, 1. “Heart Treasure,” 1667. 2. “Closet Prayer,” 1671. 3. “Sure Mercies of David,” 1672. 4. “Life in God’s Favour.” 5. “Israel’s Lamentation,” 1681. 6. “Mr. Angier’s Life,” and some other pious treatises. He had a brother Nathaniel, also a nonconformist, who died Dec. 16, 1677. A volume of his sermons was published by Oliver in 1679, entitled “Christ Displayed.” Calamy tells us, that one of his hearers, when he was going to quit his living, expressing a desire for him still to preach in the church, Mr. Heywood said, he would as gladly preach, as they could desire it, if he could conform with a safe conscience to which the man replied, “Oh, sir, many a man, now a-days, makes a great gash in his conscience, cannot you make a little nick in yours”

, an actor, and a writer of plays, in the reigns of queen Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I. has not had the time of his birth and death recorded. Winstanley says, he was one of the most voluminous writers ef his age: and, in a preface to one of his plays, he tells us, that it was one preserved out of 220; of which number only 24 now remain. He displayed much learning in his “Actor’s Vindication;” but what rank he held on the stage none of his biographers have informed us. Langbaine observes of him, that he was a general scholar and tolerable linguist, as his translations from Lucian, Erasmus, and from other Latin as well as Italian authors, sufficiently shew: the wits and poets, however, have always held him cheap. Besides his “Actor’s Vindication,” he wrote “A Life of Merlin” The Hierarchy of Angels“Life of queen Elizabeth” “The Lives of nine Worthies” “The Lives of nine Women Worthies;” “A general History of Women,” &c. &c. Notices of some of these may be found in our authorities.

, a half-crazy kind of writer, whose works may probably excite some curiosity respecting the author, was born in 1630, in Essex, where there was a considerable family of that name. He was first a pensioner in St. John’s college, Cambridge; then, in 1650, junior bachelor of Gonvill and Caius college. He was soon after a lieutenant in the English army in Scotland, then a captain in general Fleetwood’s regiment, when he was Swedish ambassador in England for Carolus Gustavus. He afterwards went to Jamaica in some capacity, and on his return, in 1660, published an account of it, called “Jamaica viewed,” 4to. two editions of which were printed in 1661, dedicated to Charles II. who in return appointed the author secretary to the earl of Windsor, then going out as governor of Jamaica. This post, however, he did not accept, but took orders, and first obtained the vicarage of Boxted in Essex, Oct. 22, 1662, and, about the same time, the rectory of All Saints, Colchester. The former he resigned in 1664, but retained the latter the whole of his life, notwithstanding he gave much offence to his brethren by his wild and often scurrilous attacks on the church in a variety of pamphlets. “He was a man,” says Newcourt, “though episcopally ordained (by bishop Sanderson), yet publicly bade defiance to the prelacy, and that of his own diocesan in particular: an impudent, violent, ignorant fellow, very troublesome, as far as he could, to his right reverend diocesan, and to all that lived near him.” He died Nov. 30, 1708, and was interred in the church of All Saints, Colchester, with a long Latin epitaph, part of which, “Reverendus admodum Dominus tarn Marte quain Mercurio clarus, quippe qui terra marique militavit non sine gloria, ingeniique vires scriptis multiplice argumento insignitis demonstravit, c.” was afterwards effaced, by order, as it was commonly reported at Colchester, of bishop Compton. His tracts, which in point of style and often of matter, are beneath criticism, were collected and published by himself in a quarto vol. 1707. They include his account of Jamaica the trial of the spiritual courts general history of priestcraft; a satyr upon poverty; a satyr against fame the survey of the earth and the writ de excommunicato capiendo unmasked receipts to cure the evil of this wicked world the art of contentment, a poem, &c. &c. Mr. Malone has introduced him in his life of Dryden, as the author of the “Mushroom, or a satyr against libelHng tories and preiatical-tantivies, &c.” He published also a few occasional sermons, which are reprinted in a Second edition of his works, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo.

was a celebrated philosopher of Syracuse, who, according to Theophrastus, as quoted by Cicero, believed that the heavens, sun, and stars, remained still, and that it was the earth which moved and, by turning on its axis, produced the same appearance to us as if the heavens had turned and the earth had been immovable. Copernicus acknowledges that this passage in Cicero suggested to him the first idea of his system. Diogenes Laertius also mentions Hicetas.

, an English divirre of uncommon abilities and learning, was born June 20, 1642, at Newsham in Yorkshire, where his parents were settled on a very large farm-. He was sent to the grammar school at North Allerton, and thence in 1659, to St. John’s college in Oxford. Soon after the Restoration he removed to Magdalen colJege, from thence to Magdalen hall; and at length, in 3664, was chosen fellow of Lincoln college, taking the degree of M. A. the year after. In June 1666 he was> admitted into orders, became a public tutor r and discharged that office with great reputation for seven years. Being then in a bad state of health, he was advised to travel; upon which sir George Wheeler, who had been his pupil, and had conceived a filial affection for him, invited him to accompany him to the continent. They set out in Oct. 1673, and made the totir of France; after which they parted, Hickes being obliged to return to take his degree of B. D. At Paris, where he staid a considerable time, he became acquainted with Mr. Henry Justell, who in confidence told him many secret affairs, particularly that of the intended revocation of the edict of Nantes, and of a design in Holland and England to set aside the family of the Stuarts. He committed to him also his father’s ms. of the “Codex canonum ecclesiae universalis,” to be presented in his name to the university of Oxford.

After his return home, in May 1675, he took the degree just mentioned, being about that time rector of St. Ebbe’s church in Oxford; and, in Sept. 1676, was made chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. In May 1677, his grace being appointed high commissioner of Scotland, took his chaplain with him into that kingdom; and, in April 1678, sent him up to court, with Dr. Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow, to lay before the king the proceedings in Scotland. He returned the month following, and was desired by Sharp, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, to accept the degree of D. D. in that university, as a testimony of his and his country’s great esteem for him, which request the duke of Lauderdale approving, Hickes was dignified in a full convocation, although rather against his will, as he seems to have thought that this was putting a slight on his own university. Afterwards, when he returned with his patron into England, the archbishop, in his own name and that of all his brethren, presented him with a copy of Labbe’s “Councils,” in 18 vols. folio, as an acknowledgment of his services to that church.

In Sept. 1679 he married; and December following was created D. D. at Oxford. In March 1679-80 the king promoted him to a prebend of Worcester; and in August he was presented by Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, to the vicarage of Allhallows Barking, near the Tower of London. In Dec. 1681, he was made chaplain in ordinary to the king; and, in Aug. 1683, dean of Worcester. The bishopric of Bristol was vacant the next year, and Hickes, it is said, might have had it if he would; but, missing his opportunity, the king died, and he lost his prospect of advancement; for though his church principles were very high, yet he had distinguished himself too much by his zeal against popery to be any favourite with James 11. Iti May 1686 he left the vicarage of Barking, and went to settle on his deanery; the bishop of Worcester having offered him the rectory of All-church, not far from tha^ city, which he accepted.

Upon the Revolution in 1688, Dr. Hickes, with many others, refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, fell under suspension in August 1689, and was deprived the February following. He continued, however, in possession till the beginning of May; when reading in the Gazette that the deanery of Worcester was granted to Talbot, afterwards bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, successively, he immediately drew up in his own hand-writing a claim of right to it, directed to all the members of that church and, in 1691, affixed it over the great entrance into the choir, that none of them might plead ignorance in that particular. The earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, called it “Dr. Hickes’ s Manifesto against Government;” and it has since been published by Dr. Francis Lee, in the appendix to his “Life of Mr. Kettlewell,” with this title, “The Protestation of Dr. George Hickes, and claim of right, fixed up in the cathedral church of Worcester.” Expecting on this account the resentment of the government, he privately withdrew to London, where he absconded for many years, till May 1699, when lord Somers, then chancellor, out of regard to his uncommon abilities, procured an act of council, by which the attorneygeneral was ordered to cause a. noli prosequi to be entered to all proceedings against him.

Soon after their deprivation, archbishop San croft and his colleagues began to consider about maintaining and continuing the episcopal succession among those who adhered to them; and, having resolved upon it, they sent Dr. Hickes over, with a list of the deprived clergy, to confer with king James about that matter. The doctor set out in May 1693, and had several audiences of the king, who complied with all he askedj Dr. Hickes, after being detained some months by an ague and fever, returned to England in February, and on the eve of St. Matthias the consecrations were performed by Dr. Lloyd bishop of Norwich, Dr. Turner bishop of Ely, and Dr. White bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings in the Rev. Mr. Giffard’s house, Southgate. Hickes was consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford, and Wagstaffe suffragan of Ipswich; at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon is aid to have been present. It has indeed been averred, that Hickes was once disposed to take the oaths, in order to save his preferments; but this is not probable: he was a man very strict in his principles, and what he was convinced was his duty he closely adhered to, choosing to suffer any thing rather than violate his conscience. Some years before he died he was grievously tormented with the stone; and at length his constitution, though naturally strong, gave way to that distemper, Dec. 15, 1715, in his 74th year.

Dr. Uickes was a man of universal learning; but his temper, situation, and connexions were such, as to suffer him to leave us but few monuments of it that are worth remembering; for though he wrote a great deal, the greatest part consists of controversial pieces on politics and religion, which, however, we shall enumerate, as they throw considerable light on his character and opinions. In his controversies with the Romanists he is a sound and acute reasoner, and confirms his arguments with exact and elaborate proofs. The late bishop Home had a high opinion of him in this respect. He was particularly skilful in the old Northern languages, and in antiquities, and has given us some works on these subjects, which will be valued when all his other writings are forgotten. He was deeply read in the primitive fathers of the church, whom he considered as the best expositors of Scripture; and as no one better understood the doctrine, worship, constitution, and discipline of the catholic church in the first ages of Christianity, it was his utmost ambition and endeavour to prove the church of England perfectly conformable to them.

The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae & Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas. Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. inscribed to archbishop Sancroft. While the dean was writing the preface to this book, there were great disputes in the house of commons, and throughout the kingdom, about the original contract; which occasioned him to insert the ancient coronation oath of our Saxon kings, to shew, what was not very necessary, that there is not the least footstep of any such contract. 2. “Antiquae literature Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im, necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus, Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities, have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at 3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that they believed the author to be a man of a particular head; for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After his death was published another volume of his Sermons, with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.” A Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of” The judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon him the title of king. 5.” Ravillac Redivivus, being a narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, &c.“6.” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh, 'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction made them much read, and did the author considerable service with several great personages, and even with the king. 7.” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the author of” Julian.“8.” The case of Infant Baptism, 1683;“printed in the second vol. of the” London Cases, 168.5,“4to. 9.” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted, with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.” The celebrated story of the Thebati Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714, for reasons given in the preface. 12.” Reflections upon a Letter out of the country to a member of this present parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion was afterwards contradicted, 13.” A Letter to the author of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience, 16S9.“The author of the” Vindication,“was Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not to it. 14.” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr. Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs, 1689.“15.” An Apology for the new Separation, in a letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.” The Pretences of the Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19. A letter in the” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled, “Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions, quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr. G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.” The person on whose account this book was published, was the lady Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A second collection of controversial Letters relating to the church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.” This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order, against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.” Trie third edition in 1711, enlarged into two volumes, 8vo. 23. “A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas Wise, D. D. 1710.” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes, and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;” printed, after several editions, in 1714, with another title, “Seasonable Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain person.” Besides the works enumerated here, there are many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the earnest request of others, either authors or editors.

, a nonconformist divine, was a native of Worcestershire, and first educated at Cambridge, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, and removed to Oxford in 1647. Here he entered of Magdalen hall, and by favour of the parliamentary visitors, was first demy, and soon after fellow of Magdalen college, and took his master’s degree. He then was licenced as a preacher, and officiated at St. Aldate’s church, Oxford, and at Brackley, in Northamptonshire. In 1658 he became B. D. but at the restoration was ejected from his fellowship, which was restored to the right owner, and went to Holland. He afterwards returned, and for some time taught logic and philosophy to a few pupils at Sturbridge, but went again to Holland, and preached for some years in the English church at Leyclen, where he died in 1692. He wrote several treatises, principally of the controversial kind, in defence of the non-conforruists, and against Mr. Thomas Pierce, Mr. Durel.l, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Scrivener, and others, who supported the cause of the established church. The best of his performances appeared without his name, under the title of “Apologia pro Ministris in Anglia (vu!go) Nonconformistis, c.” Wood, who has given a particular account of his other writings, says that “he was a person several ways learned, much conversant in books, a leading man and pillar of his party, but altogether a severe enemy to the ceremonies of the church of England.” Calamy says very little of him.

, a man of learning of the sixteenth century, was born in 1566, atTredington, in Worcestershire, and in 1579 entered of St. Mary hall, Oxford, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, and appears to have lived the life of a country gentleman, relieving his agricultural pursuits by study. His favourite object was the Greek language. He died while on a visit to a relation at Sutton, in Gloucestershire, Jan. 9, 1630. His translation of “Lucian” was published by his son Thomas Hicks, A. M. chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford, in Ifc34, 4to, who also presented to the library of that college manuscript translations by his father of “Thucydides” and “Herodian.” The Life of Lucian and the notes were written by this son, who died young, in 1634, and had been, as Wood says, esteemed a good poet and an excellent limner.

. Wood gives two authors of these names, of which some brief notice may be taken. The first, the son of Nicholas Hicks, a Cornish gentleman, was born in 1620, and was for some time a commoner of Wadham college, but removed thence by his relations to join the parliamentary forces. He was a captain of the train bands, and an enthusiast and fifth monarchy man in which spirit he wrote a folio entitled “Revelation revealed being a practical exposition on the Revelation of St. John,” Lond. 1659 but this not succeeding, a new title page and a portrait of the author were added in 1661. He died iti 1659. The other William Hicks became also a captain, apparently in the recruiting service, in the beginning of Charles Il.'s reign. With some it may be thought an honour, that he was the first compiler of & jest-book, under the title of “Oxford Jests,” which was followed by others called Oxford Drollery,“and” Coffee-house Jests,“and these by” Cambridge Jests,“” London Jests,“&c. down to our own times. Anthony Wood, who thought it no honour that Oxford should be suspected of first inventing these vulgar collections, or of educating men to compile jest-books, takes care to inform us that capt. Hicks, as he was called, owed nothing to his education there, being born in St. Thomas’s parish, of poor and dissolute parents, afterwards bred a tapster at the Star inn, then a clerk to a woodmonger at Deptford, where he was living in 1669 as capt. Hicks, but while at Oxford” was a sharking and indigent fellow,“who wrote” little trivial matters merely to get bread, and make the pot walk."

, was a Spanish artist, but although he wrote his own life, the year and place of his birth remain uncertain. He was probably born about 1656, and was living in 1711. At Valencia, he tells us, he was called a Castilian; perhaps he was a Murcian, for in Mtircia he applied first to the art under Villacis and Gilarte: he then travelled to Rome, and under the direction of Giacinto Brand i was making considerable progress, when declining health hastened his return to the milder climate of Valencia, from whence, after a studious residence of some years, he advanced to Madrid, and in 1674 received the commission of decorating the cloisters of S. Felipe el Real with a series of paintings; a labour often interrupted by other numerous avocations, and protracted to 1711: in the twenty-four subjects of this extensive work, he shewed himself master of composition. Garcia was made painter to the court, and knight of S. Miguel, by Philip V.; and by the tribunal of the inquisition appointed censor of public paintings. His exertions in art were chiefly directed to the improvement of style and the acquisition of a classic taste in Spain; with this view he published, in 1691, his “Principios para estudiar el Nobilissimo Arte de la Pintura.”

, a great persecutor of the Christians in the beginning of the fourth century, was at first president of Bithynia, and afterwards governor of Alexandria; in both which situations he acted with great cruelty against the Christians. Laotantius relates, that at the time he was teaching rhetoric in Bithynia, and the Christian church under persecution, Hierocles was then one of the judges, and had been the chief promoter of the bloody persecution which the Christians suffered under the emperor Dioclesian; and those whom he could not crush by his power, he endeavoured to destroy with his pen. With this view he composed two small books, not indeed professedly against the Christians, lest he should seem to inveigh against them as an enemy but addressed to the Christians, that he might be thought to advise them kindly as a friend. They were entitled “Aoyoi <piK*Kn8ei$ ts^ X^navaj, Sermones veri amantes ad Chnstianos” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Holy Scripture is false, by shewing it to be inconsistent with itself. He insisted upon some points, which seemed to him to contradict each other; and he collected so many peculiarities relating to Christianity, that, as Lactantius says, he may well appear to have been a Christian himself. He abused Peter and Paul, and the other disciples, as though they had been the contrivers of the cheat; and yet he confessed at the same time, that they wanted skill and learning, for that some of them gained their livelihood by fishing. He attempted also to compare the feigned miracles of Apollonius Tyanaeus with those of Jesus Christ, and pretended to prove that Apollonius had performed even greater wonders. Eusebius undertook, in his book against Hierocles, to confute the latter part of this work; but, as Cave says, “he has done it very indifferently, his confutation being little more than a bare running over of Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius.” Laclantius did not make a particular answer to Hierocles, his design being to establish the foundations of the gospel, and to ruin those of Paganism; and he thought, as he tells us, that this would be answering at once all that the adversaries of Christianity had published, or would publish for the future.

It is reported by Eusebius, that the martyr Ædesms, transported with an holy zeal, ventured to approach Hierocles while he was presiding at the trial of some Christians of Alexandria, and to give him a box on the ear; upbraiding him at the same time with his infamous cruelty. Th6 remains of Hierocles were collected into one volume 8vo, by bishop Pearson, and published at London in 1654, with a learned dissertation upon him and his writings prefixed.

, a Platonic philosopher of Alexandria, flourished about A. D. 450. He was cruelly scourged at Constantinople for his adherence to the Pagan superstitions; and it is said that, in the midst of his torture, when he received some of the blood into his own hand, he threw it upon the face of his judge, repeating, from Homer,

It appears, however, that notwithstanding this unjust treatment by the Christians at Constantinople, he afterwards philosophized at Alexandria in his usual manner; and hence we may infer, that the severities with which the Gentile people, and particularly their learned men and philosophers, were treated, were not extremely rigorous. Hierocles wrote a treatise “On Providence,” of which Photius has given large extracts, and in which he appears to be an advocate for the Eclectic philosophy, labouring to reconcile the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle concerning providence, the origin of the world, the immortality of the soul, and other subjects. He pursues the same method of philosophizing in his book “On Fate,” and in his *' Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras,“which is still extant. Besides these, there are large fragments of other works preserved in Stobaeus, and generally published together with the works above-mentioned. All these' are valuable, tending to recommend and promote virtue; but not with that force which flows from revelation, enjoining every part of moral righteousness by divine authority, and with the assurance of recompences in a future state. The first edition of the” Golden Verses" was published at Paris, Gr. and Lat. 158.3. The best is that of Ashton and Warren, Gr. and Lat. Lond. 1742. From this an English translation was published by the rev. William Rayner, vicar of Calthorpe, Norwich, 1797, 8vo.

, an English divine and writer, was, the son of Roger Hieron, a learned clergyman, vicar of Epping, in Essex, who died in 1592. His son, who was born in 1572, received his early education from his father, who afterwards sent him to Eton school, whence he was elected by the free choice of provost Goade, into a scholarship of King’s college, Cambridge. On the death of his father, who probably left no great provision behind him, he was much assisted in the prosecution of his studies in the university by sir Francis Barrington, of Barringtonhall, in Essex, knt. While at Cambridge he studied divinity under Lawrence Chaderton, master of Emanuel college, and made such progress that at his first preaching at King’s, he was heard with the utmost approbation, seeming, as his biographer says, “rather a bachelor in divinity than a bachelor in arts, and rather a divine of forty, than only twenty-four years of age.” On his appearance as a preacher in London, he immediately became so popular that many congregations, together with the inns of court, desired to have him settled as their minister. But being offered the living of Moclbury, in Devonshire, in the gift of Eton college, he preferred that, and preached with great success, both there and at other places, particularly Plympton, where, by the means of sir Ferdinand Gorges, and other gentlemen of the neighbourhood, a lecture was established, of which he became one of the preachers. His public and private character procured him the reverence both of the poor and rich, and it appears by the dedications of his works that he had many friends of high rank. He inclined to puritan principles, but with a strict adherence to the church of England; and was particularly zealous against popery. He was long afflicted with a chronical distemper, but continued his public services and private studies notwithstanding the apparent incapacity of his weak body. This disorder, however, put an end to his useful life in the forty-fifth year of his age, in 1617. He was interred in Modbury church. His works, consisting principally of sermons and commentaries, printed often separately, in 4to and 8vo, were collected by him and published in 1614 in fol. and reprinted at London in 1620, with an additional volume edited by Robert Hill, D. D. rector of St. Bartholomew, Exchange. To this Dr. Hill prefixed a life, from which the above particulars are taken.

, a minor author of the last century, much patronized and befriended by Garrick, was born in the county of Dublin in 1719, and educated for a popish priest, first in Ireland, and afterwards for many years in France. Yet after all, he took his degree of bachelor in physic, and returned to Dublin that he might practise. Indolence, however, prevented his application jto that or any profession, and he came to London about 1753, where he subsisted very scantily and idly, as an author, for the remainder of his life; producing several works, but none of any great merit. He was principally employed by the booksellers in various works of translation, compilement, &c. In short, with no principles, and slender abilities, he was perpetually disgracing literature, which he was doomed to follow for bread, by such a conduct as was even unworthy of the lowest and most contemptible of the vulgar. His conversation was highly offensive to decency and good manners, and his whole behaviour discovered a mind over which the opinions of mankind had no influence. He associated, however, occasionally with some of the most celebrated men of his time, Foote, Garrick, Murphy, Goldsmith, Kelly, Sec. who tolerated his faults, and occasionally supplied his necessities, although when he thought their liberality insufficient, he made no scruple of writing the grossest libels on their character. One of his peculiar fancies was to keep the place of his lodging a secret, which he did so completely, that he refused to disclose it even when dying, to a friend who supported him, and actually received his last contributions through the channel of the Bedford coffee-house. When he died, which was in June 1777, it was discovered that he had lodged in one of the obscure courts near St. Martin’s-lane. Dr. Hiffernan, as he was usually called, was author of the folio wing works: 1.“The Ticklers,” a set of periodical and political papers, published in Dublin about 1750. 2. “The Tuner,” a set of periodical papers, published in London in 1753. 3. “Miscellanies in prose and verse,” 1754. 4. “The Ladies’ Choice,” a dramatic petite piece, acted at Coventgarden in 1759. 5. “The Wishes of a free People,” a dramatic poem, 1761. 6. “The New Hippocratrs,” a farce, acted at Drury-lane in 1761, but not published, 7. “The Earl of Warwick,” a tragedy, from the French of La Harpe, 1764. 8. “Dramatic Genius,” an essay, ia five books, 1770. 9. “The Philosophic Whim,” a farce, 1774. 10. “The Heroine of the Cave,” a tragedy, loft unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “Earl of Essex,” completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in 1774. He also issued proposals for a quarto volume of additional Miscellanies in prose and verse, which we believe never appeared.

, the author of an old chronicle, not in much estimation, was a Benedictine of St. Werberg’s monastery in Chester, where he died about 1360, aged between eighty and ninety. He is thought to have borrowed much from another monk of his monastery, Roger Cestrensis, but probably both were indebted to the same original materials, and both were sufficiently admirers of the marvellous to compile works rather of curiosity than of use, unless where they present us with the transactions of their own time. Higden’s work was entitled “Polychronicon;” Dr. Gale published that part which relates to the Britons and Saxons among his“Quindecem Scriptores, &c.” But the greatest curiosity among collectors is the English translation of the “Polychronicon,” by John de Trevisa, printed by Caxton in 14S2, folio, in seven books, to which Caxton added an eighth. The most magnificent copy of this work extant is in the library of earl Spencer. There are also copies in his majesty’s collection, in the Bodleian and British Museum, and in Mr. Heber’s library. The “Chester Mysteries,” exhibited in that city in 1328, at the expence of the several trading corporations, have been ascribed to our Chronicler.

, a polite writer in the seventeenth century, was born in 1580, at or near Alderton, Gloucestershire, and became a gentleman commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1595. He was soon, however, removed to Corpus Christi, where his father William Higford, esq. and his grandfather sir John Higford, had both studied, the latter under the celebrated bishop Jewell, and both, as well as the subject of the present article, became zealous puritans. At Corpus Christi, Mr. Higford was placed under the tuition of Seb. Benefield, and was accounted an accomplished scholar and gentleman. After taking a degree in arts, he went home, was admitted into the commission of the peace, and was much respected by the lord Chandois, and other persons of quality in his country. He died at his house at Dixton, near Alderton, April 6, 1657. He left behind him some things fit for the press, but which were lost. A manuscript, however, was preserved, entitled “Institution, or Advice to his Grandson,” of which an abridgment was published by Barksdale, 1660, 12mo. This sensible volume is amply described in the “Censura Literaria.” A descendant of the author’s, the rev. Henry Higford, died at Dixton, aged eighty-six, March 25, 1795.

, one of the principal writers in the fourth edition of that early collection of poetical narratives, *' The Mirror for Magistrates,“1575, was a man, as it appears from his share in that work, of considerable talents in poetry, for his time. Higgins lived at Winsham in Somersetshire, was a clergyman, educated at Oxford, and was engaged in the instruction of youth. He compiled, 1. The” Floseuli of Terence,“on the plan of a former collection by Udal, master of Eton. 2. He published also,” Holcot’s Dictionaire, newly corrected, amended, set in order, and enlarged, with many names of men, townes, beastes, fowles, &c. by which you may find the Latine or French name of any Englishe worde you will. By John Higgins, late student in Oxforde.“Printed for Marshe, in 1572, folio. 3.” The Nornenclator of Adrian Junius,“translated into English, in conjunction with Abraham Fleming, and published at London for Newberie and Durham, in 1585, 8vo. From the dedication to this book he seems to have been connected with the school of Ilminster, a neighbouring town in Somersetshire. He appears to have been living so late as 1602; for in that year he published, 4. An answer to a work of controversy by one William Perkins, concerning Christ’s descent to Hell, which was dated at Winsham. The former editions of the” Mirror for Magistrates," were published in 1563, 1571, and 1574. His edition appeared in 1587. The dedication is dated a year earlier. In this he wrote a new induction in the octave stanza, and without assistance from friends began a new series of histories, from A Ibanact the youngest son of Brutus, and the first king of Albanie, or Scotland, to the emperor Caracalla. There were also a few additions by other writers, in the poems relating to British personages after the conquest.

, son of Dr. Thomas Hi?gons, some time rector of Westburgh in Shropshire, was born in 1624, in that county became a commoner of St. Alban’s-hall in the beginning of 1638, when he was put under the tuition of Mr. Edward Corbet, fellow of Merton college, and lodged in the chamber under him in that house. Leaving the university without a degree, he retired to his native country. He married the widow of Robert earl of Essex; and delivered an oration at her funeral, Sept. 16, 1656. “Oratione funebri, a marito ipso, more prisco laudata fuit,” is part of this lady’s epitapii. He married, secondly, Bridget, daughter of sir Devil Greenvili of Stow, and sister to John earl of Bath and removed to Grewell in Hampshire was elected a burgess for Malmsbury in 16.38, and for New Windsor in 1661. His services to the crown were rewarded with a pension of 500l. a year, and gifts to the amount of 4000l. He was afterwards knighted and in 1669, was sent envoy extraordinary to invest John George duke of Saxony with the order of the garter. About four years after, he was sent envoy to Vienna, where he continued three years. In 1685 he was elected burgess for St. Germain’s, “being then,” says Wood, “accounted a loyal and accomplished person, and a great lover of the tegular clergy.” He died suddenly, of an apoplexy, in the King’s-bench court, having been summoned there as a witnt’ss, Nov. 24, 1691; and was buried in Winchester caihedral near the relics of his first wife. His literary productions are, 1. “A Panegyric to the King,” 1660, folio. 2. “The Funeral Oration on his first Lady,” Iff56. 3. “The History of Isoof Bassa,” 1684. He also translated into English, “The Venetian Triumph;” for which he was complimented by Waller, in his poems; who has also addressed a poem to Mrs. Higgons. Mr. Granger, who styles sir Thomas “a gentleman of great merit,” was favoured by the duchess dowager of Portland with a ms copy of his Oration; and concludes, from the great scarcity of that pamphlet, that “the copies of it were, for certain reasons, industriously collected and destroyed, though few pieces of this kind have less deserved to perish. The countess of Essex had a greatness of mind which enabled her to bear the whole weight of infamy which was thrown upon her; but it was, nevertheless, attended with a delicacy and sensibility of honour which poisoned all her enjoyments. Mr. Higgons had said much, and I think much to the purpose, in her vindication; and was himself fully convinced from the tenor of her life, and the words which she spoke at the awful close of it, that she was perfectly innocent. In reading this interesting oration, I fancied myself standing by the grave of injured innocence and beauty; was sensibly touched with the pious affection of the tenderest and best of husbands doing public and solemn justice to an amiable and worthy woman, who had been grossly and publicly defamed. Nor could I withhold the tribute of a tear; a tribute which, I am confident, was paid at her interment by every one who loved virtue, and was not destitute of the feelings of humanity. This is what I immediately wrote upon reading the oration. If I am wrong in my opinion, the benevolent reader, I am sure, will forgive me. It is not the first time that my heart has got the better of my judgment.” “I am not afraid,” Mr. Nichols adds, “of being censured for having transcribed this beautiful passage.”

, younger son of sir Thomas (and first cousin to the late earl of Granville), by Bridget his second wife, was born in 1670, and became a commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, in Lent term 1686; and went afterwards to Cambridge, and then to the Middle Temple. Wood enumerates five of his poems. He wrote some others and was the author of a tragedy, entitled “The Generous Conqueror, or the Timely Discovery,” acted at Drury-lane, and printed in 1702, 4to. He was a steady adherent to the cause of the exiled family; and accompanied king James into France, where he mairrtained his wit and good-humour undepressed by his misfortunes. He died in March 1735. He published a poem “on the Peace of Utrecht;” and on the publication of bishop Burnet’s “History of his own Times,” he wrote some strictures on it, in a volume entitled “Historical and Critical Remarks,” the second edition of which was printed in 1727, 8vo; and, in the same year, published “A short View of the English History, with Reflections, political, historical, civil, physical, and moral on the reigns of the kings their characters, and manners their successions to the throne, and other remarkable incidents to the Revolution 1688. Drawn from authentic Memoirs and Mss.” “These papers,” he tells us in his preface, “lay covered with dust 36 years, till every person concerned in the transactions mentioned were removed from the stage.”

, descended from a considerable family in Gloucestershire, was born at Stoke Abbat, or South Stoke, near Henley in Oxfordshire, in 1589. After being educated at Reading school, he was entered of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1606, and acquired very high reputation, both as an orator and disputant. Some time after taking his bachelor’s degree, he wrote a life of sir Thomas White, the founder of the college, in Latin verse, which is still preserved in ms. in the college. Bound up with it, is an account of the mock ceremonies on choosing a lord of misrule, an ancient Christmas frolic in that and other colleges. In 1611 he was elected probationer fellow of Merton college, and taking his Master’s degree, went into holy orders, and had two small cures bestowed on him by the college.

In 1627 he was sent to the Hague as chaplain to the queen of Bohemia, sister to Charles I. in which capacity be remained for twelve years. In 1630 he took his doctor’s degree at Leyden, under the celebrated Andrew Rivet. On his return home, he was promoted, by the interest of archbishop Laud, to the living of Cliffe near Dover, and was also made chanter of St. David’s, and in 1638, dean of Lichfield, which cathedral, Wood says, he adorned to his great charge. When the church establishment was overthrown, he lost all his preferments, and retired to South Stoke, where he died Dec. 16, 1659. To the poor and school of Stoke he was a liberal benefactor by his will, and also to St. John’s and Merton colleges. His published works are, 1. “Problemata Theologica,” Leyden, 1630, 4to. 2. “Miscellanese Theses Theologies,” ibid. 1630

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

In 1728, Mr. Hawkins Browne, then of LincolnVinn, who had always a just sense of Highmore’s talents and abilities, addressed to him a poetical epistle “Ou Design and Beauty;” and, some years after, an elegant Latin ode, both now collected in his poems. In the summer of 1732, Mr. Highmore visited the continent, in company with Dr. Pemberton, Mr. Benj. Robins, and two other friends, chiefly with a view of seeing the gallery of pictures belonging to the elector palatine at Dusseldorp, collected by Rubens, and supposed to be the best in Europe. At Antwerp also he had peculiar pleasure in contemplating the works of his favourite master. In their return they visited the principal towns in Holland. In 1734, he made a like excursion, but alone, to Paris, where he received great civilities from some of his countrymen, particularly the duke of Kingston, Dr, Hickman (his tutor), Robert Knight, esq. (the late cashier), &c. Here he had the satisfaction of being shewn, by cardinal de Polignac, his famous group of antique statues, the court of Lycomedes, then just brought from Rome, and since purchased by the king of Prussia, and destroyed at Charlottenbourg, in 1760, by the Russians. In 1742, he had the honour to paint Frederic prince and the princess of Wales, for the duke of Saxe Gotha; as he did some years after, the queen of Denmark, for that court. The publication of Pamela, ia 1744, gave rise to a set of paintings by Mr. Highmore, which were engraved by two French engravers, and published by subscription, in 1745. In the same year ha painted the only original of the late general Wolfe, then about 18. His Pamela introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of the excellent author, whose picture he drew, and for whom he painted the only original of Dr. Young. In 1750 he had the great misfortune to lose his excellent wife. On the first institution of the Academy of Painting, Sculpture, &c. in 1753, he was elected one of the professors; an honour, which, on account of his many avocations, he desired to decline. In 1754 he published, “A critical examination of those two Paintings [by Rubens] on the cieling of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, in which architecture is introduced, so far as relates to perspective together with the discussion of a question which has been the subject of debate among painters” printed in 4to, for Nourse. In the solution of this question he proved that Rubens, and several other great painters, were mistaken in the practice, and Mr. Kirby, and several other authors, in the theory and practice: and in the eighteenth volume of the “Monthly Review,” he animadverted (anonymously) on Mr. Kirby’s unwarrantable treatment of Mr. Ware, and detected and exposed his errors, even where he exults in his own superior science. Of the many portraits which Mr. Highmore painted, in an extensive practice of 46 years, (of which several have been engraved), it is impossible and useless to discuss particulars. His principal historical pictures were “Hin;ar and Ishmael,” a present to the Foundling-hospital “The Good Samaritan,” painted for Mr. Shepherd of Cainpsey Ash “The fin ding of Moses,” purchasedathis sale by gen. Lister: “The Harlowe Family,” as described in “Cianssn,” in the possession of Tiiomas Watkinson Payler, esq. at Heden in Kent: “Clarissa,” the portrait mentioned in that work “The Graces unveiling Nature,” drawn by memory from Rubens “The Clementina of Grandison,” and “the ^iueen-mother of Edward IV. with her younger son, &c. in Westminster-abbey:” the three last in the possession of his son.

In 1761, on the marriage of his daughter to the Rev. Mr. Buncombe, son to one of his oldest friends, he took a resolution of retiring from business, and disposing of his collection of pictures, which he did by auction, in March 1762; and soon after removed to the house of his son-inlaw at Canterbury, where he passed the remainder of his life, without ever re-visiting the metropolis. But though he had laid down the pencil, he never wanted employment: so active; and vigorous was his mind, that, with a constitutional flow of spirits, and a relish for instructive society, he was “never less alone than when alone;” and, besides his professional pursuits (abovementioned), to philosophy, both natural and moral, and also divinity, he laudably dedicated his time and attention. No man lud more clearness and precision of ideas, or a more ardent desire to know the truth; and, when known, conscientiously to pursue it. With strong passions, ever guided by the strictest virtue, he had a tender, susceptible heart, always open to the distresses of his fellow-creatures, and always ready to relieve them. His capital work of the literary kind was his “Practice of Perspective, 9” the Principles of Dr. Brook

iect, but removed, by its perspicuity, the only objection that can be made to the system of Dr. Taylor. It accordincrly received, from his friends and the intelligent public, the applauses it deserved. In 1765, he published (without his name) Observations cm a pamphlet intituled, “Christianity not founded on Argument/ [by Dodwell];” in which, after shewing that it is a continued irony, and lamenting that so ample a field should be offered the author of it for the display of his sophistry, he gives up creeds, articles, and catechisms, as out-works raised by fallible men, and, confining himself to the defence of the Gospel, or citadel, shews, that pure primitive Christianity, though assaulted by infidels, will ever remain impregnable. His opinion of Rubens may be seen in the Gent. Mag. for 1766, p. 353, under the title of “Remarks on some Passages in Mr.” NVebb’s ‘ Enquiry into the Beauties of Painting,’ &c.“In the same year he published, with only his initials,” J. H.“two small volumes of” Essays, moral, religious, and miscellaneous; with a translation in prose of Mr. Browne’s Latin poem on the Immortality of the Soul,“selected from a large number written at his leisure, at different periods of his life.” As such,“says Dr. Hawkesworth, in his review of them in Gent. Mag. vol. XXXV.” they do the author great credit. They are not excursions of fancy, but efforts of f thought, and indubitable indications of a vigorous and active mind.“In the Gent. Mag. for 1769, p. 287, he communicated” A natural and obvious manner of constructing sun-dials, deduced from the situation and motion of the earth with respect to the sun,“explained by a scheme: and in that for 1778, p. 526, his remarks on colouring, suggested by way of a note on the” Epistle to an eminent Painter," will shew that his talents were by no means impaired at the age of 86. He retained them indeed to the last, and had even strength and spirit sufficient to enable him to ride out daily on horseback, the summer before he died. A strong constitution, habitual temperance, and constant attention to his health in youth as well as in age, prolonged his life, and preserved his faculties to his 88th year, when he gradually ceased to breathe; and, as it were, fell asleep, on March 3, 1780. He was interred in the south aile of Canterbury cathedral, leaving one son, Anthony, educated in his own profession; and a daughter, Susanna, mentioned above.

His abilities as a painter appear in his works, which will not only be admired by his contemporaries, but by their posterity; as his tints, like those of Rubens and Vandycfc, instead of being impaired, are improved by time, which some of them have now withstood above 60 years. His idea of beauty, when he indulged his fancy, was of the highest kind; and his knowledge of perspective gave him great advantages in family-pieces, of which he painted more than any one of his time. He could take a likeness by memory as well as by a sitting, as appears by his picture of the duke of Lorrain (the late emperor), which Faber engraved and those ol king George II. (in York assemblyroom) queen Caroline, the two miss Gunnings, &c. Like many other great painters, he had “a poet for his friend,” in the late Mr. Browne; to which may be added, a poem addressed to him in 1726, by the Rev. Mr. Bunce, at that time of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, who succeeded Mr. Highmore, and in 1780, was vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury.

, a physician and anatomist, mentioned in the preceding lite, was born at Fordingbridge, in Hampshire, Feb. 6, 1613, and educated at Oxford, where he was elected a scholar of Trinity college in 1632, and took his degree of M. D. in 1642. After this he practised at Sherbourne, in Dorsetshire, with a considerable share of reputation, and died there March 21, 1684. He was buried at Candle Purse in that county, of which place his lather had been rector. Though wiih limited opportunities of dissection, he pursued the study of anatomy with zeal, and his name has been given to some discoveries not strictly his; as that of the ant mm inaxillare, of which he obtained a view from an extracted tooth, which suggested the operation of piercing into it from the jaw, practised by Cowper. Casserius had mentioned the cavity under the name of ant rum gente. His principal work is, “Corporis Humani Disquisitio Anatomica,” printed at the Hague in 1651, in folio, the descriptions in which are too. brief, the reasonings unnecessarily copious, and the figures chiefly copied from Vesalins. His other writings are, “Exercitationes cliuc, quanun prior de passione hysterica, altera de affectione hypochondnaca,” Oxon. 1660, abounding with physiological remarks and hypotheses, some of which are ingenious, but being attacked by Dr. Willis, Highmore printed, in H,70, “De hysterica et hypochondriaca passione, Responsio Epistolaris ad Willisium.” “A History of Generation,” 8vo, 1651, which has some good figures of the embryo in the egg, during the state of incubation; “Considerations on the Scarborough Spa,” and “Accounts of the Springs at FarinHon r.nd East Chennock,” both in the Philosophical Transactions.

, the founder of the monastic life in Palestine, was born at Tabatha, near Gaza, in the'year 291, of a Pagan family, but embraced Christianity. He went afterwards to join St. Anthony in his solitude, from which he returned to his own country, aud having distributed all his property among the poor, withdrew into a desert, where he acquired a high character for piety and devotion. The number of his disciples soon hecoming very numerous, he distributed them into different establishments throughout Palestine and Syria, over which he exercised a most vigilant superintendance. He died in the year 371, at the island of Cyprus.

, or Hilary, an ancient father of the Christian church, who flourished in the fourth century, was born, as St. Jerom tells us, at Poictiers in France; but in what year, is not known. His parents, persons of rank and substance, had him liberally educated in the pagan religion, which they themselves professed, and which Hilary did not forsake till many years after he was grown-up; when reflecting upon the gross errors of paganism, he was gradually led to the truth, and confirmed in it by reading the holy Scriptures. He was then baptized, together with his wife and daughter, who were also converted with bin). He was advanced to the bishopric of Poictiers in the year 3 5 5, according to Baronius though Cave thinks he was bishop of that place some years before. As soon however as he was raised to this dignity, he became a most zealous champion of the orthodox faith, and distinguished himself particularly against the Arians, whose doctrines were at that time gaining ground in France. In 356, he was sent by Constantinus to support the party of Athanasius at the synod of Beterra, or Beziers, against Saturninusbishop of'Arles, who had just before been excommunicated by the bishops of France but Saturninus had so much influence with the emperor, who was then at Milan, as to induce that monarch to order him to be banished to Phrygia, where Hilary continued continued four years, and applied himself during that time to the composing of several works. He wrote his twelve books upon the Trinity, which Cave calls “a noble work,” and which has been much admired in all ages. He wrote also “A Treatise Concerning Synods,” addressed to the bishops of France in which he explains to them the sense of the Eastern churches upon the doctrine of the Trinity, and their man tier of holding councils. This was drawn up by Hilary, ‘after the council of Ancyra in 358, whose canons are contained in it; and before the councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which were called in the beginning of 359. ’ Some time after he was sent to the council of Seleucia, where he defended the Galiican bishops from the imputation of Sabellianism, which the Arians had fixed upun them; and boldly asserted the sound and orthodox faith of the Western bishops. He was so favourably received, and so much respected by this council, that they admitted him as one who should give in his opinion, and assist in a determination among their bishops. Hilary, however, finding the greater part of them to be Arian, would not act, although he continued at Seleucia till the council was over; and thinking the orthodox faith in the Utmost peril, followed the deputies of the council to Constantinople, when he petitioned the emperor for leave to dispute publicly with the Arians. The Arians, from a dread of his talents, contrived to have him sent to France, in which he arrived in 360, and after the catholic bishops had recovered their usual liberty and authority under Julian the Apostate, Hilary assembled several councils to reestablish the ancient orthodox faith, and to condemn the determinations of the synods of Rimini and Seleucia. He condemned Saturninus bishop of Aries, but pardoned those who acknowledged their error; and, in every respect, exerted himself so zealously, that France was in a great measure freed from Arianism by his single influence and endeavours. He extended a similar care over Italy and some foreign churches, and was particularly qualified to recover men from the error of their ways, being a man of a mild candid turn, very learned, and accomplished in the arts of persuasion, and in these respects, says the candid Dupin, “affords a very proper lesson of instruction to all who are employed in the conversion of heretics.”

About 367 Hilary had another opportunity of distinguishing his zeal against Arianism. The emperor Valentinian coming to Milan, issued an edict, obliging all to acknowledge Auxentius for their bishop. Hilary, persuaded that Auxentius was in his heart an Ariao, presented a petition to the emperor, in which he declared Auxentius to be a man whose opinions were opposite to those of the church. Upon this the emperor ordered Hilary and Auxentius to dispute publicly; and Auxentius, after many subtleties and evasive shifts to save his bishopric, was forced to own, that Jesus Christ “was indeed God, of the same substance and divinity with the Father.” The emperor, believing this profession sincere, embraced his communion; but Hilary still insisted that he prevaricated, on which account he was ordered to depart from Milan, as one who disturbed the peace of the church. Hilary died the latter end of this year, after many struggles and endeavours to support the catholic faith. His works have been published several times: but the best edition of them was given by the Benedictines in 1693 at Paris, fol. That of the marquis de Maffei, published at Verona in 1730, 2 vols. folio, although it contains some additions, is less esteemed. There has since appeared an edition in 4 vols. 8vo, by-Oberthur, at Wurtzberg, 1785 1788. The principal articles are: the twelve books on the Trinity; the Treatise on Synods, three pieces addressed to the emperor Constantius; Commentaries on St. Matthew, and part of the Psalms. Cave has enumerated several articles improperly attributed to him. He was a man of great piety as well as abilities and learning, of which the ancient author of his life, attributed to Fortunatus, has given us some instances, mixed with superstitious prodigies and fictions. It appears that Hilary was married, and had by his wife a daughter called Abra, whose education he carefully superintended. To him the great church at Poictiers is dedicated, and in the midst of the city is a column erected to him, with an inscription expressive of their admiration of his virtues, but partaking a little of the superstitious.

, another Romish saint of that name, bishop of Aries, was born in the year 401, of rich and noble parents, and educated under St. Honoratus, abbot of Lerins. When Honoratus was promoted to the see of Aries, Hilarius, afterwards his successor, attended him, and when he was himself promoted to that dignity, beheld several councils, and presided in that at Rome in 441. In consequence of some false accusations, he was partly degraded by pope Leo, but his merit was afterwards fully perceived by that prelate. He died at the age of 48, May 5, 449, and although so young, was yet worn out by his ecclesiastical labours. In sentiments he was a Semi-Pelagian, yet he bore the highest character for piety, and all virtues. His works are, 1. “Homilies,” under the name of Eusebius of Emesa, which are in the library of the fathers. 2. “The Life of St. Honpratus,” his predecessor, Paris, 1578, 8vo; 3. Various smaller works, but no collection has been made of them.

, a very eminent and learned puritan divine, was descended from the royal family of England. He was the son of Thomas Hildersham, a gentleman of an ancient family, by Anne Pole (or Poole), his second wife, daughter to sir JefTery Pole, fourth son of sir Richard Pole, cousin-german to Henry VII. This sir Richard Pole’s wife was Margaret countess of Salisbury, daughter to George duke of Clarence, second brother to king Edward IV. by Isabella, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Richard earl of Warwick and Salisbury. All this will appear from the pedigree of cardinal Pole (who was Mr. Hildersham’s great uncle), as given from* the Heralds office, by the cardinal’s biographer, Mr. Phillips, but we might perhaps have passed it over, unless for a remarkable coincidence of descent which we shall soon have to notice in our account of bishop Hildesley.

Mr. Hildersham was born at Stechworth in Cambridgeshire, Oct. 6, 1563, and educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge. His parents were zealous papists, but during his abode at the university, he embraced the doctrines of the reformed church with a cordiality and decision which nothing could shake, and when his father found him so resolute, he disinherited him. He soon, however, obtained a liberal patron in his relation Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the north, who sent him to the university, which he had been obliged to leave, and generously supported him. Being disappointed of a fellowship of Christ’s college, owing to the partiality of Dr. Barwell, the master, for another candidate, he was nearly about the same time, in 1586, chosen fellow of Trinity-hall, by the influence of lord Burleigh, chancellor of the university. This fellowship, however, he did not hold above two years, and having unguardedly began to preach without being admitted into orders, he received a check from archbishop Whitgift, although this irregularity was not in those days very uncommon. In 1593, however, every obstacle of this kind being removed, the earl of Huntingdon presented him to the living of Ashby-de-la Zoncb in Leicestershire, where he remained the whole of his life. Being dissatisfied with some points of ecclesiastical discipline, snch as wearing the surplice, baptizing with the cross, and kneeling at the sacrament, he often incurred the penalties of the law, and more than once was suspended from his functions; but always restored by the intervention of some friend, or the prevalence of his own excellent character. The wonder is that a man of his learning, piety, and good sense, should have adhered with such pertinacity to matters of comparatively little consequence, when he found the law and the general sentiments of his brethren against him, and when, what was of more importance to him, those labours were interrupted in which he delighted, and in which he was eminently successful. With these interruptions, however, he continued in the exercise of his ministry at Ashby until his death, March 4, 1631. He was interred in the southside of the chancel of Ashby church, with an inscription which, after adverting to his noble descent, says that he was “more honoured for his sweet 'and ingenuous disposition, his singular wisdom in settling peace, advising in secular affairs, and satisfying doubts; his abundant charity, and especially his extraordinary knowledge and judgment in the Holy Scriptures, his painful and zealous preaching, &c.” This character is amply illustrated by his biographers, and may in part be confirmed by his works, which in point of style and matter are equal, if not superior to those of his contemporaries* Those which are best known are his “Lectures on John iv.” 1623, fol. and his “CLII Lectures on Psalm 51,” 1635, fol. In all these his steady adherence to the doctrines of the church is visible, and his aversion to sectarianism and popery. He was particularly an opponent of the Brownists, or first independents. Echardjusily says he was “a great and shining light of the puritan party, and celebrated for his singular learning and piety.” Ke was the author also of “Lectures on Psalm 34,” 1632, 4to; and “A Treatise on the Lord’s Supper,” which we have never seen. He left in ms. a paraphrase on the whole Bible, from which was extracted a paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, printed, 1672, in 12mo. His son, Samuel, was ejected, for nonconformity, from the living of West Felton in Shropshire, and died in 1674. He was editor of his father’s Lectures.

, a worthy prelate, appears by his pedigree given by his biographer, compared with that of the preceding Mr. Hildersham, to have been descended in the same line from the royal family of England, but as this circumstance seems to have escaped Mr. Butler’s notice, we are unable to say whether the name Hildersham and Hildesley were originally the same. It is certain that Hildersham occurs in t:ie descents in cardinal Pole’s pedigree, and that Hildesley does not. The subject of this article was the eldest surviving son of the rev. Mark Hildesley, rector of the valuable living of Houghton, held with the chapel of Witton, or Wyton All Saints, in the county of Huntingdon, who died in 1729. He was born Dec. 9, 1698, at Murston, near Sittingbourne, in Kent, of which his father was at that time rector. He was educated at the Charter-house, and at the age of nineteen was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, where he to >k his degree of A. B. in 1720, and of A. M. in 1724-, having been elected a fellow the year preceding. He was ordained deacon in 1722 and in 172.1 was appointed domestic chaplain to lord Cobham. In 1725 he was nominated a preacher at Whitehall, by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London; and from 1725 to 1729 held the curacy of Yelling in Huntingdonshire. In Feb. 1731 he was presented by his college to the vicarage of Hitchin in Hertfordshire, and the same year married miss Elizabeth Stoker, with whom he lived in the utmost conjugal airection for upwards of thirty years, but by whom it does not appear that he had any issue.

At Hitchin, the value of which would not admit the expence of a curate, he began that attention to the duties of his function which predominated through his life, and having advanced considerably to repair the vicarage-house, he was obliged to add to his labours by undertaking the education of from four to six select pupils, as boarders. It was his general custom at this time to preach either from memory, or short notes; and at a visitation at Baldock he delivered a discourse to the clergy from memory alone, with very singular and agreeable address. In Oct. 1735, he succeeded to the neighbouring-rectory of Holwell, in the county of Bedford, upon the presentation of Ralph Radcliffe, esq. This living he held about thirty-two years, and during the twenty years of his residence, executed all the duties of his important function with a truly primitive fidelity, not only by frequent public preaching, but by private visiting, exhortation, and catechising, distributing good books, &c. At length his exemplary conduct became known to the duke of Athol, lord and patron of the bishopric of Sodor and Mann, who justly considered him as a proper person to succeed the excellent and venerable bishop Wilson, who died in 1755. He was accordingly consecrated in Whitehall chapel in April of that year, after being created D. D. by archbishop Herring; and on Aug. 6, was installed in the cathedral of St. German on Peel, in the Isle of Mann.

His removal took place, as he terms it in one of his letters, at a critical juncture, when the double charge of his pupils, and a large parochial cure together, began to be too heavy for his “weak shoulders.” He added, that he had “in his new province, as much care, but not quite so much labour” For some time after his promotion to the diocese, he had been obliged to retain by commendam the rectory of Holwell, o'n account of the smallness of his episcopal income, which was too slender to support the dignity of his station. Indeed it appears that the expences, fees, and other charges attendant or consequent on his acceptance of the bishopric, amounted to no less than 92&1. a sum which must have greatly embarrassed him. As soon, however, as was possible, he resigned Holwell, and the same year, 1767, was presented, by the bishop of Durham, Dr. Trevor, to the mastership of Siierburn hospital; and he had also a prebend of Lincoln given him, but at what time does not appear.

Having thus succeeded bishop Wilson, he made it the invariable rule of his conduct to tread as nearly as possible in the steps of his truly excellent predecessor, of whom, both in his letters and conversation, he always spoke with a kind of filial respect and veneration. He accordingly devoted himself to the various duties of his charge with a generous assiduity, and amongst the very chief of those duties, undertook to execute the arduous task of getting the Holy Scriptures translated into the Manks language, and printed for the use of the native inhabitants. This had been already begun by bishop Wilson, who, at his own expence, proceeded so far as to print the gospel of St. Matthew; and had also prepared for the press a manuscript version of the other evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles, which afterwards underwent a very careful revision. Impressed, therefore, with deep solicitude and concern for the spiritual welfare of a flock, which providence had so unexpectedly entrusted to his care, bishop Hildesley could have no rest till he had accomplished this glorious design. It lay, indeed, so much at his heart, that he was often heard to say, “he only wished to live tosee it finished and he then should be happy, die when he would” and his wish was accomplished. He lived to see the work completed, by the divine blessing on his own endeavours, and on those of his clergy, in consequence of a successful application made to the society for promoting Christian knowledge who, immediately, and in the most liberal manner, espoused the cause together with the aid of many persons of eminence and distinction, who were pleased to honour themselves by patronizing the undertaking.

At first, with the sanction and support of the society, Dn Hildesley printed only the New Testament; the “Book of Common Prayer” translated, untler his direction, by the clergy of his diocese; “The Christian Monitor;” Mr. Lewis’s “Exposition of the Catechism,” and bishop Wilson’s “Form of Prayer” for the use of the Herring-fishery. But the benefactions came in so far beyond their expectation, that about 1766 they were encouraged to set on foot a Manks version of the Old Testament, which had scarcely, been accomplished, when the good prelate’s health, which was always delicate, showed alarming symptoms of approaching dissolution, and although he had alternations of apparent recovery, and in June 1772 had gained firmness enough to visit his hospital near Durham, yet his usual vivacity was visibly much reduced, and application to business of any kind proved rather irksome. This continued till about the middle of November following, when he was ao-ain enabled to dispatch common affairs without apparent fatio-ue. and performed the duties of his ministerial office with ereat alacrity. On Saturday, Nov. 28, he received the last part of the translation of the Bible, so long the sbject of his ardent prayers upon which occasion, accord in'g to his own repeated promise, he very emphatically sang Nunc, Dentine, Dimtitis, in the presence of his congratulating family. Next Sunday he officiated in his own chapel, and preached “on the uncertainty of human life,” which subject he repeated in private exhortation to his family in the evening. On the Monday following, Nov. 30, after dining and cheerfully conversing in his palace, with his family and one of the neighbouring clergy around him, he was seized with a stroke of apoplexy on the left side, which in a moment deprived him of his intellectual powers, and in that situation he remained, until Dec. 7, when he calmly expired, deeply regretted by the clergy and inhabitants of his diocese, to whom his amiable manners and active benevolence had endeared him. In the work to which we are indebted for the particulars of this sketch, may be found many proofs of his piety, liberality, and anxiety for the best concerns of his flock. A narrative, indeed, like that of Mr. Butler’s, strengthened by so much authentic and minute information, and interesting correspondence, cannot be too frequently consulted by the junior clergy. Bishop Hildesley is known as an author, only by a small tract which he published without his name, entitled “Plain Instructions for young persons in the principles of the Christian religion in six conferences, between a minister and his disciple designed for the use of the isle and diocese of Mann. By a resident clergyman,” in two parts, 1762 and 1767.

, is recorded as a celebrated abbot of St. Denys in France, in the ninth century, in the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire, and Lothaire his son. He became despicable by his attachment to the latter, and by frequently violating the oath of fidelity which he swore to the emperor Louis, whenever he was reconciled to his children. As a writer he was the first who confounded St. Denys, or Dionysius, bishop of Paris, with Dionysius the Areopagite, in his life of St. Dionysius entitled " Areopagitica, n Paris, 1565, 8vo, which is replete with fabulous absurdities.

, an English poet and dramatic writer of some celebrity in his day, was born in Beaufort-buildings in the Strand, February 10, 1685. He was the eldest son Of George Hill, esq. of Malmsbury-abbey in Wiltshire and, in consequence of this descent, the legal heir to an, entailed estate of about 2000l. per annum; but the misconduct of his father having, by a sale of the property, which he had no right to execute, rendered it of no advanl tage to the family, our author was left, together with Mr. Hill’s other children, to the care of, and a dependence on, his mother and grandmother; the latter of whom (Mrs. Anne Gregory) was more particularly anxious for his education and improvement. The first rudiments of learning he received from Mr. Reyner, of Barnstaple in Devonshire^ to whom he was sent at nine years old, and, on his removal from thence, was placed at Westminster-school, under the care of the celebrated Dr. Knipe. After remaining here until he was fourteen years of age, he formed a resolution singular enough in one so young, of paying a visit to his relation lord Paget, then ambassador at Constantinople; and accordingly embarked for that place, March 2, 1700. When he arrived, lord Paget received him with much surprise, as well as pleasure; wondering, that a person so young should run the hazard of iuch a voyage, to visit a relation whom he only knew by character. The ambassador immediately provided for him a very learned ecclesiastic in his own house; and, under his tuition, sent him to travel, so that he had an opportunity of seeing Egypt, Palestine, and a great part of the East. With lord Paget he returned home about 1703, and in his journey saw most of the courts in Europe, and it is probable that his lordship might have provided genteelly for him at his death, had he not been dissuaded by the misrepresentations of a female about him, which in a great measure prevented his good intentions. The young man’s well known merit, however, soon recommended him to sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire baronet, who being inclined to make the tour of Europe, his relations engaged Mr. Hill to accompany him as a travelling tutor, which office he performed, for two or three years, to their entire satisfaction. In 1709, he commenced author, by the publication of an “History of the Ottoman Empire,” compiled from tinmaterials 'which he had collected in the course of his di rent travels, and during his residence at the Turkish conr:. This work, though it met with success, Mr. Hill frequently afterwards repented the having printed, and would himself, at times, very severely criticize it; and indeed, to say the truth, there are in it a great number of puerilities, which render it far inferior to the merit of his subsequent writings; in which correctness has ever been so strong a characteristic, that his critics have even attributed it to him as a fault; whereas, in this work, there at best appears the labour of a juvenile genius, rather choosing to give the full reign to fancy, and indulge the imagination of the poet, than to aim at the plainness and perspicuity of the historian. About the same year he published his first poetical piece, entitled “Camillus,” in vindication and honour of the earl of Peterborough, who had been general in. Spain. This poem was printed without any author’s name; but lord Peterborough, having made it his business to find out to whom he was indebted, appointed Mr. JHill his secretary; which post, however, he quitted the year following, on occasion of his marriage.

In 1709, he, at the desire of Mr. Booth, wrote his first tragedy of “Elfrid; or, The Fair Inconstant.” This play was composed in little more than a week, on which account it is no wonder that it should be, as he himself has described it, “an unpruned wilderness of fancy, with here and there a flower among the leaves; but without any fruit of judgment.” This, however, he altered, and brought on the stage again about twenty years afterwards, under the title of “Athelwold.” Yet, even in its first form, it met with sufficient encouragement to induce him to a second attempt in the dramatic way, though of another kind, viz. the opera of “Rinaldo,” the music of which was the first piece of composition of that admirable master Mr. Handel, after his arrival in England. This piece, in 1710, Mr. Hill brought on the stage at the king’s theatre in the Haymarket, of which he was at that time director, and where it met with very great and deserved success.

It appears, from the above account, that Mr. Hill was, at this period, manager of the theatre, which he conducted entirely to the satisfaction of the public; and, indeed, no man seemed better qualified for such a station, if we may be allowed to form our opinion from the judgment he displays on the subject, not only in a poem, entitled “The Art of Acting,” and in the course of his periodical essays entitled the Prompter, which appeared in his life-time, but also in many parts of an epistolary correspondence which he maintained with various persons of taste and gepius, and which have since been published among his posthumous works, in four volumes in 8vo. This post, however, he relinquished in a few months, from some misunderstanding; and though he was not long after very earnestly solicited to take the charge on him again, yet he could not be prevailed on, by any means, to re -accept it.

It is probable, however, that neither pride, nor any harboured resentment, were the motives of this refusal, but that spirit of projecting new schemes which seems to hare more or less animated him throughout life, however unfortunate he might be in indulging it. Among the Harleian Mss. 7524, is a letter from him to the lord-treasurer, dated April 12, 1714, on a subject by which “the nation might gain a million annually.” In 17 15, he undertook to. make an oil, as sweet as that from olives, of the beech-nuts, and obtained a patent for the purpose: but, after having formed a joint-stock company to be called the “Beech Oil Company,” who were to act in concert with the patentee, disputes arose among them, and the whole design was overthrown, without any benefit having accrued either to the patentee, or the sharers. He was next concerned with sir Robert Montgomery in a design for establishing a plantation of a vast tract of land in the south of Carolina, for which purpose a grant had been purchased from the lords proprietors of that province; but here again the want of a larger fortune than he was master of, stood as a bar in his way; for, though it has many years since been extensively cultivated under the name of Georgia, yet it never proved of any advantage to him.

Another project he set on foot about 1727, was the turning to a great account many woods of very large extenfc in the north of Scotland, by applying the timber, produced by them, to the uses of the navy, for which it had been long erroneously imagined they were totally untit. The falsity of this supposition, however, he clearly evinced; for one entire vessel was built of it, and, on trial, was found to be of as good timber as that brought from any part of the world; and although, indeed, there were not many trees in these woods large enough for masts to ships of the largest burthen, yet there were millions fit for those of all smaller vessels, and for every other branch of ship-building. In this undertaking, however, he met with various obstacles, not only from the ignorance of the natives of that country, but even from Nature herself; yet Mr. Hill’s assiduity and perseverance surmounted them all. For when the trees were by his order chained together into floats, the unexperienced Highlanders refused to venture themselves on them down the river Spey; nor would have been prevailed on, had not he first gone himself to convince them that there was no danger. And now the great number of rocks, which ahoaked up different parts of this river, and seemed to render it impassable, were another impepediment to his expedition. But, by ordering great fires to be made upon them at the time of low tide, when they were most exposed, and throwing quantities of water upon them, they were, by the help of proper tools, broken to pieces and thrown down, and a free passage opened for the floats.

This design was, for some time, carried on with great vigour and advantage, till some of the persons concerned in it thought proper to call off the men and horses from the woods of Abernethy, in order to employ them in their lead mines in the same country, from whence they promised themselves to reap a still more considerable profit. What private emolument Mr. Hill received from this affair, or whether any at all, seems unknown. However, the magistrates of Inverness, Aberdeen, &c. paid him the compliment of the freedom of their towns, and entertained him with much respect. Yet, notwithstanding these ho-> nours, which were publicly paid to cur author, and the distinguished civilities which he met with from the duke and duchess of Gordon, and other persons of rank to whom he became known during his residence in the Highlands, this Northern expedition was near proving of very unhappy consequences to his fortune; for, in his return, his lady being at that time in Yorkshire for the recovery of her health, he made so long a continuance with her in that county, as afforded an opportunity to some persons into whose hands he had confided the management of some important affairs, to be guilty of a breach of trust, that aimed at the destruction of the greatest part of what he was worth. He happily, however, returned in time to frustrate their intentions.

In 1731, he met with a very great shock in the loss of a wife, to whom he had been married twenty years. She xvas the only daughter of Edmund Morris, esq. of Stratford in Essex, by whom he had nine children, and also a handsome fortune. After this he appears to have continued in London until 1738, when he retired to Plaistow in Essex, and devoted himself to study, and to the concerns of his family. One more project he attempted here, and with some success, although not to himself; viz. the' art of making pot-ash equal to that brought from Russia. Here also he wrote several poetical pieces, particularly an heroic poem, entitled “The Fanciad,” another of the same kind, “The Impartial,” a “Poem upon Faith,” and three books of an epic poem on the story of Gideon. He also adapted to the English stage, Voltaire’s tragedy of “Merope,” which was the last work he lived to complete. This he just lived to see introduced to the public but the day before it was, by command of Frederic prince of Wales, to have been represented for his benefit, he died, in the veiy minute of the memorable earthquake, Feb. 8, 1750, of the shock of which, it is said, he appeared sensible. He was interred near lord Godolphin’s monument, in the great cloister of Westminster-abbey, in the same grave with his wife.

With regard to Mr. Hill’s private character, all who have written of him say he was in every respect perfectly amiable. His person was, in his youth, extremely fair and handsome. He was tall, not too thin, yet genteelly made. His eyes were a dark blue, bright and penetrating; his hair brown, and his face oval. His countenance was most generally animated by a. smile, which was more particularly distinguishable whenever he entered into conversation; in the doing which his address was most engagingly affable, yet mingled with a native unassumed dignity, which rendered him equally the object of admiration and respect with those who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. His voice was sweet, and his conversation elegant; and so extensive was his knowledge in all subjects, that scarcely any could occur on which he did not acquit himself in a most masterly and entertaining manner. His temper, though naturally warm when roused by injuries, was equally noble in a readiness to forgive them; and so much inclinable was he to repay evil with good, that he frequently exercised that Christian lesson, even to the prejudice of his own circumstances. He was a generous master, a sincere friend, an affectionate husband, and an indulgent and tender parent; and indeed so benevolent was his disposition in general, even beyond the power of the fortune he was blessed with, that the calamities of those he knew, and valued as deserving, affected him more deeply than his own. In consequence of this we find him bestowing the profits of many of his works for the relief of his friends, and particularly his dramatic ones, none of which he could ever be prevailed on to accept of a benefit for, till at the very close of his life, when his narrow circumstances compelled him to solicit the acting of his “Merope,” for the relief of its author from those difficulties out of which he had frequently been the generous instrument of extricating others. His manner of living was temperate to the greatest degree in every respect but that of late hours, which, as the night is less liable to interruptions than the day, his indefatigable love of study frequently drew him into. No labour deterred him from the prosecution of any design which appeared to him to be praise-worthy and feasible; nor was it in the power of the greatest misfortunes to overcome, or even shake, his fortitude of mind.

The “sneakingly approves,” in the last couplet, Pope was much affected by; and, indeed, through their whole controversy afterwards, in which it was generally thought Hill had considerably the advantage, Pope seems rather to express his repentance by denying the offence, than to vindicate himself, supposing it to have been given.

, a learned English gentleman, fellow and treasurer of the royal society, one of the lords of trade, and comptroller to the archbishop of Canterbury, was descended of an ancient and honourable family of that name, seated at Shilston, in Devonshire, and was the son of Richard Hill, of Shilston, esq. His father was bred to mercantile business, which he pursued with great success, was chosen an alderman of London, and v.as much in the confidence of the Long-parliament, and of Cromwell and his statesmen. Abraham, his eldest son, was born April 18, 1633, at his father’s house, in St. Botolph’s parish by Billingsgate, and after a proper education, was introduced into his business. He was also an accomplished scholar in the Greek, Latin, French, Dutch, and Italian languages, and was considered as one of very superior literary attainments. On his father’s death in 1659, he became possessed of an ample fortune, and that he might, with more ease, prosecute his studies, he hired chambers in Gresham college, where he had an opportunity of conversing with learned men, and of pursuing natural philosophy, to which he was much attached. He was one of the first eucouragers of the royal society, and on its first institution became a fellow, and in 1663 their treasurer, which office he held for two years. His reputation, in the mean time, was not confined to his native country, but by means of the correspondence of his learned friends, was known over most part of Europe. Having, like his father, been biassed in favour of the republican party from which he recovered by time and reflection, his merit was in consequence overlooked during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. but on the accession of king William, he was called to a seat at the board of trade, where his knowledge of the subject made his services of great importance; and when Dr. Tillotson was promoted to the see of Canterbury in 1691, he prevailed on Mr. Hill to take on him the office of his comptroller, which he accordingly accepted, and lived in Jiigh favour with that distinguished prelate, who would frequently term him “his learned friend and his instructing philosopher.” On the accession of queen Anne, Mr. Hill resigned his office in the Board of Trade, and retired to his seat of St. John’s in Sutton, at Hone in the county of Kent, which he had purchased in 1665, and which was always his favourite residence. Here he died Feb. 5, 1721. In 1767 a volume of his “Familiar Letters” was published, which gives us a very favourable idea of his learning, public spirit, and character; and although the information these letters contain is not of such importance now as when written, there is always an acknowledged charm in unreserved epistolary correspondence, which makes the perusal of this and all such collections interesting.

, an English writer, and most extraordinary character, was the son of a Mr. Theophilus Hill, a clergyman of Peterborough or Spalding, and born about the year 1716. He was bred an apothecary, and set up in St. Martin’s-lane, Westminster; but marrying early, and without a fortune on either side, he was obliged to look round for other resources than his profession. Having, therefore, in his apprenticeship, attended the botanical lectures which are periodically given under the patronage of the apothecary’s company, and being possessed of quick natural parts, he soon made himself acquainted with the theoretical as well as practical parts of botany; after which, being recommended to the duke of Richmond and lord Petre, he was by them employed in the inspection and arrangement of their botanic gardens. Assisted by the liberality of these noblemen, he executed a scheme of travelling over several part* of this kingdom, to gather some of the most rare and uncommon plants, accounts of which he afterwards published by subscription. But, after great researches, and the exertion of uncommon industry, which he possessed in a peculiar degree, this undertaking turned out by no means adequate either to his merits or expectations.

The stage next presented itself, as a soil in which genius might stand a chance of flourishing; but this plan proved likewise abortive; and, after two or three unsuccessful attempts at the Haymarket and Covent-garden, he was obliged to apply again to his botanical inquiries, and his business as an apothecary. In the course of these pursuits, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Martin Folkes and Henry Baker, esqrs. both of the Royal Society, and through them to the literary world; where he was received and entertained on every occasion with much candour and friendly warmth, being considered by them as a young man of " great natural and acquired knowledge, struggling against the tide of misfortune, and in this view pitied and encouraged.

At length, about 1746 (at which time he had the trifling appointment of apothecary to one or two regiments in the Savoy) he translated from the Greek a small tract of Theophrastus, “On Gems,” which he published by subscription; and this, being well executed, procured him friends, reputation, and money. Encouraged by this success engaged in works of greater extent and importance. The first he undertook was “A General Natural History” three vols. folio. He next engaged, in conjunction with George Lewis Scott, esq. for a “Supplement to Chambers’ s Dictionary.” At the same time he undertook the “British Magazine;” and when engaged in these and a number of other works, some of which seemed to require a man’s whole attention, he carried on a daily essay under the title of “Inspector.” Notwithstanding all this employment, he was a constant attendant upon every place of public amusement; where he collected, by wholesale, a great variety of private intrigue, and personal scandal, which he as freely retailed again to the public in his “Inspectors” and “Magazines.” It would make a folio, instead of an article in this work, were we to trace Dr. Hill (for he had now obtained a diploma from the college of St. Andrew’s, in Scotland) through all his various pursuits in life. Let it suffice to say, that from this successful period he commenced a man of fashion, kept his equipage, dressed, went into all polite companies, and in every respect claimed the character of a man of bon ton. His writings supported him in all this for a time; and, notwithstanding the graver part of them were only compilations, and the lighter part such as could produce no great copy-money, yet there is no doubt that he made, for several years, a considerable income.

But the disposition of Dr. Hill was greatly changed with his circumstances: from being humble and diffident, he had become vain and self-sufficient. There appeared in him a pride, which was perpetually claiming a more than ordinary homage, and a vindictive spirit, which could never forgive the refusal of it. Hence his writings abounded with attacks on the understandings, morals, or peculiarities of others, descending, even to personal abuse and scurrility. This licence of his pen engaged him frequently in disputes and quarrels; and an Irish gentleman of the name of Browne, supposed to be ridiculed in an “Inspector,” proceeded so far as to cane him in the public gardens at Ranelagh. He had a paper war with Woodward the comedian was engaged with Henry Fielding in the affair of Elizabeth Canning and concerned in a contest with the Royal Society, Of this, the origin and progress has been thus detailed by one who had every opportunity of knowing the circumstances. When Mr. Hill had started all at once as before related, from a state of indigence and distress, to taste the comforts of very considerable emoluments from his labour, giddy with success, and elated beyond bounds with the warm sunshine of prosperity, he seemed to be seized with a kind of infatuation. Vanity took entire possession of his bosom, and banished from thence every consideration but of self. His conversation turned on little else, and even his very writings were tainted with perpetual details of every little occurrence that happened to him. His raillery, both in company and in his writings, frequently turned on those who closely attached themselves to philosophical investigations, especially in the branches of natural philosophy. The common -place wit of abusing the medal-scraper, the butterfly-hunter, the cockle-shell-merchant, &c. now appeared in some of his Magazines and Inspectors, and in two or three places he even indulged some distant glances of satire at the Royal Society. Notwithstanding which, however, when the Supplement to “Chambers’s Dictionary” was nearly finished, the proprietors of that work, very sensible of the weight of an F. R. S. annexed to the author’s name, were very desirous that Dr. Hill should have this addition as well as Mr. Scott, his colleague in the work. In consequence of this design, Dr. Hill procured Mr. Scott to propose him for election into that honourable body; but the doctor’s conduct for some time past having been such as had rendered him the object of contempt to some, of disgust to others, and of ridicule to almost all the rest of his former grave and philosophical acquaintances, he now stood but a very indifferent chance for carrying an election, where an opposition pf one third was sufficient to reject the candidate; and as. the failing in that attempt might have done our author more essential prejudice than the succeeding in it could even have brought him advantage, the late ingenious and worthy president, Martin Folkes, esq. whose remembrance must ever live in the highest estimation with all who ever had the honour of knowing him, notwithstanding that Dr. Hill had given him personal occasion of offence against him, yet with the utmost generosity and candour, advised Mr. Scott to dissuade his friend, for his own sake, against a design which there appeared so little probability of his succeeding in. This advice, however, Dr. Hill, instead of considering in the generous light it was meant, misinterpreted into a prejudiced opposition against his interest, am would have persisted in his intention even in despite of it, had net his being unable to obtain the subscription o requisite number of members to his recommendation^ obliged him to lay it aside, from a conviction that he could not expect to carry an election in a body composed of three hundred members, of which he could not prevail on three to set their names to the barely recommending him as a candidate. Thus disappointed, his vanity piqued, and his pride lowered, no relief was left him but railing and scurrility, for which purpose, declaring open war with the society in general, he first published a pamphlet entitled *' A Dissertation on Royal Societies,“in a letter from a Sclavonian nobleman in London to his friend in Sclavonia; which, besides the most ill-mannered and unjust abuse on the whole learned body he had been just aiming, in vain, to become a member of, is interlarded with the grossest personal scurrility on the characters of Mr. Folkes and Mr. Henry Baker, two gentlemen to whom Dr. Hill had formerly been under the greatest obligations, and whose respective reputations in both the moral and literary world had long been too firmly established for the weak efforts of a disappointed scribbler to shake or undermine. Not contented with this, he proceeded to compile together a large quarto volume entitled” A Review of the Works of the Royal Society,“in which, by the most unfair quotations, mutilations, and misrepresentations, numbers of the papers read in that illustrious assembly, and published under the title of the” Philosophical Transactions,“are endeavoured to be rendered ridiculous. This work is ushered into the world with a most abusive and infamous dedication to Martin Folkes, esq. against whom and the afore-mentioned Mr. Henry Baker the weight of this furious attack was chiefly aimed but the whole recoiled upon himself; and by such personal abuse, malignant altercation, proud and insolent behaviour, together with the slovenliness and inaccuracy of careless and hasty productions, he wrote himself out of repute both with booksellers and the town; and, after some time, sunk in the estimation of the public nearly as fast as he had risen. He found, however, as usual, resources in his own invention. He applied himself to the preparation of certain simple medicines namely,” the Essence of Water-dock; Tincture of Valerian Pectoral Balsam of Honey and Tincture of Bardana.“The well-known simplicity of these preparations led the public to judge favourably of their effects; they had a rapid sale, and once more enabled the doctor to live in splendour. Soon after the publication of the first of these medicines, he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute; under which he published a very pompous and voluminous botanical work, entitled” A System of Botany;“but is said to have been a very considerable loser by this speculation. His botanical works, however, had a favourable influence in promoting the science in general. To wind up the whole of so extraordinary a life, having a year or two before his death presented an elegant set of his botanical works to the king of Sweden, that monarch invested him with one of the orders of his court, that of Vasa, in consequence of which he assumed the title of Sir John. He died Nov. 22, 1775, of the gout, which he professed to cure others. As to his literary character, and the rank of merit in which his writings ought to stand, Hill’s greatest enemies could not deny that he was master of considerable abilities, and an amazing quickness of parts. The rapidity of his pen was ever astonishing, and he has been known to receive within one year, no less than 1500l. for the works of his own single hand; which, as he was never in such estimation as to be entitled to any extraordinary price for his copies, is, we believe, at least three times as much as ever was made by any one writer in the same period of time. But, had he written much less, his works would probably have been much more read. The vast variety of subjects he handled, certainly required such a fund of universal knowledge, and such a boundless genius, as were never perhaps known to centre in any one man; and it is not therefore to be wondered, if, in regard to some he appears very inaccurate, in some very superficial, and in others altogether inadequate to the task he had undertaken. His works on philosophical subjects seemed most likely to have procured him fame, had he allowed himself time to digest the knowledge he possessed, or preserved that regard to veracity which the relation of scientific facts so rigidly demands. His novels, of which he has written many, such as” The History of Mr. Lovell,“(in which he had endeavoured to persuade the world he had given the detail of his own life),” The Adventures of a Creole,“” The Life of Lady Frail,“&c. have, in some parts of them, incidents not disagreeably related, but the most of them are merely narratives of private intrigues, containing throughout the grossest calumnies, and endeavouring to blacken and undermine the private characters of many worthy persons. In his” Essays,“which are by much the best of hia writings, there is, in general, a liveliness of imagination, and adroitness in the manner of extending, perhaps some very trivial thought, which at first may by many be mistaken for wit; but, on a nearer examination, will be found to lose much of its value. A continued use of smart short periods, bold assertions, and bolder egotisms, produces a transient effect, but seldom tempts the spectator to take a second glance. The utmost that can be said of Hill is, that he had talents, but that, in general, he either greatly nisapplied them, or most miserably hackneyed them for profit. As a dramatic writer he stands in no estimation^ nor has he been known in that view by any thing but three very insignificant pieces: namely, 1.” Orpheus,“an opera, 1740. 2.” The Critical Minute,“a farce, published in 1754, but not acted, 3.” The Rout," a farce, 1754*. A large volume might be written on the life and! adventures of this extraordinary man, as affording a complete history of literary quackery, every branch of which he pursued with a greater contempt for character than perhaps any man in our time.

, an English divine and lexicographer, was born Oct. 1625, at Bromley, near Leeds, where his father, Joshua Hill, was a puritan preacher. He was carefully educated in classical learning, and sent to Cambridge in 1644, where he was admitted of St. John’s college. Jn 1649, he was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and became a favourite tutor. In 1658 he served the office of senior proctor, and in 1660 kept the act for the degree of bachelor of divinity, and having declared his sentiments in favour of nonconformity, his fellow-collegians erased his name from their books, that he might be enabled to retire without suffering a formal ejectment. He then retired to London, and preached ibr a while at the church of Allhallows Barking, but in 1663 went abroad, and, after visiting various parts of the continent, passed three years at the university of Leyden. In 1667 he was invited to be minister of the English church at Mtddleburgh in Zealand, where he continued till 167'5, when his too late publishing his “Defence of the Zealander’s choice,” occasioned the governors of that province to order him to ktave the placre. On his arrival in England, however, and waiting on diaries II. he rewarded him for writing that book with a sinecure of 50/, and, according to Calamy, offered him a bishopric if he would conform. But this being against his principles, he accepted an invitation to the English church at Rotterdam in 1678, where he exercised the office of pastor until his death, Nov. 5, 1707. Mr. Hill was much esteemed as a preacher, and has left one or two specimens of his talents but tie is more noticeable as the editor of Scbreveiius’s Lexicon, which he augmented with 8000 words, and purged of nearly as many faults. He published his edition in 1676, since which it has often been reprinted, sometimes with improvements, and is still a standard book. Mr. Hill had accumulated a very fine library, in which he employed his leisure hours to the last.

was a man remarkable for his perseverance and talent in learning many languages by the aid of books alone, and that under every disadvantage of laborious occupation and extreme poverty. His extraordinary character was made known to the world by Mr. Spence in 1757, who, in order to promote a subscription for him, published a comparison between him and the famous Magliabecchi, with a short life of each. From this account it appears that he was born January 11, 1699, at Miswell near Tring in Hertfordshire, that he was bred a taylor, which trade and that of a staymaker he practised throughout life, sometimes adding to them that of a schoolmaster. He was three times married, and the increase of his family, with the extravagance of his second wife, kept him always in great, penury. He worked in general, or taught by day, and studied by night; in which way he acquired the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, with a good knowledge of arithmetic. As he could proceed only as he accidentally picked up books in a very cheap way, his progress was slow, but by his unremitting diligence very steady. According to his own account, he was seven years acquiring Latin, twice as much in learning Greek, but Hebrew he found so easy that it cost him little time. He wrote, 1. “Remarks on Berkeley’s” Essay on Spirit“. 2.” The Character of a Jew.“3.” Criticisms on Job." He was a modest sensible man, fond of studying the Scriptures, and a zealous member of the church of England. He died at Buckingham in July 1777, after having been confined to his bed about a year and a half. During this time he employed the hours in which he was able to sit up, in his favourite study of the Old Testament in Hebrew, which he frequently said now more than repaid him for the trouble he had taken to acquire the language. It is probable, that the notice into which he was brought by Mr. Spence secured him afterwards from the extremities of poverty.

, a learned annotator on Dionysius Periegetes, was born in 1619, at Cudworth in Warwickshire, and educated at Merton college, Oxford, of which he was made one of the post-masters. He was -elected probationer-fellow of that house in 1639, and afterwards bachelor-fellow, and thence was promoted to a-free-school at Sutton-Colfield in his own county, which school he brought into considerable credit during his abode there. He then removed to London, and practised physic, and in 164i> and 1652, had leave from the delegates of the university to accumulate the degrees in physic, but Wood could not discover that he took the benefit of this licence it is probable he did not, as in his “Dionysius” he styles himself only master of arts. After this he removed to Ireland to resume the art of teaching, and became chief master of the great school of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, but at the restoration, as he had sided with the parliamentary interest, or at least was indebted to it for his promotion, he was ejected from this office, and went to Finglass, near Dublin, where he taught and boarded children of people of quality, and was made minister of the church there. Before his death he was created D. D. by the university of Dublin. He died of a pestilential fever in Nov. 1667. His edition of Dionysius is entitled “Dionisii orbis descriptio, annotationibus Eustathii, et Hen. Stepheni, nee non Gul. Hill eommentario critico et geographico, ac tabulis illustrata,” Lond. 1658, 8vo, reprinted 1659, 1663, 1678, 1683, which last Harwood reckons a valuable edition. He is said also to have epitomized some of the works of Lazarus Riverius, a physician. As his wife was brought to bed seven months after their marriage, he wrote a treatise to prove the child lawfully begotten, and submitted the ms. to two physicians, who returned it with apparent approbation, but seriously considered it as not very conclusive.

, the elder, surnamed Hassaken, was born at Babylon, of poor parents, but of the royal stock of David, in the year 112 B. C. After residing forty years in Babylon, where he married, and had a son, he removed with his family to Jerusalem, for the purpose of studying the law. Shemaiah and Abdalion were at that time eminent doctors in Jerusalem. Hillel, unable on account of his poverty to gain a regular admission to their lectures, spent a considerable part of the profits of his daily labour in bribing the attendants to allow him a place at the door of the public hall, where he might gather up the doctrine of these eminent masters by stealth; and when this expedient failed him, he found means to place himself at the top of the building near one of the windows. By such unwearied perseverance he acquired a profound knowledge of the most difficult points of the law; in consequence of which his reputation gradually rose to such an heignt, that he became the master of the chief school in Jerusalem. In this station he was universally regarded as an oracle of wisdom scarcely inferior to Solomon, and had many thousand followers. He had such command of his temper, that no one ever saw him angry. The name of Hillel is in the highest esteem among the Jews for the pains which he took to perpetuate the knowledge of the traditionary law. He arranged its precepts under six general classes; and thus laid the foundation of that digest of the Jewish law which is called the Talmud. Hillel is said to have lived to the great age of one hundred and twenty years. Shammai, one of the disciples of Hillel, deserted his school, and formed a college of his own, in which he taught dogmas contrary to those of his master. He rejected die oral law, and followed the written law only, in its literal sense. Hence he has been ranked among the Karaites. The schools of Hillel and Shammai long disturbed the peace of the Jewish church by violent contests, in which, however, the party of Hillel was at last victorious. Hillel, we have yet to mention, laboured much to give a correct edition of the sacred text, and there is an ancient ms Bible which bears his name ascribed to him, part of which is among the Mss. of the Sorbonne.

, the Nasi, or prince, another famous Jew, was great grandson of Judas Hakkadosh, or the holy, author of the Misua. This latter Hillel lived in the fourth century, was the first compiler of the present Jewish calendar, and was one of the principal doctors of the Gemara. That correct edition of the Hebrew text which bears the name of Hillel, and is mentioned in the preceding article, is attributed to him by most of the Jewish writers, among whom, however, there have been several others named Hillel.

, an English artist, the son of Nicholas Hilliard of Exeter, was born in that city in 1547 and for want of a proper instructor, studied the works of Hans Holbein, which to him seemed preferable to all others, but he was incapable of acquiring the force and nature which that great master impressed on all his smaller performances. He could never arrive at any strength of colouring his carnations were always pale, and void of any variety of tints yet his penciling was exceedingly neat, the jewels and ornaments of his portraits were expressed with lines incredibly slender, and even the hairs of the head and of the beard were almost distinctly to be counted. He was exact in describing the dress of the times, but he rarely attempted more than a head; and yet his works were much admired and highly prized. He painted the portrait of the queen of Scots, which gained bina universal applause; and queen Elizabeth sat to him for her portrait several times. He was this queen’s goldsmith, carver, and portrait-painter. He was very much employed by the nobility and gentry, and was admired and highly prized in his time. Enjoying his reputation to the age of seventy-two, he died in 1619. Donne has celebrated him in a poem called “The Storm;” where he says,

, a Greek sophist and grammarian, who flourished under the emperors Constantius and Julian, and was living, after the death of the latter, in the year 303, was a native of Prusias in Bithynia, and a rival of Anatolius and Proaeresius, after whose death he established himself in the school of rhetoric at Athens. Eunapius, who writes some account of him, commends his style, which was formed on that of Aristides. He delighted in making clandestine attacks upon the Christians. Photius describes his declamations, and gives some extracts; but a copy of them has been found, and an edition published by Wernsdorf in 1790, under the title “Himerii Sophisuc eclogae et declamationes,” Gr. Lat. Gottingen, 8vo.

, a learned English prelate, was born in Swallow-street, Westminster, in 1731, where his father was in the humble employment of a stable-keeper. He was educated, however, at Westminster-school at the same time with Smith and Vincent, who were afterwards his successors in the headship of that celebrated academy. In 1750 he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1754, and about the same time became usher of Westminster-school, then entered into holy orders, and officiated as morning preacher of South Audley street chapel. He continued in these employments (taking his master’s degree in 1757) until 1760, when he travelled into Germany, Italy, and France with Mr. Crewe, afterwards member of parliament for Cheshire, who, when returned from his tour, settled on Dr. Hinchliffe three hundred pounds a year, and made him his domestic chaplain. With this gentleman the doctor lived, with the attention and respect which were justly due to his merit. During his residence in Italy, where he conducted himself in every respect agreeable to his station and character, he was favoured with an introduction to the ]ate duke of Grafton, who had been contemporary with him at Cambridge, and soon after, in 1764, by the interest of his o-race, he was appointed head-master of Westminster schooCon the resignation of Dr. Markham, late archbishop of York, but his ill state of health not being suited to such a laborious employ, he was obliged to resign in a fe‘w months after he had accepted it. He declined several advantageous offers that were made him if he would travel again; and being made very easy in circumstances by the generosity of his friend and pupil, Mr. Crewe, he intended to return and reside at college, when he was solicited by his ’noble patron to undertake for a few years the care of the late duke of Devonshire.

In consequence of this, Dr. Hinchliffe was appointed tutor and domestic chaplain to the duke of Devonshire, with whom he continued at Devonshire-house till his grace went abroad; and, by the joint interest of his two noble patrons he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich, in 1766. About this time, Miss Elizabeth, the sister of his pupil Mr. Crewe, a young lady about twenty-one years of age, was courted by an officer of the guards, who not being favoured with the approbation of Mr. Crewe, this latter gentleman applied to Dr. Hinchliffe, requesting him to dissuade his sister from encouraging the addresses of her suitor. This he did so effectually, that the lady not only gratified her brother’s wishes, but her own, by giving both her heart and hand to the doctor. Mr. Crewe acquiesced immediately in his sister’s choice, encreasing her fortune from five thousand^ the sum originally bequeathed to her, to fifteen thousand pounds; but at the same time withdrawing the three hundred per annum before mentioned. Dr. Hinchliffe, it is said, was offered the tuition of the prince of Wales, which important trust he declined, from his predilection, as it is supposed, to what were called Whig principles. On the death of Dr. Smith, in 1768, his lordship was elected, through the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and scarce a year had elapsed, when he was raised to the bishopric of Peterborough on the death of Dr. Lamb, in. 1769, by the interest of the duke of Grafton, then prime minister. It is probable his lordship might have obtained other preferment, had he not uniformly joined the party in parliament who opposed the principle and conduct of the American war. The only other change he experienced was that of being appointed dean of Durham, by which he was removed from the mastership of Trinity college. He died at his palace at Peterborough Jan. 11, 1794, after a long illness, which terminated in a paralytic stroke. His lordship, although a man of ^considerable learning, published three sermons, preached on public occasions. He was a graceful orator in parliament, and much admired in the pulpit. Mr. Jones, in his Life of bishop Home, says that “he spake with the accent of a man of sense (such as he really was in a superior degree), but it was remarkable, and, to those who did not know the cause, mysterious, that there was not a corner of the church, in which he could not be heard distinctly.” The reason Mr. Jones assigns, was, that he made it an invariable rule, “to do justice to every consonant, knovxing that the vowels will be sure to speak for themselves. And thus he became the surest and clearest of speakers: his elocution was perfect, and never disappointed his audience.” Two years after his death, a volume of bishop Hinchliffe’s “Sermons” were published, but, probably from a want of judgment in the selection, did not answer the expectations of those who had been accustomed to admire him in the pulpit.

, son of Robert Hinckley of Coton in Warwickshire, was born in that county in 1617. His parents being puritanically inclined, he was bred in that persuasion under Mr. Vynes, a celebrated schoolmaster of Hinckley. In Midsummer or April term, 1634, he was admitted a student in St. Alban’s-hall, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Robert Sayer; but before he became B. A. was induced by the preaching of Dr. Wentworth, to quit the opinions he had imbibed in infancy. About the time he had completed the degree of M. A. he entered into orders, was patronized by the family of Pnrefoy of Wad ley wear Faringdon, Berks; and promoted to be vicar of Coleshill in that county, afterwards of Drayton in Leicestershire, on the presentation of George Purefoy,esq. in 162, rector of Northfield in Worcestershire; and in 1679, accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. He died April 13, 1695, and was buried in the chancel of Northfield church, where several epitaphs record part of the history of his family.

The publications of Dr. Hinckley re, 1. “Four Sermons viz. 1. at the assizes at Reading 2. at Abmgdon 3 and 4.at Oxford, 1657,” 8vo. 2. “Matrimonial instruction to persons of honour,” printed with the “mons” 3 " Epistola veridica ad homines pMVpM Mfc, 1659,“4to, (reprinted in his” Fasciculus Literaruin“). 4” Oratio pro statu ecclesiae fluetuantis,“printed with art. 3. 5.” Sermon at the funeral of George Purefoy the elder, of Wadiey in Berks, esq. who was buried by his ancestors at Drayton in Leicestershire, 21 April, 1661;“1661, 4to. 6.” A persuasive to Conformity, by way of letter to the dissenting brethren, 1670,“8vo. 8.” Fasciculus literarum; or Letters on several occasions, 1680,“8vo. The first half of tnis book contains letters between Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hinckley, in which many things are discussed which are repeated in Baxter’s plea for the nonconformists. There are four in number, written by each, and our author’s third letter was written soon after Baxter’s book” Of Church Divisions“came forth; he having not only obliquely reflected on Dr. Hinckley’s second letter, but particularly signified his discontent both with Hinckley and his book. The reason of the publication of tuese letters five years after their first penning, was occasioned by the account which Baxter had given in many of his writings of Hinckley’s Letters: the last, of which Letters was answered by Baxter in his third,” Of the Cause of Peace, &c."

, a celebrated archbishop of Rheims, and one of the most learned men of his time, was originally a monk of St. Denys in France. He was elected archbishop in the year 845, and shewed great zeal for the rights of the Gallican church. He also acquired much influence at court,. and among the clergy, but made a tyrannical use of it to accomplish his de&igiis. He condemned Gotescalc, and deposed Hincmar bishop of Laon his nephew. He died in 882, at Epernay, to which place he had escaped from the Normans in a litter. Several of his works remain, the best edition of which is by Sirmond, 1645, 2 vols. foL useful as to ecclesiastical history, and learned in theology and jurisprudence, but the style is harsh and barbarous. What Hincmar wrote concerning St. Remi of Rheims, and St. Dionysius of Paris, is not in thi* edition, but may be found in Surius. There is also something more of his in Labbe’s Councils, and in the Council of Douzi, 1658, 4to.

, nephew of the preceding on the mother’s side, was made bishop of Laon before the age prescribed by the canons. His irregular conduct, injustice, and violent proceedings against his clergy, occasioned the council of Verberie, in which he was accused by Charles the Bald; but the proceeding was suspended by an apneal to the pope. Hincmar was less fortunate in the council of Douzi in 871, where being accused of sedition, calumny, and disobedience to the king by open force, his uncle pronounced sentence against him, and he was banished, confined in irons, and his eyes put out. Another bishop was appointed in his room;however in 878 he was reinstated; but died soon after. His vindications may be found in the History of the Council of Douzi, 1658, 4to.

, a celebrated ancient astronomer, was born at Nice in Bithynia, and flourished between the 154th and 163d olympiads; or between 160 and 125 B. C. as we learn from tjie astronomical observations he tnade in that space of time. He is supposed to have been the first who, from vague and scattered observations, reduced astronomy to a science, and prosecuted the study of it systematically. Pliny, who always mentions him in terms of high commendation, says he was the lirst who attempted to take the number of the fixed stars, and his catalogue is preserved in Ptolemy’s “Almagest,” where they are all noted according to their longitudes and apparent magnitudes. Pliny places him amongst those men of a sublime genius, who, by foretelling the eclipses, taught mankind, that they ought not to be frightened at these phenomena. Thales was the first among the Greeks, uho could discover when there was to be an eclipse. Sulpitms Gailns among the Romans begun to succeed in this kind of prediction; and gave an essay of his skill very seasonably, the day before a battle was fought. "After these two, Hipparchus foretold the course of the sun and moon for 600 years calculated according to the different manner of reckoning the months, days, and hours, used by several nations, and for the different situations of places. Pliny admires him for taking an account of all the stars, and for acquainting us with their situations am! magnitudes. Hipparchus is also memorable for being the first who discovered the precession of the equinoxes.

The first observations he made were in the isle of Rhodes, which gained him the name Rhodius, and has made some moderns imagine, that there were two ancient astronomers of that name: but afterwards he cultivated this science in Bithynia and Alexandria only. One of his works still extant, his “Commentary upon Aratus’ s Phenomena,” is properly a criticism upon Aratus, whom he charges witk having plundered Eudoxus’s books, and transcribed even those observations in which Eudoxus was mistaken. He makes the same remarks against Aratus the grammarian, who wrote “A Commentary on Aratus’s Phenomena.” Peter Victorius is the first who published this “Commentary” of Hjpparchus, Florence, 1567, fol. Petavius gave afterwards a more correct edition of it: to which he added a Latin translation made by himself. Hipparchus composed several other works, of which honourable mention is made by many writers of antiquity; and upon the whole, it is universally agreed, that astronomy is greatly obliged to him for laying originally that rational and solid foundation, on which all succeeding professors of this science have built their improvements. Very ample justice is done to his merit in Bailly’s History of Astronomy.

, usually called the father of physic, was born in the island of Cos, about 460 B. C. He is said to have descended from Æsculapius, through a line of physicians who had all promoted the fame of the Coan school, and by his mother’s side he was the eighteenth lineal descendant from Hercules. He appears to have devoted himself to the medical art that he might perpetuate the honours of his family, and he has eclipsed them. Besides the empirical practice which was hereditary among them, he studied under Herodicus, who had invented the gymnastic medicine, and was instructed in philosophy and eloquence by Gorgias, a celebrated sophist and brother of Herodicus. He is also said to have been a pupil of Democritus, which appears improbable, and a follower of the doctrines of Heraclitus. In whatever study, however, he engaged, he appears to have pursued a rational plan, upon actual expedience, discarding the theories of those who never had practised the art, and hence is said to have been the first who separated the science of medicine from philosophy, or rather from mere speculation, which then assumed that name. Of the events of his life little is known with cer T tainty. He spent a great part of his time in travelling: during which he resided for a considerable period, at varipus places, in which he was occupied in the practise of his art. His chief abode was in the provinces of Thessaly and Thrace, especially at Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, where he composed several books. According to Soranus, he spent some time at the court of Macedon, where he signalized himself, in consultation with Kuryphon, a senior physician, by detecting the origin of the malady of the young Perdiccas. His observation of the emotion of the prince on the appearance of Phila, a mistress of his father, led him to pronounce that love alone was capable of curing the disease which it had occasioned. His fame caused him to receive invitations from diiFerent cities of Greece. He is said to have been requested by the inhabitants of Abciera to go and cure their celebrated fellowcitizen, Democritus, of the madness under which they supposed him to labour, whom he pronounced not mad; but, the wisest man in their city. In a speech ascribed to his son Thessalus, still extant, we are told that Illyria and Paeonia being ravaged by the plague, the inhabitants of those countries offered large sums of money to induce Hippocrates to come to their relief; but forseeing that the pestilence was likely to penetrate into Greece, he refused to quit his own country, but sent his two sons, and his sonin-law, through the diiFerent provinces, to convey the proper instructions for avoiding the infection; he himself went to Thessaly, and thence to Athens, where he conferred such eminent services on the citizens, that they issued a decree honouring him with a crown of gold, and initiating him and his family in the sacred mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine. Hippocrates is likewise reported to have refused an invitation from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, accompanied by a promise of every reward and honour which he might desire, to repair to his dominions during a season of pestilence, which he refused; and that when the enraged king ordered the inhabitants of Cos to deliver up Hippocrates, they declared their resolution to defend the life and liberty of their valued countryman at all hazards, and nothing was attempted by the Persian. Most of these stories, however, are deemed fictitious by the most intelligent critics. The cure of the young Perdiccas probably originated from the report of a similar cure ascribed to Erasistratus; and the interview with Deraocntus is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The relation of the services of Hippocrates, during the plague at Atbeps, is altogether irreconcileable with the accounts of Galen and of Thucydides: besides, that plague commenced during the Peioponnesiin war, in the second year of the 87th olympiad, at which time Hippocrates was about thirty" years old, and therefore could not have had two sons or a son-in-law in a condition to practise. Dr. Ackerman justly conjectures, that these fables were all invented after the death of Hippocrates, and ascribed to him by the followers of the dogmatic sect, of which he was regarded as the founder. The letters and other pieces, which are preserved with the works of Hippocrates, and on the authority of which these anecdotes are related, are generally deemed spurious.

After a long life spent in the successful practice of his art, in perfecting his rational system of medical inquiry, and in forming disciples worthy to supply his place, Hippocrates died t Larissa in Thessaly, at the age of 85, or 90, or, as others affirm, of 104, or even 109 years. He was buried between that city and Gyrtona. Besides two sons, Thessalus and Draco, both eminent practitioners, he left a dan g liter, married to his favourite pupil, Poly bus, who arranged and published the works of his great master; he left also a number of disciples.

, was an eminent bishop and martyr, who, after becoming very distinguished in the church by his writings, shed his blood for the Christian faith about the year 230, in the reign of Alexander Severus. It is certain that he was author of many works much esteemed by the ancients, but it is by no means certain that what remain under his name, and are ascribed to him, were really written by him. Fabricius has published an elegant edition of them in Greek and Latin, 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. Some may be also found in the library of the Fathers.

was an Ephesian satiric poet, who flourished in the sixtieth olympiad, itbout 540 years B. C. He was so remarkably ugly and deformed, that certain painters and sculptors amused themselves by displaying representations of him to public ridicule, and Hipponax was so offended at the insult, that he exercised against the otfuuders all the force of his satyric vein with such effect, that two of them, sculptors of Chios, Bupalus and Anthernus, are said to have hanged themselves; but Pliny contradicts the story, Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5. Hipponax is said to be the inventor of the scazontic verse, which is an iambic, terminating with a spondee, instead of an iambic foot.

, an eminent French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Paris, March 18, 1640. His father Laurence, who was painter in ordinary to dm king, professor in the academy of painting and sculpture, and much celebrated, intended him also for the same occupation; and with that view taught him the principles of design, and some branches of mathematics, but died when Philip was no more than seventeen. Falling afterwards into a bad habit of body, he projected a journey into Italy; which he conceived might contribute not less to the recovery of his health, than to bring him to perfection in his art. He accordingly set out in 1660, and soon found himself well enough to contemplate the remains of antiquity, with which Italy abounds, and also to study geometry, to which he had indeed more propensity than to painting, and which soon afterwards engrossed him entirely. The retired manner in which he spent his time in Italy, very much suited his disposition; and he would willingly have continued longer in that country, but for the importunity of his mother, who prevailed upon him to return, after an absence of about four years.

Being again settled in Paris, he continued his mathematical studies with the utmost intenseness: and published some works, which gained him so much reputation, that he was made a member of the academy of sciences in 1678. The minister Colbert having formed a design of a better chart or map of the kingdom than any whica tiad hitherto been taken, de la Hire was nominated, with Picard, to make the necessary observations. He went to Bretagne in 1679, to Cayenne in 1680, to Calais and Dunkirk in 168, and into Provence in 1682. In these peregrinations he did not confine nis attention to their main object, but philosophized upon every thing that occurred, and particularly upon the variations of the magnetic needle, upon refractions, and upon the height of mountains, as determined by the barometer. In 1683 he was employed in continuing the meridian line, which Picard had begun in 1669. De la Hire continued it to the north of Paris, while Cassini pushed it on to the south: but Colbert dying the same year, the work was left unfinished. He was next employed, with other geometricians of the academy, 'in. taking the necessary levels for those grand aqueducts which Louis XIV. was about to make.

Geometry, however, did not take up all his time and labour; he employed himself upon other branches of mathematics and philosophy. Even painting itself, which he may seem to have discarded so long ago, had a place in those hours which he set apart for amusement. The great number of works which he published, togetner with his continual employments as professor of the royal college, and of the academy of architecture, to which places his merit had raised him, give us a very great idea of the labours he underwent. His days were always spent in study, his nights very often in astronomical observations; and he seldom sought any other relief from his labours, but a change of one for another. He was twice married, and had eight children. He had the exterior politeness, circumspection, and prudence of Italy, for which country he had a singular regard; and on this account appeared in the eyes of the French, too reserved. He is also said to have been a very honest disinterested man, and a good Christian. He died April 21, 1718, aged 78.

The principal of his works are: “Nouvelle Methode en Geometric pour les sections des superficies coniques & cylindriques,” 1673, 4to. 2. “De la Cycloide,” 1677, 12mo. 3. “Nouveaux Elemens des sections coniques: les lieux Geometriques; la construction ou effection des equations,” 1679, 12mo. 4. “La Gnomonique,” &c. 1682, J2mo. 5. “Sectiones Conicse in noveui hbfos distributee,” 1655, folio. This was considered as an original work, and gained the author a great reputation all over Europe. 6. & “Tabulas Astronomicae,” 1687 and 1702, 4to. 7. “Veterum Mathematicorum Opera, Graece & Latine, pleraque nunc primum edita,” 16i>3, folio. This edition had been begun by M. Thevenot; who dying, the care of finishing it was committed to de la Hire. It shews that the author’s strong application to mathematical and astronomical studies, had not hindered him from acquiring a very competent knowledge of the Greek tongue. Besides these and other smaller works, there are a vast number of his pieces scattered up and down in journals, and particularly in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences.” M. de Fontenelle wrote an eulogium upon him.

, was an officer under Julius Caisar, and wrote a supplementary part of the Commentaries published in his name, viz. the eighth of the Gallic war, and those of the Alexandrine and African wars. Of the two latter he received his information partly from Caesar’s own mouth, but he is a less perspicuous writer, although his style is good. He was made consul, together with Vibius Pansa, in the year B. C. 43, and was killed in a battle with Antony in the neighbourhood of Mutina.

, a prelate celebrated for his controversial talents, was the son of the rev. Samuel Hoadly, who kept a private school many years, and was afterwards master of the public grammar-school at Norwich. He was born at Westerham in Kent, Nov. 14, 1676. In 1691 he was admitted a pensioner of Catherine hall, Cambridge, and after taking his bachelor’s degree, was chosen fellow; and when M. A. became tutor. He took orders under Dr. Compton, bishop of London, and next year quitting his fellowship (vacated most probably by his marriage) he was chosen lecturer of St. Mildred in the Poultry, London, which he held ten years, but does not appear to have been very popular, as he informs us himself that he preached it down to 30l. a-year, and then thought it high time to resign it. This was not, however, his only employment, as in 1702 he officiated at St. Swithin’s in the absence of the rector, and in 1704-was presented to the rectory of St. Peter-le-Poor, Broad-street. By this time he had begun to distinguish himself as a controversial, anthor, and his first contest was;vith Mr. Calamy, the biographer of the non-conformists. Several tracts passed between them, in which Hoadly endeavoured to prove the reasonableness of conformity to the Church of England. How well he was qualified to produce that influence on the non-conformists appears, among other instances, from what the celebrated commentator Matthew Henry says of the eftect of his writings on his own mind-: “I have had much satisfaction this year (1703) in my non-conformity, especially by reading Mr. Hoadly’s books, in which I see a manifest spirit of Christianity unhappily leavened by the spirit of conformity.” In 1705, Hoadly produced his opinions on the subject of civil government, in a sermon before the lord-mayor, and from this time, as he says, “a torrent of angry zeal began to pour itself out upon him.” His attention to this subject was, however, diverted for some time by another controversy into which he entered with Dr. Atterbury. In 1706 he published “Some Remarks on Dr. Atterbury’s Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Bennet” and two years afterwards c< Exceptions“against another Sermon by the same author, on the power of” Charity to cover Sin.“In 1709, a dispute arose between these combatants, concerning the doctrine of non-resistance, occasioned by the sermon we just mentioned before the lord-mayor, and Hoadly’s defence of it, entitled” The Measures of Obedience;“some positions in which Atterbury endeavoured to confute in a Latin Sermon, preached that year before the London clergy. Hoadly’s politics were at this time so acceptable to the ruling powers, that the house of commons gave him a particular mark of their regard, by representing in an address to the queen, the signal services he had done to the cause of civil and religious liberty. At this time, when his principles were unpopular, (which was indeed the case the greater part of his life), Mrs. Rowland spontaneously presented him to the rectory of Streatham in Surrey. Soon after the accession of George I. his influence at court became so considerable, that he was made bishop of Bangor in 1715, which see, however, from an apprehension of party fury, as was said, he never visited, but still remained in town, preaching against what he considered as the inveterate errors of the clergy. Among other discourses he made at this crisis, one was upon these words,” My kingdom is not of this world:“which, producing the famous Bangoriau controversy, as it was called, employed the press for many years. The manner in which he explained the text was, that the clergy had no pretensions to any temporal jurisdictions; but this was answered by Dr. Snipe; and, in the course of the debate, the argument insensibly changed, from the rights of the clergy to that of princes, in the government of the church. Bishop Hoadly strenuously maintained, that temporal princes had a right to govern in ecclesiastical polities. His most able opponent was the celebrated William Law, who, in some material points, may be said to have gained a complete victory. He was afterwards involved in another dispute with Dr. Hare, upon the nature of prayer: he maintained, that a calm, rational, and dispassionate manner of offering up our prayers to heaven, was the most acceptable method of address. Hare, on the contrary, insisted, that the fervour of zeal was what added merit to the sacrifice; and that prayer, without warmth, and without coining from the heart, was of n > avail. This dispute, like the former, for a time excited many opponents, but has long subsided. From the bishopric of Bangor, he was translated successively to those of Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester, of which last see he continued bishop more than 26 years. His latter days were in some measure disturbed by a fraud attempted to be practised on him by one Bernard Fournier, a popish convert, who pretended to have received a notc-of-hand from the bishop for the sum of 8800l.; but this was proved in court to be a forgery. It produced the last, and one of the best written of the bishop’s tracts,” A Letter to Clement Chevallier, esq." a gentleman who had too much countenanced F\>urnier in his imposture. This appeared in 1758, when our prelate had completed his eighty-first year. He died April 17, 1761, aged eighty-five, and was buried in Winchester cathedral, where there is an elegant monument to his memory. His first wife was Sarah Curtis, by whom he had two sons, Benjamin, M. D. and John, LL. I) chancellor of Winchester. His second wife was Mary Newey, daughter of the rev. Dr. John Newey, dean of Chichester.

As a writer, he possessed uncommon talents; his greatest defect was in his style, extending his periods to a disagreeable length, for which Pope has thus recorded him:

But Houdly for a period of a mile." In his character he was naturally facetious, easy, and complying, fond of company, from which, however, he would frequently retire, for the purposes of study; happy in every place, but peculiarly so in his own family, where he took all opportunities of instructing by his influence and by example. In his tenets he was far from adhering strictly to the doctrines of the church; so far, indeed, that it is a little to be wondered on what principles he continued throughout life to profess conformity, and his attempt to gain over the dissenters, who was himself the greatest dissenter that ever was preferred in the church, is one of those inconsistencies which his admirers have never explained. But as he took great latitude himself, so he was ready also to allow it to others. His doctrine, that sincerity is sufficient for acceptance, whatever be the nature of opinions, is favourable to such indulgence, but far from defensible on the genuine principles of Christianity *. He was of course in high favour with all who wished to mould religion according to their own imaginations.

A complete edition of his works in 3 vols. folio, was published by his son, Dr. John Hoadly, in 1773, with a short life of the author, originally printed in the Biographia Britannica. The appendix contains some parts of his lordship’s correspondence with lady Sundon, formerly Mrs. Clayton, bed-chamber woman to queen Caroline; to this lady he appears to have been not a little indebted, at various periods, for his influence at court.

, M. D. eldest son of the bishop of Winchester, was born Feb. 10, 1705-6, in Broad-street, and educated, as was his younger brother, at Dr. Newcomers at Hackney, and Benet-college, Cambridge; being admitted pensioner April 8, 1722, under archbishop Herring, then tutor there. Here he took a degree in physic in 1727; and, particularly applying to mathematical and philosophical studies, was well known (along with the learned and ingenious doctors David Hartley and Davies, both late of Bath, who with him composed the whole class) to jnake a greater progress under the blind professor Saunderson than any student then in the university. When his late majesty was at Cambridge in April 1728, he was upon

* Archbishop Seeker one day, at be Christians, replied, “If they were, his table, when the Monthly Reviewers it was certainly ‘secundum usum Winwt-re said, by one of the company, to ton’.” the list of persons to be created doctors of physic: but either by chance or management, his name was not found in the last list; and he had not his degree of M. D, till about a month after, by a particular mandamus. He was elected F. R. S. in 1726, when he was very young, and had the honour of being made known to the learned world as a philosopher, by “A Letter from the rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F. R. S. occasioned by the present controversy among the mathematicians concerning the proportion of Velocity and Force in bodies in motion.” He was made registrar of Hereford while his father filled that see; and was appointed physician to his majesty’s household so early as June 9, 1742. Jt is remarkable, that he was for some years physician to both the royal households; having been appointed to that of the prince of Wales, Jan. 4, 1745-6, in the place of Dr. Lamotte, a Scotch physician, whom the prince had himself ordered to be struck out of the list, on some imprudent behaviour at the Smyrna coffee-house at the time of the rebellion in 1745. The appointment was attended with some circumstances of particular honour to Dr. Hoadly. The prince himself, before the warrant could be finished, ordered the style to be altered; and that he should be called physician to the household, and not extraordinary, as the other had been: observing, that this would secure that place to him in case of a demise, and be a bar against any one getting over him. Nay, not content with this, his royal highness voluntarily wrote a letter to the bishop with his own hand “that he was glad of this opportunity of giving him a token of his gratitude for his services formerly to his family; and that he was his affectionate Frederic, P.” Dr. Hoadly is said to have filled these posts with singular honour. He married, 1. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Betts, esq. of Suffolk, counsellor at law, by whom he had one son, Benjamin, that died an infant. 2 Anne, daughter and co-heiress of the honourable general Armstrong, by whom he left no issue. He died in the lifetime of his father, Aug. 10, 1757, athishouM it Chelsea, which he had built ten years before. He published, 1. “Three Letters on the Organs of Respiration, read at the royal college of physicians, London, A. D. 1737, being the Gulstonian lectures for that year. To which is added, an Appendix, containing remarks on some experiments of Dr. Houston, published in the Transactions of the Royal Society for the year 1736, by Benjamin Hoadly, M. B. fellow of the college of physicians, and of the royal society, London,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Oratio anniversaria in Theatro Coll. Medicor. Londinensium, ex Harveii instttuto habita die 18 Oct. A. D. 1742, a Benj. Hoadly, M. D. Coll. Med. & S. R. S.” 1742, esteemed a very elegant piece of Latin. 3. “The Suspicious Husband, a Comedy.” 4. “Observations on a Series of Electrical experiments, by Dr. Hoadly and Mr. Wilson, F. R. S.” 1756, 4to. The doctor was, in his private character, an amiable humane man, and an agreeable sprightly companion. In his profession he was learned and judicious; and, as a writer, has been long known in the theatrical world as the author of a comedy, “The Suspicious Husband,” which appeared first in 1747, and has kept its place on every stage since with undiminished attractions.

, LL. D. the youngest son of Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Winchester, was born in Broad-street, Oct. 8, 1711, and educated at Mr. Newcome’s school in Hackney, where he gained great applause by performing the part of Phocyas in “The Siege of Damascus.” In June 1730 he was admitted at Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, and about the same time at the Temple, intending to study the law. This design, however, he soon abandoned; for in the next year we find he had relinquished all thoughts of the law as a profession. He took the degree of LL. B. in 1735; and, on the 29th of November following was appointed chancellor of Win-, chester, ordained deacon by nis father Dec. 7, and priest the 21st of the same month. He was immediately received into the prince of Wales’s household as his chaplain, as he afterwards was in that of the princess dowager, May 6, 1751.

His several preferments he received in the following order of time: the rectory of Michelmersh, March 8, 1737; that of Wroughton in Wiltshire, Sept. 8, 1737; and that of Alresfurd, and a prebend of Winchester, 29th of November in the same year. On June 9, 1743, he was instituted to the rectory of St. Mary near Southampton, and on Dec. 16, 1746, collated to that of Overton. He was the first person on whom archbishop Herring conferred the degree of a doctor. In May 1760, he was appointed to the mastership of St. Cross; and all these preferments he enjoyed until his death, except the living of Wroughton and the prebend of Winchester. He wrote some poems in “Dodsley’s Collection,” and is supposed very materially to have assisted his brother in “The Suspicious Husband.” He likewise published, as we have already noticed, his father’s works in 3 vols. folio. After living to the age of 64, the delight of his friends, he died March 16, 1776, and with him the name of Hoadly became extinct. He was the author of five dramas: 1. The Contrast,“a comedy, acted at Lincoln’s-mn-fields, 1731, but not printed. 2.” Love’s Revenge,“a pastoral, 1737. 3.” Phoebe,“another pastoral, 1748. 4.” Jephtha,“an oratorio, 1737. 5. And another entitled” The Force of Truth,“1764. He also revised Lillo’s” Arden of Feversham,“and wrote the fifth act of Miller’s” Mahomet.“He left several dramatic works in ms. behind him, and among the rest,” The Housekeeper, a farce,“on the plan of” High Life below Stairs,“in favour of which piece it was rejected by Mr. Garrick, together with a tragedy on a religious subject. So great, however, was the doctor’s fondness for theatrical exhibitions, that no visitors were ever long in his house before they were solicited to accept a part in some interlude or other. He himself, with Garrick and Hogarth, once performed a laughable parody on the scene in” Julius Caesar“where the ghost appears to Brutus-, Hogarth personated the spectre; but so unretentive was his memory, that, although his speech consisted only of a few lines, he was unable to get them by heart. At last they hit on the following expedient in his favour. The verses he was to deliver were written in such large letters on the outside of an illuminated paper lanthorn, that he could read them when he entered with it in his hand on the stage. Hogarth prepared the play-bill on this occasion, with characteristic ornaments, the original drawing of which is still preserved. Dr. Koadly’s tragedy was on the story of lord Cromwell, anil he once intended to give it to the stage. In a letter dated June 27, 1765, he says,” My affair with Mr. Garrick is coming upon the carpet again;“Aug. 1, 1765, he thus apologizes to Mr. Bowyer, to whom he intended to present the copy-right:” Vour kind concern, c. demanded an earlier acknowledgment, had I not delayed till an absolute answer came from irn friend David Garrick, with his fixed resolution never more ‘to strut and fret his hour upon the stage again.’ This decree has unhinged my schemes with regard to lord Cromwell, for nothing but the concurrence of so many circumstances in my favour (his entire disinterested friendship for me and the good doctor’s memory; Mrs. Hoadly’s bringing on a piece of the doctor’s at the same time the story of mine being on a religious subject, &c. and the peculiar advantage of David’s unparalleled performance in it) could have persuaded me to break through the prudery of my profession, and (in my station in the church) produce a play upon the stage." For the prudery of his profession, however, he appears to have had very little regard, and on that profession conferred very little honour. With all his preferments, which were very valuable, he is known only as the author of the dramatic pieces above mentioned, nor do they entitle him to a very high rank among writers for the stage.

, an ingenious and amiable English artist, was born about the year 1707, at Eye, near Ipswich, in Suftblk. His father was possessed of considerable property, holding a farm of large extent in his own hands. William shewing very early a disposition to study, was sent to a. school at Faringdon in Berkshire, where the master enjoyed a hii;h reputation for classical learning. The pupil eagerly availed himself of every opportunity of improvement, and in the course of a few years attained such a degree of proficiency as to assist his master occasionally in the tuition of the other scholars. To these acquirements he added no indifferent skill in drawing, which was also taught in the school; and he soon distinguished himself above his competitors in the prize exhibitions, which took place once a year. Indulging the bent of his mind to this art, he solicited and obtained his father’s permission to follow his studies in painting with a professional view. For this purpose, after having completed the school courses with great credit to himself, he was removed to London, where he was placed under the care of Grisoni, an Italian painter of history, the best, and perhaps the only one, which that time afforded. Grisoni, however, was at the best a very poor painter, and the example of his works was little calculated to produce eminence in his scholar. But he was a man of sound judgment and benevolent disposition, and it is probable that the sense of his own insufficiency induced him to persuade young William to seek a more satisfactory guidance in the pursuit to which he devoted himself so earnestly. The schools’ of Italy appeared to him the place to which a learner should resort for the means of accomplishment in his art. William caught the suggestion with eagerness, and the father’s permission was again earnestly sought, for visiting the foreign treasures of painting and sculpture, which were then known to the English only through the communications of such of our gentlemen and nobility as travelled on the continent for the purposes of polite accomplishment. William Hoare was the first English painter who visited Rome for professional study.

At the time of his departure from London he had formed a friendship with Scheemackers, the celebrated Flemish sculptor, and with Delvaux, his pupil, who were both on their way to Rome, and on his arrival at that city he hastened to rejoin them, and lodged in the same house with them. His next care was to place himself in the school of Francesco Imperiale, the disciple of Carlo Maratti, and the most eminent master then living. In this school he was a fellow-xstudent with Pompeo Battoni, with whom he maintained through life a cordial friendship, and with others of the same profession. Here he acquired a thorough knowledge of all that could be taught in his art, and a perfect acquaintance with the system and method of study adopted in the Roman school ever since the time of Raffaelle; to which method he at all times adhered in the execution of historical works.

Under the direction of Imperiale, Mr. Hoare made many copies from the most celebrated works of the great painters in the Roman palaces; a circumstance which became of great utility to him in a very different manner from that which was intended; for the circumstances of his family having been unfortunately impaired by the explosion of the South Sea adventure, he now found it necessary to turn the skill he had gained to a provision for his own maintenance. This was no difficult task, and he continued his studies at Rome for the term of nine years, when he finally returned to London, bringing with him the few copies of the finest works which he had been able to preserve for himself, and the most enthusiastic feelings in regard of his art.

In London the young painter looked around in vain for the encouragement which he had hoped to find in the historical department of his profession; and the impoverished state of his family not allowing him any alternative, he immediately resorted to portrait-painting, in which, from his superior talents, he was sure to find an unfailing resource. In this situation of his circumstances he formed a matrimonial engagement with a young lady of the name of Barker, between whose relations and his own there had long subsisted the most cordial intimacy, arising from mutual respect. Among the connexions of Miss Barker’s family were some who were established at Bath, and Mr. Hoare soon received an invitation to settle at that city, where, as there was no person of any eminence in his profession, he might reasonably look to the highest prospects of success. He accordingly accepted the invitation, and fully realized the expectations of his friends in every point. His painting-room was the resort of all that could boast the attractions either of beauty or fashion; and the number of his sitters was for a long time so great, as scarcely to allow him a momentary interval of relaxation, much less sufficient leisure for such an attention to the higher performances of his art as formed the constant object of his wishes.

His eminent success in his portraits brought to his gallery all the distinguished characters of the time, who occasionally visited Bath for health or pleasure; among whom, were Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Legge, Mr. Grenville, Lord Chesterfield, &c. &c. and his acquaintance with them was improved into friendship on their part, by the variety of his learning, the amenity of his manners, the ingenuousness of his mind, and the high respectability of his domestic establishment. To the list of his friends and patrons were soon added the virtuous Allen, and his learned nephew-in-law, Warburton; and Mr. Allen’s house, where he was always a welcome visitor, gave him also an introduction to Pope, and other distinguished inmates of Prior-park.

It should be noticed, that in an early part of his successful practice at Bath, finding a general desire prevailing for pictures in crayons, he sent an order to Rosalba, the celebrated Venetian paintress, for two heads of fancy painted in that manner, and he received from that eminent mistress of her art two of her most studied performances; the one “Apollo with his lyre,” the other “A Nymph crowned with vernal flowers.” These beautiful works became the models of the Bath painter in his first efforts in crayons, in which mode of painting he afterwards carried the practice of the art to so high a degree as to be scarcely excelled by Rosalba herself. On the formation of the Royal Academy in London, his long-established reputation secured him an election among its original members, and he was a constant exhibitor for many years.

He retained the vigour of health and the strength of his mind till a few years previous to his dissolution. There is a copy of Guide’s “Aurora,” painted by him (the figures nearly as large as life) when he was upwards of seventy years of age. The picture is finished with great firmness and precision of pencil.

, an eminent English philosopher and miscellaneous writer, was born at Malmsbury in Wiltshire, April 5, 1588, his father being minister of that town. The Spanish Armada was then upon the coast of England; and his mother is said to have been so alarmed on that occasion, that she was brought to bed of him before her time. After having made a considerable progress in the learned languages at school, he was sent, in 1603, to Magdalen hall, Oxford; and, in 1608, by the recommendation of the principal, taken into the family of the right honourable William Cavendish lord Hardwicke, soon after created earl of Devonshire, as tutor to his son William lord Cavendish. Hobbes ingratiated himself so effectually with this young nobleman, and with the peer his father, that he was sent abroad with him on his travels in 16:0, and made the tour of France and Italy. Upon his return with lord Cavendish, he became known to persons of the highest rank, and eminently distinguished for their abilities and learning. The chancellor Bacon admitted him to a great degree of familiarity, and is said to have made use of his pen for translating some of his works into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had such an esteem for him, that he revised the first work which he published, viz. his “English Translation of the History of Thucyciides.” This Hobbes undertook, as he tells us himself, “with an honest view of preventing, if possible, those disturbances in which he was apprehensive his country would be involved, by shewing, in the history of the Peloponnesian war, the fatal consequences of intestine troubles.” This has always been esteemed one of the best translations that we have of any Greek writer, and the author himself superintended the maps and indexes. But while he meditated this design, his patron, the earl of Devonshire, died in 1626; and in 1628, the year his work was published, his son died also. This loss affected him to such a degree, that he very willingly accepted an offer of going abroad a second time with the son of sir Gervase Clifton, whom he accordingly accompanied into France, and staid there some time. But while he continued there he was solicited to return to England, and to resume his concern for the hopes of that family, to which he had attached himself so early, and owed many and great obligations.

In 1631, the countess dowager of Devonshire was desirous of placing the young earl under his care, who was then about the age of thirteen; a trust very suitable to his inclinations, and which he discharged with great fidelity and diligence. In 1634 he republished his translation of Thucydides, and prefixed to it a dedication to that young nobleman, in which he gives a nigh character of his father, and represents in the strongest terms his obligations to that illustrious family. The same year he accompanied his noble pupil to Paris, where he applied his vacant hours to natural philosophy, especially mechanism, and the causes of animal motion. He had frequent conversations upon these subjects with father Mersenne, a man deservedly famous, who kept up a correspondence with almost all the learned in Europe. From Paris he attended his pupil into Italy, and at Pisa became known to Galileo, who communicated to him his notions very freely. After having seen all that was remarkable in that country, he returned in 1637 with the earl of Devonshire into England. The troubles in Scotland now grew high, and began to spread themselves southward, and to threaten disturbance.throughout the kingdom. Hobbes, seeing this, thought he might do good service by composing something by way of antidote to the pestilential opinions which then prevailed. This engaged him to commit to paper certain principles, observations, and remarks, out of which he composed his book “De Give,” and which grew up afterwards into that system which he called his “Leviathan.”

Not long after the meeting of the long parliament, Nov. 3, 1640, when all things fell into confusion, he withdrew, for the sake of living in quiet, to Paris; where he associated himself with those learned men, who, under the protection of Cardinal Richelieu, sought, by conferring their notions together, to promote every kind of useful knowledge. He had not been long there, when by the good offices of his friend Mersenne, he became known to Des Cartes, and afterwards held a correspondence with him upon mathematical subjects, as appears from the letters of Hobbes published in the works of Des Cartes. But when that philosopher printed afterwards his “Meditations,” in which he attempted to establish points of the highest consequence from innate ideas, Hobbes took the liberty of dissenting from him; as did also Gassendi, with whom Hobbes contracted a very close friendship, which was not interrupted till the death of the former. In 1642, he printed a few copies of his book “De Give,” which raised him many adversaries, by whom he was charged with instilling principles of a dangerous tendency. Immediately after the appearance of this book, Des Cartes said of it to a friend, “I am of opinion that the author of the book ‘ De Give,’ is the same person who wrote the third objection against my ‘ Meditations.’ I think him a much greater master of morality, than of metaphysics or natural philosophy; though I can by no means approve of his principles or maxims, which are very bad and extremely dangerous, because they suppose all men to be wicked, or give them occasion to be so. His whole design is to write in favour of monarchy, which might be done to more advantage than he has done, upon maxims more virtuous and solid. He has wrote likewise greatly to the disadvantage of the church and the Roman catholic religion, so that if he is not particularly supported by some powerful interest, I do not see how he can escape having his book censured.” The learned Conringius censures him very severely for boasting, in regard to this performance, “that though physics were a new science, yet civil philosophy was still newer, since it could not be styled older than his book * De Give;' whereas,” says Conringius, “there is nothing good in that work of his that was not always known.” But vanity was throughout life a prevailing foible with Hobbes.

Among many illustrious persons who upon the shipwreck of the royal cause retired to France for safety, was sir Charles Cavendish, brother to the duke of Newcastle, who, being skilled in every branch of mathematics, proved a constant friend and patron to Hobbes: and Hobbes himself, by embarking, in 1645, in a controversy about the quadrature of the circle, became so celebrated, although certainly undeservedly as a mathematician, that, in 1647, he was recommended to instruct Charles prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. in that branch of study. His care in the discharge of this office gained him the esteem of that prince in a very great degree: and though he afterwards withdrew his public favour from Hobbes on account of his writings, yet he always retained a sense of the services he had done him, shewed him various marks of his favour after he was restored to his dominions, and, as some say, had his picture hanging in his closet. This year also was printed in Holland, by the care of M. Sorbiere, a second and more complete edition of his book “De Cive,” to which are prefixed two Latin letters to the editor, one by Gassendi, the other by Mersenne, in commendation of it. While Hobbes was thus employed at Paris, he was attacked by a violent fit of illness, which brought him so low that his friends began to despair of his recovery. Among those who visited him in this weak condition was his friend Mersenne, who, taking this for a favourable opportunity, began, after a few general compliments of condolence, to mention the power of the church of Rome to forgive sins; but Hobbes immediately replied, “Father, all these matters I have debated with myself long ago. Such kind of business would be troublesome to me now; and you can entertain me on subjects more agreeable; when did you see Mr. Gassendi?” Mersenne easily understood his meaning, and, without troubling him any farther, suffered the conversation to turn upon general topics. Yet some days afterwards, when Dr. Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, came to pray with him, he very readily accepted the proposal, and received the sacrament at his hands, according to the forms appointed by the church of England.

In 1650 was published at London a small treatise by Hobbes entitled “Human Nature,” and another, “De corpore politico, or, of the Elements of the Law.” The latter was presented to Gassendi, and read by him a few months before his death; who is said first to have kissed it, and then to have delivered his opinion of it in these words: tl This treatise is indeed small in bulk, but in my judgment the very marrow of science.“All this time Hobbes had been digesting with great pains his religious, political, and moral principles into a complete system, which he called the” Leviathan,“and which was printed in English at London in that and the year following. He caused a copy of it, very fairly written on vellum *, to be presented to Charles II.; but after that monarch was informed that the English divines considered it as a book tending to subvert both religion and civil government, he is said to have withdrawn his countenance from the author, and by the marquis of Ormond to have forbidden him to come into his presence. After the publication of his” Leviathan," Hobbes returned to England, and passed the summer commonly at his patron the earl of Devonshire’s seat in Derbyshire, -and his

* This copy appears to he now in How it came there has not been dis­' the library of the late earl of Macart-covered. The library is now in the ney, at Lissanoure in Ireland, if the possession of a lady, the late earl’s reone very accurately described by the presentative, who probably knew little Rev. W. H. Pratt, in the Gentleman’s of its history. Magazine for January 1813, p. 30. winters in town; where he had for his intimate friends some of the greatest men of the age; such as Dr. Harvey, Selden, Cowley, &c. In 1654, he published his “Letter upon Liberty and Necessity,” which occasioned a long controversy between him and Bramhall, bishop of Londonderry. About this time he began the controversy with Wallis, the mathematical professor at Oxford, which lasted as long as Hobbes lived, and in which he had the misfortune to have all the mathematicians against him. It is indeed said, that he came too late to this study to excel in it; and that though for a time he maintained his credit, while he was content to proceed in the same track with others, and to reason in the accustomed manner from the established principles of the science, yet when he began to.digress into new paths, and set up for a reformer, inventor, and improver of geometry, he lost himself extremely. But notwithstanding these debates took up much of his time, yet he published several philosophical treatises in Latin.

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

After this account of Hobbes, which, though undoubtedly true in the main, may be thought too strongly coloured, it will be but justice to subjoin what lord Clarendon has said of him. This noble person, during his banishment, wrote a book in 1670, which was printed six years after at Oxford with this title, “A brief View of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbes’s book entitled Leviathan.” In the introduction the earl observes, that Mr. Hobbes’s *' Leviathan“” cohtains in it good learning of all kinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested in a very commendable, and in a vigorous and pleasant style: and that Mr. Hobbes himself was a man of excellent parts, of great wit, some reading, and somewhat more thinking; one who has spent many years in foreign parts and observations; understands the learned as well as the modern languages; hath long had the reputation of a great philosopher and mathematician; and in his age hath had conversation with very many worthy and extraordinary men: to which it may be, if he had been more indulgent in the more vigorous part of his life, it might have had greater influence upon the temper of his mind; whereas age seldom submits to those questions, inquiries, and contradictions, which the laws and liberty of conversation require. And it hath been always a lamentation among Mr. Hobbes’s friends, that he spent too much time in thinking, and too little in exercising those thoughts in the company of other men of the same, or of as good faculties; for want whereof his natural constitution, with age, contracted such a morosity, that doubting-and contradicting men were never grateful to him. In a word, Mr. Hobbes is one of the most ancient acquaintance I have in the world; and of whom I have always had a great esteem, as a man, who, besides his eminent parts, learning, and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man of probity, and of a life free from scandal.“There have been few persons, whose writings have had a more pernicious influence in spreading irreligion and infidelity than those of Hobbes; and yet none of his treatises are directly levelled against revealed religion. He sometimes affects to speak with veneration of the sacred writings, and expressly declares, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet” as they are given by God in Holy Scripture, they are properly called laws; for the Holy Scripture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greatest right.“But though ha, seems here to make the laws of Scripture the Jaws of God, and to derive their force from his supreme authority, yet elsewhere he supposes them to have no authority, but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He sometimes seems to acknowledge inspiration to be a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God: at other times he treats the pretence to it as a sign of madness, and represents God’s speaking to the prophets in a dream, to be no more than the prophets dreaming that God spake unto them. He asserts, that we have no assurance of the certainty of Scripture but the authority of the church f, and this he resolves into the authority of the commonwealth; and declares, that till the sovereign ruler had prescribed them,” the precepts of Scripture were not obligatory laws, but only counsel or advice, which he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws could not without injustice observe;“that the word of the interpreter of Scripture is the word of God, and that the sovereign magistrate is the interpreter of Scripture, and of all doctrines, to whose authority we must stand. Nay, he carries it so far as to pronounce that Christians are bound in conscience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that” thought is free, but when it comes to confession of faith, the private reason must submit to the public, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.“Accordingly he allows the subject, being commanded by the sovereign, to deny Christ in words, holding the faith of him firmly in his heart; it being in this” not he, that denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country.“In the mean time he acknowledges the existence of God, and that we must of necessity ascribe the effects we behold to the eternal power of all powers, and cause of all causes; and he reproaches those as absurd, who call the world, or the soul of the world, God. But then he denies that we know any thing more of him than, that he exists, and seems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that whatever is not body is nothing at all. And though he sometimes seems to acknowledge religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worship due to God; prayer, thanksgivings, oblations, &c. yet he advances principles, which evidently tend to subvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this, that” from the fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales, publicly allowed, ariseth religion; not allowed, superstition:“and he resolves religion into things which he himself derides, namely,” opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual for prognostics.“He takes pains in many places to prove man a necessary agent, and openly derides the doctrine of a future state: for he says, that the belief of a future state after death,” is a belief grounded upon other men’s saying, that they knew it supernaturally; or, that they knew those, that knew them, that knew others that knew it supernaturally.“But it is not revealed religion only, of which Hobbes makes light; he goes farther, as will appear by running over a few more of his maxims. He asserts,” that, by the law of nature, every man hath a right to all things, and over all persons; and that the natural condition of man is a state of war, a war of all men against all men: that there is no way so reasonable for any man, as by force or wiles to gain a mastery over all other persons that he can, till he sees no other power strong enough to endanger him: that the civtt laws are the only rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest; and that, antecedently to such laws, every action is in its own nature indifferent; that there is nothing good or evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally just and unjust: that all things are measured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of society, where there is: that the power of the sovereign is absolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his subjects: that nothing the sovereign can do to the subject, can properly be called injurious or wrong; and that the, king’s word is sufficient to take any thing from the subject if need be, and that the king is judge of that need." This scheme evidently strikes at the foundation of all religion, natural and revealed. It tends not only to subvert the authority of Scripture, but to destroy God’s moral government of the world. It confounds the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice. It destroys the best principles of the human nature; and instead of that innate benevolence and social disposition which should unite men together, supposes all men to be naturally in a state of war with one another. It erects an absolute tyranny in the state and church, which it confounds, and maKes the will of the prince or governing power the sole standard of right and wrong.

Such principles in religion and politics would, as it may be imagined, raise adversaries. Hobbes accordingly was attacked by many considerable persons, and, what may seem more strange, by such as wrote against each other. Harrington, in his “Oceana,” very often attacks Hobbes; and so does sir Robert Filmer in his “Observations concerning the Original of Government.” We have already mentioned Bramhall and Clarendon; the former argued with great acuteness against that part of his system which relates to liberty and necessity, and afterwards attacked the whole in a piece, called “The Catching of the Leviathan,” published in 1685; in which he undertakes to demonstrate out of Hobbes’s own works, that no man, who is thoroughly an Hobbist, can be “a good Christian, or a good commonwealth’s man, or reconcile himself to himself.” Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, gave a summary view of Hobbes’s principles, in a book called “The Creed of Mr. Hobbes examined, 1670;” to which, we may add the two dialogues of Dr. Eachard between Timothy and Phiiautus, and Dr. Parker’s book, entitled “Disputationes de Deo &, Divina Providentia.” Dr. Henry More has also in different parts of his works canvassed and refuted several positions of Hobbes; and the philosopher of Malmesbury is said to have been so ingenuous as to own, that “whenever he discovered his own philosophy to be unsustainable, he would embrace the opinions of Dr. More.” But the two greatest works against him were, Cumberland’s book “De legibus Naturae,” and Cudworth’s “Intellectual System” for these authors do not employ themselves about his peculiar whimsies, or in vindicating revealed religion from his exceptions and cavils, but endeavour to establish the great principles of all religion and morality, which his scheme tended to subvert, and to shew that they have a real foundation in reason and nature.

There is one peculiarity related of Hobbes, which we have not yet mentioned in the course of our account of him his dread of apparitions and spirits. His friends indeed have called this a fable. “He was falsely accused,” say they, “by some, of being afraid to be alone, because he was afraid of spectres and apparitions; vain bugbears of fools, which he had chased away by the light of his philosophy.” They do not, however, deny, that he was afraid of being alone; they only insinuate, that it was for fear of being assassinated; but the fact probably was, that he had that tenacity of life which is observable in men whose religious principles are unsettled. Upon the whole, we may conclude, with the intelligent Brucker, that Hobbes was certainly possessed of vigorous faculties, and had he been sufficiently careful to form and improve his judgment, and to preserve his mind free from the bias of prejudice and passion, would undoubtedly have deserved a place in the first class of philosophers. The mathematical method Sf reasoning which he adopted, greatly assisted him in his researches; but he was often led into error, by assuming false or uncertain principles or axioms. The vehemence with which he engaged in -political contests biassed his judgment on questions of policy, and led him to frame such maxims and rules of government, as would be destructive of the peace and happiness of mankind. An arrogant contempt of the opinions of others, an impatience of contradiction, and a restless ambition to be distinguished as an innovator in philosophy, were qualities which appear to have contributed in no small degree to the perversion of his judgment. It is also to be remarked, that though he had the precept and example of lord Bacon to guide him, he neglected the new and fertile path of experimental philosophy. So little was he aware of the value of this kind of knowledge, that he censured the royal society of London, at its first institution, for attending more to minute experiment than general principles, and said, that if the name of a philosopher was to be obtained by relating a multifarious farrago of experiments, we might expect to see apothecaries, gardeners, and perfumers rank among philosophers. of publication, seems not unnecessary to close our account of him, 1. His “Translation of Thucydides,” Lond. 1628, and 1676, fol. reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “De Mirabilibus Pecci,” a Latin poem, Lond. 1636, 8vo, 1666, 4to. 3. “Elementa philosophica seu politica de Give,” Paris, 1642, 4to, Amst. 1647, 12mo. 4. “An Answer to sir William Davenant’s Epistle or Preface to Gondibert,” Paris, 1650, 12mo, afterwards printed with Gondibert. 5. “Human Nature or the fundamental elements of policy,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 6. “De Corpore Politico; or the Elements of the Law,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 7. “Leviathan; or the matter, form, and power of a Commonwealth,” ibid. 1651, and 1680, fol. 8. “A Compendium of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and Ilamus’s Logic.” y. “A Letter about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1654, 12mo. This was answered by Dr. Laney and bishop Bramhali. 10. “The Questions concerning Liberty, and Necessity, and Chance, stated and debated between Mr. Hobbes and Dr. Bramhall, bishop of London-Derry,” Lond. 1656, 4to. 11. “Elementorum Philosophiae sectio prima de Corpore,” ibid. 1655, 8vo; in English, 1656, in 4to. “Sectio jsecunda,” London, 1657, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, in 4-to. 12. “Six Lessons to the professors of mathematics of the institution of sir Henry Savile,” ibid. 1656, 4to, written against Mr. Seth Ward, and Dr. John Wallis. 13. “The Marks of the absurd Geometry, rural Language, &c. of Dr. John Wallis,” ibid. 1657, 8vo. 14. “Kxaminatio et emendatio Mathematicae hodiernae, sex Dialogis comprehensa,” ibid.

1661, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 17. “Problemata Physica, una cum magnitudine circuli,” Lond. 1662, 4to; Amsterdam, 1688, 4to. 18. “De principiis et ratiocinatione Geometrarum, contra fastuosum professorem,” Lond. 1666, 4toj Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 19. “Quadratura Circuli, cubatio sphaerse, duplicatio cubi; una cum responsione ad objectiones geometriae professoris Saviliani Oxoniae editas anno 1669.” Lond. 1669, 4to. 20. “Rosetutn Geometricum, sive propositiones aliquoc frustra antehac tentatae, cum censura brevi doctrinae Wallisiamede motn,” London, 1671, 4to, of which an account is given in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 72, for the year 1671. 21. Three Papers presented to the royal society against Dr. Wallis, with considerations on Dr. Wallis’s Answer to them,“Loud. 1671, 4to. 22.” Lux Mathematica, &c. censura doctrinae Wallisianse de Libra: Rosetum Hobbesii,“Lond. 1672, 4io. 23.” Principia et Problemata, aliquot G&ometrica ante desperata, nunc breviter explicata et demonstrata,“London, 1674, 4to. 24.” Epistola ad Dom. Anton, a Wood, Authorem Historiae et Antiquitat. Universit. Oxon.:“dated April the 20th, 1674, printed in half a sheet on one side.” It was written to Mr. Wood,“says Wood himself,” upon his complaint made to Mr. Hobbes of several deletions and additions made in and to his life and character (which be had written of him in that book) by the publisher (Dr. Jo. Fell) of the said Hist, and Antiq, to the great dishonour and disparagement of the said Mr. Hobbes. Whereupon, when that history was finished, came out a scurrilous answer to the said epistle, written by Dr. Fell, which is at “the end of the said history.” In this Answer Dr. Fell styles Mr. Hobbes, “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmsburiense animal-,” and tells us, that one Mr. J. A. had sent a magnificent eulogium of Mr. Hobbes drawn up by him, or more probably by Hobbes himself, in order to be inserted in the Hist, et Antiq. Univers. Oxon; but the editor finding in this eulogium a great many things foreign to the design of that work, and far from truth, he suppressed what he thought proper. 25. “A Letter to William duke of Newcastle, concerning the Controversy had with Dr. Laney, bishop of Ely, about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1670, 12mo. 26. “Decameron Physiologicum; or ten dialogues of natural philosophy, &c.” London, 1678, 8vo. To this is added “The Proportion of a strait line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant.” 27. “His last words and dying Legacy:” printed on one side of a sheet of paper in December 1679, and published by Charles Blunt, esq. from the “Leviathan,” in order to expose Mr. Hobbes’s doctrine. 28. His “Memorable Sayings in his books and at the table;” printed on one side of a broad sheet of paper, with his picture before them. 29. “Behemoth: The History of the Civil Wars of England from 1640 to 1660,” Lond. 1679, 8vo. 30. “Vita Thomae Hobbes,” a Latin poem written by himself, and printed at London in 4to, in the latter end of December 1679; and a fortnight after that, viz. about the 10th of January, it'was published in English verse by another hand, at London 1680, in five sheets in folio. The Latin copy was reprinted and subjoined to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium.” 31. “Historical narration of Heresy, and the punishment thereof,” London, 1680, in four sheets and an half in folio; and in 1682 in 8vo. This is chiefly extracted out of the second chapter De Hseresi of his Appendix to fche Leviathan. 32. “Vita Thomse Hobbes,” written by himself in prose, and printed at Caropolis, i.e. London, and prefixed to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium,” 1681, 8vo, and 1682, 4to. 33. “A Brief of the art of Rhetoric, containing in substance all that Aristotle hath written in his three books of that subject,” 12mo, without a date. It was afterwards published in two books, London, 1681, in 8vo, the first bearing the title of “The Art of Rhetoric,” and the other of “The Art of Rhetoric plainly set forth; with pertinent examples for the more ready understanding and practice of the same.” To which is added, 34. “A Dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the Common Laws of England.” Mr. Barrington in his Observations on the Statute of Treasons, says it appears by this dialogue, that Hobbes had considered most of the fundamental principles of the English law with great care and attention. 35. “An Answer to archhishop Bramhall’s Book called The catching of the Leviathan,” London, 1682, 8vo. 36. “Seven philosophical Problems, and two Propositions of Geometry,” London, 1682, 8vo, dedicated to the king in 1662. 37. (< An Apology for himself and his Writings.“38.” Historia Ecclesiastica carmine elegiaco concinnata.“Aug. Trinob. i. e. London, 1688, 8vo. 39.” Tractatus Opticus,“inserted in Mersennus’s” Cojitata' PhysieoMathematica,“Paris, 1644, 4to. 40.” Observationes in Cartesii de prima Philosophia Meditationes.“These objections are published in all the editions of Des Cartes’s” Meditations.“41.” The Voyage of Ulysses; or Homer’s Odysses,“book 9, 10, 11, 12. London, 1674, in 8vo And 42.” Homer’s Iliads and Odysses," London, 1675 and 1677, 12mo.

, a very eminent painter, is supposed to have been born about 1611, at Antwerp; but the master from whom he received his instruction is not known. He studied entirely after nature, sketching every scene that afforded him pleasure, and his choice was exceedingly picturesque. His grounds are always agreeably broken, and he was particularly fond of describing slopes diversified with shrubs, plants, or trees, which conducted the eye to some building, ruin, grove, or piece of water, and frequently to a delicate remote distance; every object perspectively contributing to delude our observation to that point. The forms of his trees are not unlike Ruysdael and Dekker; and in all his pictures he shews an admirable knowledge of the chiaroscuro. His colouring is extremely good, and his skies evidently shew that he made nature his principal director, by the shape and disposition of his clouds, as also by those peculiar tints, by which he expressed the rising and setting of the sun, the morning and evening. His touch is light, free, and firm; and his paintings have a very striking effect, by the happy distribution of his light and shadow. The figures which he himself designed are but indifferent, which was a defect imputable to Claude Lorraine and Caspar Poussin, as well as to Hobbima; but the latter, conscious of his inability in that respect, admitted but few figures into his designs, and those he usually placed somewhat removed from the immediate view, at a prudent distance from the front line. However, most of his pictures were supplied with figures by Ostade, Teniers, and other very famous masters, which must always give them a great additional value. The works of Hobbima are now exceedingly scarce, and industriously sought for. A very fine landscape of his, the property of the late Edward Coxe, esq. was sold a few years ago for nearly 700l.

, an ancient English poet, who scarcely, however, deserves the name, was born probably about 1370, and has been styled Chaucer’s disciple. He studied law at Chester’s Inn, in the Strand, and was a writer to the privy seal for above twenty years. When he quitted this office, or what means of subsistence he afterwards had, cannot be easily determined. Pits seems wrong in asserting that he was provided for by Humphrey duke of Gloucester. Nor is Bale more correct in saying that he had imbibed the religious tenets of Wickliff. From his poems the following scanty particulars of his history have been communicated by a learned friend: " He dwelt in the office of the privy seal, a writer * unto the seal twenty-four years come Easter, and that is nigh.‘ The king granted him an annuity of twenty marks in the exchequer, which it appears he had much difficulty in getting paid. He expresses much doubt of obtaining it from * yere to yere:’ fears it may not be continued when he is no longer able to ‘ serve’ (i. e. as a writer in the privy seal office). Besides this annuity he has but six marks coming in yearly * in noo tide.‘ Speaks of dwelling at home in his ’ pore coote,' and that more than two parts of his life are spent he is ignorant of husbandry;

, a protestant divine, was born at Tubingen, July 1688. After studying with credit in the principal universities of Germany, he became successively professor of eloquence, of moral philosophy, of divinity, and finally rector of Tubingen. He died at the same place, April 27, 1717. His principal works are, 1. “Collegium Puffendorfiannm.” 2. “De Festo Expiationis, et Hirco Azazel.” 3. “De Conradino, ultimo ex Suevis duce.” 4. “De rebus Elbigensibus.” His historical works are in most esteem.

, an English physician, was the son of Dr. Thomas Hodges, dean of Hereford, of whom there are three printed sermons. He was educated in Westminster-school, and became a student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1648. In 1651 and 1654, he took the degrees of B. and M. A. and, in 1659, accumulated the degrees of B. and M. D. He settled in London, and was, in 1672, made fellow of the College of Physicians. He remained in the metropolis during the continuance of the plague in 1665, when most of the physicians, and Sydenham among the rest, retired to the country: and, with another of his brethren, he visited the infected during the whole of that terrible visitation. These two physicians, indeed, appear to have been appointed by the city of London to attend the diseased, with a stipend. Dr. Hodges was twice taken ill during the prevalence of the disease; but by the aid of timely remedies he recovered. His mode of performing his perilous duty was to receive early every morning, at his own house, the persons who came to give reports of the sick, and convalescents, for advice; he then made his forenoon visits to the infected, causing a pan of coals to be carried before him with perfumes, and chewing troches while he was in the sick chamber. He repeated his visits in the afternoon. His chief prophylactic was a liberal use of Spanish wine, and cheerful society after the business of the day. It is much to be lamented that such a man afterwards fell into unfortunate circumstances, and was confined for debt in Ludgate prison, where he died in 1684. His body was interred in the church of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, London, where a monument is erected to him. He is author of two works: 1. “Vindiciae Medicinse et Medicorum: An Apology for the Profession and Professors of Physic, &c. 1660,” 8vo. 2. “Aoj/t*oXoyi sive, pestis nuperoe apud populum Londinensem grassantis narratio historica,” 1672, 8vo. A translation of it into English was printed at London in 1720, 8vo, under the following title: “Loimologia, or, an Historical Account of the Plague of London in 1665, with precautionary Directions against the like Contagion. To which is added, an Essay on the different causes of pestilential diseases, and how they become contagious. With remarks on the infection now in France, and the most probable means to prevent its spreading here;” the latter by John Quincy, M. D. In 1721, there was printed at London, in 8vo, “A collection of very valuable and scarce pieces relating to the last plague in 1665;” among which is “An account of the first rise, progress, symptoms, and cure of the Plague; being the substance of a letter from Dr. Hodges to a person of quality, dated from his house in Watling-street, May the 8th, 1666.” The author of the preface to this collection calls our author “a faithful historian and diligent physician;” and tells us, that “he may be reckoned among the best observers in any age of physic, and has given us a true picture of the plague in his own time.”

, an English landscape painter, was born in London, in 1744, and received his tuition in the art from Wilson, whom he assisted for some time, and under whom he acquired a good eye for colouring, and great freedom and boldness of hand; but unluckily, like too many pupils, he caught the defects of his master more powerfully than his beauties; and was, in consequence, too loose in his definition of forms, by which means, that which added grace to the works of the master, became slovenliness in the pupil. “Hodges,” says Fuseli, “had the boldness and neglect of Wilson, but not genius enough to give authority to the former, or make us forgive the latter: too inaccurate for scene-painting, too mannered for local representation, and not sublime or comprehensive enough for poetic landscape; yet, by mere decision of hand, nearer to excellence than mediocrity; and, perhaps, superior to some who surpassed him in perspective, or diligence of execution.” He accepted an appointment to go out draughtsman with captain Cook on nis second voyage to the Soutn Seas, from which he returned after an absence of three years, and painted some pictures for the admiralty, of scenes in Otaheite and Ulietea. Afterwards, under the patronage of Warren Hastings, he visited the East Indies, where he acquired a decent fortune. On his return home, after practising the art some time, he engaged in commercial and banking speculations; which not proving successful, he sunk under the disappointment, and died in 1797.

, an eminent English divine, was born Jan. 1, 1659, atOcicombe in the county of Somerset, of which place his father was rector. He discovered while a boy, a great propensity to learning; and, in 1676, was admitted into Wadham-college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in 1684. When he was only in his twenty-first year he published his “Dissertation against Aristeas’ s History of the Seventy-two Interpreters.” The substance of that history of Aristeas, concerning the seventy-two Greek interpreters of the Bible, is this: Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and founder of the noble library at Alexandria, being desirous of enriching that library with all sorts of books, committed the care of it to Demetrius Phalereus, a noble Athenian then living in his court. Demetrius being informed, in the course of his inquiries, of the Law of Moses among the Jews, acquainted the king with it; who signified his pleasure, that a copy of that book, which was then only in Hebrew, should be sent for from Jerusalem, with interpreters from the same place to translate it into Greek. A deputation was accordingly sent to Eleazar the high-priest of the Jews at Jerusalem; who sent a copy of the Hebrew original, and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each of the twelve tribes, to translate it into Greek. When they were come to Egypt the king caused them to be conducted into the island of Pharos near Alexandria, in apartments prepared for them, where they completed their translation in seventy-two days. Such is the story told by Aristeas, who is said to be one of king Ptolemy’s court. Hody shews that it is the invention of some Hellenist Jew; that it is full of anachronisms and gross blunders; and, in short, was written on purpose to recommend and give greater authority to the Greek version of the Old Testament, which from this story has received the name of the Septuagint. This dissertation was received with the highest applause by all the learned, except Isaac Vossius. Charles du Fresne spoke highly of it in his observations on the “Chrouicon Paschale,” published in 1688; and Menage, in his notes upon the second edition of “Diogenes Laertius,” gave Hody the titles of “eruditissimus, doctissimus, elegantissimus, &c.” but Vossius alone was greatly dissatisfied with it. He had espoused the contrary opinion, and could not bear that such a boy as Hody should presume to contend with one of his age and reputation for letters. He published therefore an appendix to his “Observations on Pomponius Mela,” and subjoined an answer to this dissertation of Hody’s; in which, however, he did not enter much into the argument, but contents himself with treating Hody very contemptuously, vouchsafing him no better title than Juvenis Oxoniensis, and sometimes using worse language. When Vossius was asked afterwards, what induced him to treat a young man of promising hopes, and who had certainly deserved well of the republic of letters, so very harshly, he answered, that he had received some time before a rude Latin epistle from Oxford, of which he suspected Hody to be the author; and that this had made him deal more severely with him than he should otherwise have done. Vossius had indeed received such a letter; but it was written, according to the assertion of Creech, the translator of Lucretius, without Hody’s knowledge or approbation. When Hody published his “Dissertation, &c.” he told the reader in his preface, that he had three other books preparing upon the Hebrew text, and Greek version but he was now so entirely drawn away from these studies by other engagements, that he could not find time to complete his work, and to answer the objections of Vossius, till more than twenty years after. In 1704, he published it altogether, with this title, “De Bibliorum textibns originalibus, versionibus Grsecis, et Latina Vulgata, libri IV. &c.” The first book contains his dissertation against Aristeas’s history, which is here reprinted with improvements, and an answer to Vossius’s objections. In the second he treats of the true authors of the Greek version called the Septuagint; of the time when, and the reasons why, it was undertaken, and of the manner in which it was performed. The third is a history of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint version, and of the Latin Vulgate; shewing the authority of each in different ages, and that the Hebrew text has been always most esteemed and valued. In the fourth he gives an account of the rest of the Greek versions, namely, those of Symmachus, Aquila. and Theodotion; of Origen’s “Hexapla,” and other ancient editions; and subjoins lists of the books of the Bible at different times, which exhibit a concise, but full and clear view of the canon of Holy Scripture. Upon the whole, he thinks it probable, that the Greek version, called the Septuagint, was done in the time of the two Ptolemies, Lagus and Philadelphus; and that it was not done by order of king Ptolemy, or under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, in order to be deposited in the Alexandrine library, but by Hellenist Jews for the use of their own countrymen.

In 1689, he wrote the “Prolegomena” to John Malela’s “Chronicle,” printed at Oxford; and the year after was made chaplain to Stillingfieet bishop of Worcester, being tutor to his son at Wadham college. The deprivation of the bishops, who had refused the oaths to king William and queen Mary, engaged him in a controversy with Dodwell, who had till now been his friend, and had spoken handsomely and affectionately of him, in his “Dissertations upon Irenams,” printed in 1689. The pieces Hody published on this occasion were, in 1691, “The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the new bishops: or, a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, shewing, that although a bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the church ever made a separation, if the successor was not an heretic. Translated out of an ancient manuscript in the public library at Oxford,” one of the Baroccian Mss. He translated it afterwards into Latin, and prefixed to it some pieces out of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the same subject. Dodwell publishing an answer to it, entitled “A Vindication of the deprived bishops,” &c. in 1692, Hody replied, in a treatise which he styled “The Case of Sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation stated; in answer to a piece intituled, A Vindication of the deprived Bishops, &c. Together with the several pamphlets published as answers to the Baroccian Treatise, 1693.” The part he acted in this controversy recommended him so powerfully to Tillotson, who had succeeded Sancroft in the see of Canterbury, that he made him his domestic chaplain in May 1694. Here he drew up his dissertation “concerning the Resurrection of the same body,” which he dedicated to Stillingfleet, whose chaplain he had been from 1690. Tillotson dying November following, he was continued chaplain by Tenison his successor; who soon after gave him the rectory of Chart near Canterbury, vacant by the death of Wharton. This, before he was collated, he exchanged for the united parishes of St. Michael’s Royal and St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, being instituted to these in August 1695. In 1696, at the command of Tenison, he wrote “Animadversions on two pamphlets lately published by Mr. Collier, &c.” Whesi sir William Perkins and sir John Friend were executed that year for the assassination-plot, Collier, Cook, and Snatt, three nonjuring clergymen, formally pronounced upon them the absolution of the church, as it stands in the office for the visitation of the sick, and accompanied this ceremony with a solemn imposition of hands. For this imprudent action they were not only indicted, but also the archbishops and bishops published “A Declaration of their sense concerning those irregular and scandalous proceedings.” Snatt and Cook were cast into prison. Collier absconded, and from his privacy published two pamphlets to vindicate his own, and his brethren’s conduct; the one called, “A Defence of the Absolution given to sir William Perkins at the place of execution;” the other, “A Vindication thereof, occasioned by a paper, intituled, A Declaration of the sense of the archbishops and bishops, &c.”; in answer to which Hody published the “Animadversions” above-mentioned.

March 1698, he was appointed regius professor of Greek in the university of Oxford; and instituted to the archdeaconry of Oxford in 1704. In 1701, he bore a part in the controversy about the convocation, and published upon that occasion, “A History of English Councils and Convocations, and of the Clergy’s sitting in Parliament, in which is also comprehended the History of Parliaments, with an account of our ancient laws.” He died Jan. 20, 1706, and was buried in the chapel belonging to Wadham-college, where he had received his education, and to which he had been a benefactor: for, in order to encourage the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages, of which he was so great a master himself, he founded in that college ten scholarships of ten pounds each; now increased to fifteen pounds each; and appointed that four of the scholars should apply themselves to the study of the Hebrew, and six to the study of the Greek language. He left behind him in ms. a valuable work formed from the lectures which he had read in the course of his professorship, containing an account of those learned Grecians who retired to Italy before and after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks,' and restored the Greek tongue and learning in these western parts of the world. This was published in 1742, by Dr. S. Jebb, under this title, “De Graecis illustribus linguae Groecae literarumque humaniorum instauratoribus, eorum vitis, scriptis, et elogiis libri duo. E Codicibus potissimum Mss. aliisque authenticis ejusdem aevi monimentis deprompsit Hiimfredus Hodius, S. T. P. baud ita pridem Regius Professor et Archidiaconus Oxon.” Prefixed is an account in Latin of the author’s life, extracted chiefly from a manuscript one written by himself in English.

, of a noble family at Vienna, was born Feb. 24, 1580. After being eight years superintendant of Plaven in Saxony, he took holy orders at Prague in 1611. In 1613 he left Prague, and was appointed principal preacher to the elector of Saxony at Dresden, where he died March 4, 1645. He was a strenuous Lutheran, and wrote with as much zeal against Calvinists as Papists. His works, which are very numerous both in Latin and German, are not at this day much esteemed, or indeed known. Their titles, however, are given by the writers of his life, and among them we find, “Solida. detestatio Papas et Calvinistarum,” 4to. “Apologia pro B. Luthero contra Lampadium,” Leipsic, 1611, 4to. “Philosophise Aristotelicse, partes tres.” “Septem verborum Christi explicatio.” The greater part of his tracts appear evidently, from their titles, to be controversial.

, a philologer, was born at Nuremberg, but settled at Leyden, and is best known by his edition of Apollonius Rhodius, which was published there in 1641. This edition is generally esteemed for the beauty of the printing; but Ruhnkenius, in his second Epistola Critica, calls the editor “tetricum et ineptum Apollonii Commentatorem;” and his commentary has been censured also by Harwood, Harles, and other learned men. He published in 1628, a German translation of the Psalms, which has the credit of being accurate. He died in 1641.

, a learned German, was born at Augsburg in 1556; and spent his life in teaching the youth in the college of St. Anne, of which he was made principal by the magistrates of Augsburg, in 1593. They made him their library keeper also, and he acquitted himself with true literary zeal in this post: for he collected a great number of Mss. and printed books, especially Greek, and also of the best authors and the best editions, with which he enriched their library; and also published the most scarce and curious of the Mss. with his own notes. His publications were very numerous, among which were editions of the following authors, or at least of some part of their works; Origen, Philo Judseus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssen, Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Hori Apollinis Hieroglyphica, Appian, Photius, Procopius, Anna Comnena, &c. To some of these he added Latin translations, but published others in Greek only, with notes. Huetius has commended him, not only for the pains he took to discover old manuscripts, but also for his skill and ability in translating them. He composed, and published in 1595, “A Catalogue of the Greek Mss. in the Augsburg library,” which, for the judgment and order with which it is drawn up, is reckoned a masterpiece in its kind. He may justly be ranked among those who contributed to the revival of good learning in Europe: for, besides these labours for the public, he attended his college closely; and not only produced very good scholars, but is said to have furnished the bar with one thousand, and the church with two thousand, young men of talents. He died at Augsburg in 1617, much lamented, being a man of good as well as great qualities, and not less beloved than admired.

, an eminent historical and landscape painter, born at Bommel in 1648, was a disciple of Warnard van Rysen, an excellent artist, who had been bred in the school of Polemburg. He was at first invited to Cleve, where his paintings procured him very great credit; but he was afterwards prevailed on to visit Paris, where not meeting with encouragement in any degree proportioned to his merit, he turned his attention to England, whither he certainly would have directed his course, had he not been dissuaded by Vosterman. After practising, therefore, for some time at Paris and Cleves, he settled at Utrecht, and in that city and its neighbourhood displayed his abilities, in executing several grand designs for ceilings, saloons, and apartments, and also in finishing a great number of easel pictures for cabinets; and his reputation was so universally established at Utrecht, that he was appointed director of an academy for drawing and painting, which he conducted, with great honour to himself, and remarkable advantage to his pupils. He had a lively imagination, a very ready invention, a talent for composition and correctness in the costume. His manner of painting was clean and neat, and he was thoroughly master of the true principles of the chiaroscuro. His figures in general are designed with elegance, his colouring is vivid, natural, and harmonious, his touch is light and firm, and his pictures have a great deal of transparence. His small easel-paintings are as distinctly touched as highly finished; and yet his larger works are always penciled with a freedom that is suitable to those grander compositions.

, a Lutheran minister, superintendant and professor at Helmstad, was the author of an idle controversy towards the end of the sixteenth century. He started some difficulties about subscribing the concord, and refused to concur with Dr. Andreas in defence of this confession. He would not acknowledge the ubiquity, but only that the body of Jesus Christ was present in a great many places; this dispute, though laid asleep soon after, left a spirit of curiosity and contradiction upon people’s minds, so that in a little time they began to disagree and argue veiy warmly upon' several other points, Hoffman being always at th.e head of the party. Among other things in an academical disputation, he maintained that the light of reason, even as it appears in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, is averse to religion; and the more the human understanding i s cultivated by philosophical study, the more perfectly is the enemy supplied with weapons of defence. The partiality wh;ch at this time universally prevailed in favour of the Aristotelian philosophy was such, that an opinion of this kind could not be advanced publicly, without exciting general dissatisfaction and alarm. A numerous band of professors, though they differed in opinion among themselves, united to take up arms against the common enemy. At the bead of this body was John Cassel; whence the advocates for philosophy were called the Casseiian party. They at first challenged Hoffman to a private conference, in expectation of leading him to a sounder judgment concerning philosophy; but their hopes were frustrated. Hoffman, persuaJed that interest and envy had armed the philosophers against him, in his reply to his opponents inveighed with great bitterness against philosophers, and acknowledged, that he meant to oppose not only the abuse of philosophy, but the most prudent and legitimate use of it, as necessarily destructive of theology. This extravagant assertion, accompanied with many contumelious censures of philosophers, produced reciprocal vehemence; and Albert Graver published a book “De Unica Veritate,” which maintained “the Simplicity of Truth;” a doctrine from which the Casseiian party were called Simplicists, whilst the followers of Hoffman (for he found means to engage several persons, particularly among the Tbeosophists, in his interest) opposing this doctrine, were called, on the other hand, Duplicists. John Angel Werdenhagen, a Boehmeiu'te, who possessed some poetical talents, wrote several poems against the philosophers. In short, the disputes ran so high, and produced so much personal abuse, that the court thought it necessary to interpose its authority, and appointed arbitrators to examine the merits of the controversy. The decision was against Hoffman, and he was obliged to make a public recantation of his errors, acknowledging the utility and excellence of philosophy, and declaring that his invectives had been only directed against its abuses.

Hoffman and Beza wrote against each other upon the subject of the Holy Eucharist. Hoffman accused Hunnius, an eminent Lutheran minister, for having misrepresented the book of the Concord; for here, says Hoffman, the cause of election is not made to depend upon the qualifications of the person elected but Hunnius, says he, and Mylius assert, that the decree of election is founded upon the foresight of faith. Hunnius and Mylius caused Hoffman to be condemned at a meeting of their divines in 1593, and threatened him with excommunication, if he did not comply. The year following, Hoffman published an apology against their censure. Hospinian gives the detail of this controversy: he observes, that some divines of Leipsic, Jena, and Wittemburg, would have had Hoffman publicly censured as a Calvinist, and such a heretic as was not fit to be conversed with; others who were more moderate, were for admonishing him by way of letter before they came to extremities: this latter expedient was approved, and Hunnius wrote to him in the name of all his brethren. Hoffman’s apology was an answer to this letter, in which he gives the reasons for refusing to comply with the divines of Wittemburg, and pretends to shew that they were grossly mistaken in several articles of faith. At last he was permitted to keep school at Helmstadt, where he died in 1611. He must not be confounded with Melchior Hoffman, a fanatic of the sixteenth century, who died in prison at Strasburgh. There was also a Gasper Hoffman (the name being common), a celebrated professor of medicine at Altdorf, who was born at Golha in 1572, and died in 1649; and who left behind him many medical works.

, professor of Greek at Bale, was born in that city in 1635, and died there in 1706. Little besides is known of his history. His great work, the “Lexicon Universale Historico-Geographico-Poetico-Philosophico-Politico-Philologicnm,” was first published at Geneva, in 1677, in two volumes, folio. This being received by the learned with great avidity, he published, a few years after, a Supplement; which was also rapidly sold off. In 1698, some of the principal booksellers at Leyden, encouraged by this success of the work, and having received from the author all his subsequent collections, and many other additions from various learned men, digested the whole, with the Supplement, into one alphabet, and published it in four volumes, folio. In this form it is now known as a most useful book of reference, and finds a place in every learned library. For this edition the author wrote a new preface. He also published a “History of the Popes” in Latin, 1687, 2 vols. and “Historia Augusta,” 1687, fol.

, a physician, was born of a good family, at Furstenwalde, in the electorate of Brandenbourg, Sept. 20, 1621; and was driven early from his native country by the plague, and also by the war that followed it. His parents, having little idea of letters or sciences, contented themselves with having him taught writing and arithmetic; but Hoffman’s taste for books and study made him very impatient under this confined instruction, and he was resolved, at all events, to be a scholar. He first gained over his mother to his scheme; but she died when he was only fifteen. This, however, fortunately proved no impediment to his purpose; for the schoolmaster of Furstenwalde, to which place after many removals he had now returned, was so struck with his talents and laudable ambition, that he instructed him carefully in secret. His father, convinced at length of his uncommon abilities, permitted him to follow his inclinations; and, in 1637, sent him to study in the college of Cologne. Famine and the plague drove him from hence to Kopnik, where he buried his father; and, in 1638, he went to Altdorf, to an uncle by his mother’s side, who was a professor of physic. Here he finished his studies in classical learning and philosophy, and then applied himself, with the utmost ardour, to physic. In 1641, when he had made some progress, he went to the university of Padua, which then abounded with men very learned in all sciences. Anatomy and botany were the great objects of his pursuit; and he became very deeply skilled in both. Baitholin tells us, that Hoffman, having dissected a turkey-cock, discovered the panacreatic duct, and shewed it to Versungus, a celebrated anatomist of Padua, with whom he lodged; who, taking the hint, demonstrated afterwards the same vessel in the human body. When he had been at Padua about three years, he returned to Altdorf, to assist his uncle, now growing infirm, in his business; and taking the degree of doctor, he applied himself very diligently to practice, in. which he had abundant success, and acquired great fame. In 1648, he was made professor extraordinary in anatomy and surgery; in 1649, professor of physic, and soon after member of the college of physicians; in 1653, professor of botany, and director of the physic-garden. He acquitted himself very ably in these various employments, not neglecting in the mean tiaie the business of his profession; in which his reputation was so extensive, that many princes of Gtrmany appointed him their physician. He died of an apoplexy in 1698, after having published several botanical works, and married three wives, by whom he had eighteen children. His works are, 1. “Altdorfi deliciae hortenses,” 1677, 4to. 2. “Appendix ad Catalogum Plantarum hortensium,” 16D1, 4to. 3. “Deliciae silvestres,” 1677, 4to. 4. “Florilegium Altdorfinum,” 1676, &c. 4to.

, son of the former by his first wife, was born at Altdorf in 1653; and sent to school at Herszpi uck, where having acquired a competent knowledge of the Greek and Latin tongues, he returned to his father at Altdorf at the age of sixteen, and studied first philosophy, and then physic. He went afterwards to Francfort upon the Oder, and proposed to visit the United Provinces and England; but being prevented by the wars, he went to Padua, where he studied two years. Then making a tour of part of Italy, he returned to Altdorf, in 1674, and was admitted to the degree of M. D. He spent two years in adding to the knowledge he had acquired; and then, in 1677, was made professor extraordinary in physic, which title, in 1681, was changed to that of professor in ordinary. He how applied himself earnestly to the practice of physic; and in time his fame was spread so far, that he was sought by persons of the first rank. George Frederic, marquis of Anspach, of the house of Brandenbourg, chose him in 1695 for his physician; and about the latter end of the year, Hoffman attended this prince into Italy, and renewed his acquaintance with the learned there. Upon the death of his father in 1698, he was chosen to succeed him in his places of botanic professor and director of the physic garden. He was elected also the same year rector of the university of Altdorf; a post which he had occupied in 1686. He lost his great friend and patron, the marquis of Apspach, in 1703; but found the same kindness from his successor William Frederic, who pressed him so earnestly to come nearer him, and made him such advantageous otFers, that Hoffman in 1713 removed from Altdorf to Anspach, where he died in 1727. He had married a wife in 16I, by whom he bad 6ve cbildren. He left several works of repute: viz. two dissertations on anatomy and physiology; one on what has since been called morbid anatomy, entitled “Disquisitio corporis human! Anatomico-Pathologica;” ibid. 1713. “Acta Laboratorii chemici Altdorffini,” 1719. “Syntagma Pathologico-therapeuticum,” 1728, in 2 vols. 4to, and “Sciagraphia Institutionum Medicarum,” a posthumous publication. He also continued his father’s “Florre Altdorffinae.”

, the most eminent physician of his name, was born at Halle, in Saxony, Feb. 19, 1660. He received his early education in his native town, and had made great progress in philosophy and the mathematics, when, at the age of fifteen, he lost his father and mother during the prevalence of an epidemic disease. In 1679 he commenced the study of medicine at Jena, and in the following year attended the chemical lectures of Gaspar Cramer, at Erfurth; and, on his return to Jena, received the degree of M. D. in February 168!. In 1682 he published an excellent tract “De Cinnabari Antimonii,” which gained him great applause, and a crowd of pupils to the chemical lectures, which he delivered there. He was then induced to visit Minden, in Westphalia, op the invitation of a relation, and practised there for two years with considerable success. He then travelled into Holland and thence to England, where he was received with distinction by men of science, and particularly by Paul Herman, the botanist, in the former, and Robert Boyle in the latter. On his return to Minden, in 1685, he was made physician to the garrison there, and in the following year was honoured by Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with the appointments of physician to his own person, and to the whole principality of Minden. Yet he quitted that city in 1688, in consequence of an invitation to settle at Halberstadt, in Lower Saxony, as public physician. Here he published a treatise “De uisufficientia acidi ct viscidi,” by which he overthrew the system of Cornelius Bontekce. In 1689 he married the only daughter of Andrew Herstel, an eminent apothecary, with whom he had lived forty-eight years in perfect iniion, when she died. About this time, Frederic III., afterwards first king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle; and in Hoffmann was appointed primary professor of medicine, composed the statutes of that institution, and extended its fame and elevated its character, while his own reputation procured him admission into the scientific societies at Berlin, Petershurgh, and London, as well as the honour of being consulted by persons of the highest rank. He was called upon to visit many of the German courts in his capacity of physician, and received honours from several princes; from whom some say that he received ample remuneration in proportion to the rank of his patients; while others have asserted that he took no fees, but contented himself with his stipends. Haller asserts that he acquired great wealth by various chemical nostrums which he vended. In 1704 he accompanied some of the Prussian ministers to the Caroline warm baths in Bohemia, on which occasion he examined their nature, and published a dissertation concerning them. On subsequent visits, he became acquainted with the Sedlitz purging waters, which he first introduced to public notice, having published a treatise on them in 1717: and he afterwards extended his inquiries to the other mineral waters of Germany. In 1 708 he was called to Berlin to take care of the declining health of Frederic, and was honoured with the titles of archiater and aulic counsellor, together with a liberal salary. After three years residence at this court he returned to Halle, and gladly resumed his academical functions. He continued also to labour in the composition of his writings; and in 1718, at the age of 60, he began the publication of his “Medicina Rationalis Systematica,” which was reoeived with great applause by the faculty in various parts of Europe, and the completion of which occupied him nearly twenty years. He likewise published two volumes of “Consultations,” in which he distributed into three “centuries,” the most remarkable cases which had occurred to him; and also “Observationum Physico-Chemicarum Libri tres,” 1722. In 1727 he attended the prince of Schwartzemburg through a dangerous disease; in recompence for which his noble patient created him count palatine. He quitted Halle in 1734, in order to pay a short visit to his daughter and son-in-law at BerJin, and was detained five months by the king of Prussia, Frederic William, in order to attend him during a dangerous illness, by whom he was treated with great honour, elevated to the rank of privy counsellor, and presented with a portrait of the king, set in diamonds. Hoffmann declined a pressing invitation to settle at Berlin, on account of his advanced age, and returned to Halle in April 1735. The illness and death of his heloved wife, in 1737, turned his thoughts to the consolations of religion, and he drew up in Latin a summary of Christian doctrine, which, at the king’s desire, was translated into German. He continued to perform his academical duties until 174!?, when he died in the month of November, aged eighty-two. Frederick Hoffmann was an industrious and copious writer. Haller has occupied thirty-eight quarto pages in the enumeration of his works in detail. The principal of these were collected, during the life of the author, by two Genevese booksellers, and published with his approbation, and with a preface from his pen, in 1740, in six vols. folio. It was reprinted by the same booksellers, the freres de Tournes, in 1748; and in the following year, having raked together every thing which his pen had touched, they published a supplement in three additional volumes folio, which was also reprinted in 1753-4. The writings of Hoffmann contain a great mass of practical matter of considerable value, partly compiled from preceding writers, and partly the result of his own observation; but they contain also many trifling remarks, and not a little hypothetical conjecture, which was indeed a common fault of the times; and in the detail there is considerable prolixity and repetition. Asa theorist his suggestions were of great value, ad contributed to introduce that revolution in the science of pathology, which subsequent observation has extended and confirmed. His doctrine of atony and spasm in the living solid, by which he referred all internal disorders to some “preternatural affection of the nervous system,” rather than to the morbid derangements and qualities of the fluids, first turned the attention of physicians from the mere mechanical and chemical operations of the animal body to those of the primary moving powers of the living system. To Hoffmann Dr. Cullen acknowledges the obligations we are under for having first put us into the proper train of investigation; although he himself did not apply his fundamental doctrine so extensively as he might have done, and every where mixed with it a humoral pathology as incorrect and hypothetical as any other. Hoffmann pursued the study of practical chemistry with considerable ardour, and improved the department of pharmacy by the addition of some mineral preparations; but on the whole, and especially in his latter years, his practice was cautious, and even inert, and he trusted much to vegetable simples.

, a truly great and original genius, is said by Dr. Burn to have been the descendant of a family originally from Kirkby Thore in Westmoreland. His grandfather, a plain yeoman, possessed a small tenement in the vale of Bampton, a village about fifteen miles north of Kendal in that county, and had three sons. The eldest assisted his father in farming, and succeeded to his little freehold. The second settled in Troutbeck, a village eight miles north-west of Kendal, and was remarkable for his talent at provincial poetry. The third, Richard, educated at St. Bee’s, who had been a schoolmaster in the same county, went early to London, where he was employed as a corrector of the press, and appears to have been a man of some learning, a dictionary in Latin and English, which he composed for the use of schools, being still extant in manuscript. He married in London, and kept a school in Ship-court in the Old Bailey. The subject of the present article, and his sisters Mary and Anne, are believed to have been the only product of the marriage.

William Hogarth was born in 1697, or 1698, in the parish of St. Martin, Ludgate. The outset of his life, however, was unpromising. “He was bound,” says Mr. Walpole, “to a mean engraver of arms on plate.” Hogarth probably chose this occupation, as it required some skill in drawing, to which his genius was particularly turned, and which he contrived assiduously to cultivate. His master, it since appears, was Mr. Ellis Gamble, a silversmith of eminence, who resided in Cranbdurn-street, Leicester-fields. In this profession it is not unusual to bind apprentices to the single branch of engraving arms and cyphers on every species of metal, and in that particular department of the business young Hogarth was placed; “but before his time was expired he felt the impulse of genius, and that it directed him to painting.”

During his apprenticeship, he set out one Sunday, with two or three companions, on an excursion to Highgate. The weather being hot, they went into a public house, where they had not been long before a quarrel arose between some persons in the same room. One of the disputants struck the other on the head with a quart pot, and cut him very much. The blood running down the man’s face, together with the agony of the wound, which had distorted his features into a most hideous grin, presented Hogarth, who shewed himself thus early “apprised of the mode Nature intended he should pursue,” with too laughable a subject to be overlooked. He drew out his pencil, and produced on the spot one of the most ludicrous figures that ever was seen. What rendered this piece the more valuable was, that it exhibited an exact likeness of the man, with the portrait of his antagonist, and the figures in caricature of the principal persons gathered round him.

His first employment seems to have been the engraving of arms and shop-bills. The next step was to design and furnish plates for booksellers; and here we are fortunately supplied with dates. Thirteen folio prints, with his name to each, appeared in Aubry de la Motraye’s Travels, in 1723; seven smaller prints for Apuleius’ Golden Ass, in 1724; fifteen head-pieces to Beaver’s Military Punishments of the Ancients; five frontispieces for the translation of Cassandra, in five volumes, 12mo, 1725; seventeen cuts for a duodecimo edition of Hudibras (with Butler’s head), in 1726; two for Perseus and Andromeda, in 1730; two for Milton [the date uncertain]; and a variety of others between 1726 and 1733. Mr. Bowles, at the Black-horse in Cornhill, was one of his earliest patrons, but paid him very low prices. His next friend in the same business was Mr. Philip Overton, who rewarded him somewhat better for his labour and ingenuity. There are still many family pictures by Hogarth existing, in the style of serious conversation-pieces. What the prices of liis portraits were, Mr. Nichols strove in vain to discover; but he suspected that they were originally very low, as the persons who were best acquainted with them chose to be silent on the subject. At Rivenhall, in Essex, the seat of Mr. Western, is a family-picture, by Hogarth, of Mr. Western and his mother, chancellor Hoadly, archdeacon Charles Plumptre, the Rev. Mr. Cole of Milton near Cambridge, and Mr. Henry Taylor, the curate there 1736. In the gallery of Mr. Cole of Milton, was also a whole-length picture of Mr. Western by Hogarth, a striking resemblance. He is drawn sitting in his fellow-commoner’s habit, and square cap with a gold tassel, in his chamber at Clare-hall, over the arch towards the river; and the artist, as the chimney could not be expressed, has drawn a cat sitting near it, agreeable to his humour, to shew the situation. Mr. Western’s mother, whose portrait is in the conversation-piece at Rivenhall, was a daughter of sir Anthony Shirley.

It was Hogarth’s custom to sketch out on the spot any remarkable face which particularly struck him, and of which he wished to preserve the remembrance. A gentleman informed his biographer, that being once with him at the Bedford coffee-house, he observed him drawing something with a pencil on his nail. Inquiring what had been his employment, he was shewn a whimsical countenance of a person who was then at a small distance.

It happened in the early part of Hogarth’s life, that a nobleman who was uncommonly ugly and deformed, came to sit to him for his picture. It was executed with a skill that did honour to the artist’s abilities; but the likeness was rigidly observed, without even the necessary attention to compliment or flattery. The peer, disgusted at this counterpart of his dear self, never once thought of paying for a reflector that would only insult him with his deformities. Some time was suffered to elapse before the artist applied for his money; but afterwards many applications were made by him (who had then no need of a banker) for payment, but without success. The painter, however, at last hit upon an expedient which he knew must alarm the nobleman’s pride, and by that means answer his purpose. It was couched in the following card: “Mr. Hogarth’s dutiful respects to lord; finding that he does not mean to have the picture which was drawn for him, is informed again of Mr. H.'s necessity for the money; if, therefore, his lordship does not send for it in three days, it will be disposed of, with the addition of a tail, and some other little appendages, to Mr. Hare, the famous wild-beast man; Mr. H. having given that gentleman a conditional promise of it for an exhibition picture, on his lordship’s refusal.” This intimation had the desired effect. The picture was sent home, and committed to the flames.

Mr. Walpole has remarked, that if our artist “indulged his spirit of ridicule in personalities, it never proceeded beyond sketches and drawings,” and wonders “that he never, without intention, delivered the very features of any identical person.” But this elegant writer, who may be said to have received his education in a court, had perhaps few opportunities of acquaintance among the low popular characters with which Hogarth occasionally peopled his scenes. The friend who contributed this remark, was assured by an ancient gentleman of unquestionable veracity and acuteness of remark, that almost all the personages who attended the levee of the Rake were undoubted portraits; and that in “Southvvark Fair,” and the “Modern Midnight Conversation,” as many more were discoverable. In the former plate he pointed out Essex the dancingmaster; and in the latter, as well as in the second plate to the “Rake’s Progress,” Figg the prize-fighter. He mentioned several others by name, from his immediate knowledge both of the painter’s design and the characters represented; but the rest of the particulars by which he supported his assertions, have esca'ped the memory of our informant. While Hogarth was painting the “Rake’s Progress,” he had a summer reidence at Isleworth, and never failed to question the company who came to see these pictures if they knew for whom one or another figure was designed. When they guessed wrongly, he set them right.

The duke of Leeds has an original scene in the Beggars Opera, painted by Hogarth. It is that in which Lucy and Polly are on their knees before their respective fathers, to intercede for the life of* the hero of the piece. All the figures are either known or supposed to be portraits. If we are not misinformed, the late sir Thomas Robinson (better known perhaps by the name of long sir Thomas) is standing in one of the side-boxes. Macheath, unlike his spruce representative on our present stage, is a slouching bully; and Polly appears happily disencumbered of such a hoop as the daughter of Peachum within the reach of younger memories has worn. The duke gave 35l. for this picture at Mr. Rich’s auction. Another copy of the same scene was bought by the late Sir William Saunderson, and is now in the possession of sir Harry Gough. Mr. Walpoie has a picture of a scene in the same piece, where Macheath is going to execution. In this also the likenesses or' Walker and Miss Fenton, afterwards duchess of Bolton (the original Macheath and Polly) are preserved.

In 1730, Hogarth married the only daughter of sir James Thornhill, by whom he had no child. This union, indeed, was a stolen one, and consequently without the approbation of sir James, who, considering the youth of his daughter, then barely eighteen, and the slender finances of her husband, as yet an obscure artist, was not easily reconciled to the match. Soon after this period, however, he began his “Harlot’s Progress,” and was advised by lady Thornhill to have some of the scenes in it placed in the way of his father-in-law. Accordingly, one morning early, Mrs. Hogarth undertook to convey several of them into his diningroom. When he arose, he inquired whence they came; and being told by whom they were introduced, he cried out, “Very well; the man who can furnish representations like these, can also maintain a wife without a portion.” He designed this remark as an excuse for keeping his pursestrings close; but, soon after, became both reconciled and generous to the young people. An allegorical cieling by sir James Thornhill is at the house of the late Mr. Huggins, at Headly-park, Hants. The subject of it is the story of Zepbyrus and Flora; and the figure of a satyr and sortie others were painted by Hogarth.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

This ticket remained in the possession of his widow, and was by her occasionally employed.

In 1733 his genius became conspicuously known. The third scene of his “Harlot’s Progress,” introduced him to the notice of the great. At a board of treasury which was held a day or two after the appearance of that print, a copy of it was shewn by one of the lords, as containing, among other excellencies, a striking likeness of sir John Gonson. It gave universal satisfaction: from the treasury each lord repaired to the print-shop for a copy of it, and Hogarth rose completely into fame.

The ingenious abbe du Bos has often complained, that no history-painter of his time went through a scries of actions, and thus, like an historian, painted the successive fortune of an hero, from the cradle to the grave. What Du Bos wished to see done, Hogarth performed. He launches out his young adventurer a simple girl upon the town, and conducts her through all the vicissitudes of wretchedness to a premature death. This was painting to the understanding and to the heart; none had ever before made the pencil subservient to the purposes of morality and instruction; a book like this is fitted to every soil and every observer, and he that runs may read. Nor was the success of Hogarth confined to his figures. One of his excellencies consisted in what may be termed the furniture of his pieces; for as in sublime and historical representations the seldomer trivial circumstances are permitted to divide the spectator’s attention from the principal figures, the greater is their force; so in scenes copied from familiar life, a proper variety of little domestic images contributes to throw a degree of verisimilitude on the whole. “The Rake’s levee-room,” says Mr. Walpole, “the nobleman’s dining-rootn, the apartments of the husband and wife in Marriage a la Mode, the alderman’s parlour, the bedchamber, and many others, are the history of the manners of the age.” The novelty and excellence of Hogarth’s performances soon tempted the needy artist and printdealer to avail themselves of his designs, and rob him of the advantages which he was entitled to derive from them. This was particularly the case with the “Midnight Conversation,” the “Harlot’s” and “Rake’s Progresses,” and Others of his early works. To put a stop to depredations Kke these on the property of himself and others, and to secure the emoluments resulting from his own labours, as Mr. Walpole observes, he applied to the legislature, and obtained an act of parliament, 8 Geo. II. cap. 38, to vest an exclusive right in designers and engravers, and to restrain the multiplying of copies of their works without the consent of the artist. This statute was drawn by his friend Mr. Huggins, who took for his model the eighth of queen Anne, in favour of literary property; but it was not so accurately executed as entirely to remedy the evil; for, in a cause founded on it, which came before lord Hardwicke in chancery, that excellent lawyer determined, that no assignee, claiming under an assignment from the original inventor, could take any benefit by it. Hogarth, immediately after the passing of the act, published a small print, with emblematical devices, and an inscription expressing his gratitude to the three branches of the legislature. Small copies of the “Rake’s Progress” were published by his permission. In 1745, finding that, however great the success of his prints might be, the public were not inclined to take his pictures off his hands, he was induced to offer some of them, and those of the best he had then produced, for disposal by way of auction; but after a plan of his own, viz. by keeping open a book to receive biddings from the first day of February to the last day of the same month, at 12 o'clock. The ticket of admission to the sale was his print of “The Battle of the Pictures,” a humourous production, in which he ingeniously upheld his assertions concerning the preference so unfairly given to old pictures, and the tricks of the dealers in them.

Hogarth had projected a “Happy Marriage,” by way of counterpart to his “Marriage a la Mode.” A design for the first of his intended six plates he had sketched out in colours; and the following is as accurate an account of it as could be furnished by a gentleman who long ago enjoyed only a few minutes sight of so great a curiosity. The time supposed was immediately after the return of the parties from church. The scene lay in the hall of an antiquated country mansion. On one side the married couple were represented sitting. Behind them was a group of their young friends of both sexes, in the act of breaking bridecake over their heads. In front appeared the father of the young lady, grasping a bumper, and drinking, with a seeming roar of exultation, to the future happiness of her and her husband. By his side was a table covered with refreshments. Jollity rather than politeness was the designation of his character. Under the screen of the hall, several rustic musicians in grotesque attitudes, together with servants, tenants, &c. were arranged. Through the arch by which the room was entered, the eye was led along a passage into the kitchen, which afforded a glimpse of sacerdotal luxury. Before the dripping-pan stood a wellfed divine, in his gown and cassock, with his watch in his baud, giving directions to a cook, dressed all in white, who was employed in basting a haunch of venison. Among the faces of the principal figures, none but that of the young lady was completely finished. Hogarth had been often reproached for his inability to impart grace and dignity to his heroines. The bride was therefore meant to vindicate his pencil from so degrading an imputation. The effort, however, was unsuccessful. The girl was certainly pretty; but her features, if we may use the term, were uneducated. She might have attracted notice as a chambermaid, but would have fa-iled to extort applause as a woman of fashion. The clergyman and his culinary associate were more laboured than any other parts of the picture. It is natural for us to dwell longest on that division of a subject which is most congenial to our private feelings. The painter sat down with a resolution to delineate beauty improved by art, but seems, as usual, to have deviated into meanness, or could not help neglecting his original purpose, to luxuriate in such ideas as his situation in early life had fitted him to express. He found himself, in short, out of his element in the parlour, and therefore hastened in quest of ease and amusement, to the kitchen fire. Churchill, with more force than delicacy, once observed of him, that he only painted the backside of nature. It must be allowed, that such an artist, however excellent ia his walk, was better qualified to represent the low-born parent than the royal preserver of a foundling.

Soon after the peace of Aix la Chapelle, he went over to France, and was taken into custody at Calais, while he was drawing the gate of that town, a circumstance which he has recorded in his picture entitled “O the Roast Beef of Old England!” published March 26, 1749. He was actually carried before the governor as a spy, and. after a very strict examination, committed a prisoner to Gransire, his landlord, on his promise that Hogarth should not go out of his house till he was to embark for England. Soon after this period he purchased a small house at Chiswick, where he usually passed the greatest part of the summer season, yet not without occasional visits to his house in Leicesterfields. In 1753 he appeared to the world in the character of an author, and published a 4to volume entitled “The Analysis of Beauty, written with a view of fixing the fluctuating ideas of Taste.” In this performance he shews by a variety of examples, that a curve is the line of beauty, and that round swelling figures are most pleasing to the eye; and the truth of his opinion has been countenanced by subsequent writers on the subject. In this work, the leading idea of which was hieroglyphically thrown out in a frontispiece to his works in 1745, he acknowledges himself indebted to his friends for assistance, and particularly to one gentleman for his corrections and amendments of at least a third part of the wording. This friend was Dr. Benjamin Hoadly the physician, who carried on the work to about the third part (chap, ix.), and then, through indisposition, declined the friendly office with regret. Mr. Hogarth applied to his neighbour, Mr. Ralph; but it was impossible for two such persons to agree, both alike vain and positive. He proceeded uo further thau about a sheet, and they then parted friends, and seem to have continued such. The kind office of finishing the work and superintending the publication was lastly taken up by Dr. Morell, who went through the remainder of the book. The preface was in like manner corrected by the Rev. Mr. Townley. The family of Hogarth rejoiced when the last sheet of the “Analysis” was printed off; as the frequent disputes he had with his coadjutors in the progress of the work, did not much harmonize his disposition. This work was translated into German by Mr. Mylins, when in England, under the author’s inspection; and the translation was printed in London, price five dollars. A new and correct edition was, in 1754, proposed for publication at Berlin, by Ch. Fr. Vok, with an explanation of Mr. Hogarth’s satirical prints, translated from the French; and an Italian translation was published at Leghorn in 1761.

Hogarth had one failing in common with most people who attain wealth and eminence without the aid of liberal education. He affected to despise every kind of knowledge which he did not possess. Having established his fame with little or no obligation to literature, he either conceived it to be needless, or decried it because it lay out of his reach. His sentiments, in short, resembled those of Jack Cade, who pronounced sentence on the clerk of Chatham, because he could write and read. Till, in evil hour, this celebrated artist commenced author, and was obliged to employ the friends already mentioned to correct his “Analysis of Beauty,” he did not seem to have discovered that even spelling was a necessary qualification; and yet he had ventured to ridicule the late Mr. Rich’s deficiency as to this particular, in a note which lies before the Rake whose play is refused while he remains in confinement for debt. Before the time of which we are now speaking, one of our artist’s common topics of declamation, was the uselessness of books to a man of his profession. In Beerstreet, among other volumes consigned by him to the pastry-cook, we find “Turnbull on Ancient Painting,” a treatise which Hogarth should have been able to understand before he ventured to condemn. Garrick himself, however, was not more ductile to flattery. A word in favour of “Sigismunda,” might have commanded a proof print, or forced an original sketch out of our artist’s hands. The person who supplied this remark owed one of Hogarth’s scarcest performances to the success of a compliment, which might have seemed extravagant even to sir Godfrey Kneller.

The following well-authenticated story will also serve to shew how much more easy it is to detect ill-placed or hyperbolical adulation respecting others, than when applied to ourselves. Hogarth being at dinner with the celebrated Cheselden, and some other company, was told that Mr>. John Freke, surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, a few evenings before at Dick’s coffee-house, had asserted that Greene was as eminent in composition as Handel. “That fellow Freke,” replied Hogarth, “is always shooting his bolt absurdly one way or another! Handel is a giant in music; Greene only a light Florimel kind of a composer.” —“Ay,” said, the informant, “but at the same time Mr. Freke declared you were as good a portrait-painter as Vandyck.”—“There he was in the right,” adds Hogarth: “and so I am, give me my time, and let one choose my subject!”

Hogarth was the most absent of men. At table he would sometimes turn round his chair as if he had finished eating, and as suddenly would return it, and commence his meal again. He once directed a letter to Dr. Hoadly, thus: “To the Doctor at Chelsea.” This epistle, however, by good luck, did not miscarry; and was preserved by the late chancellor of Winchester, as a pleasant memorial of his friend’s extraordinary inattention. Another remarkable instance of Hogarth’s absence was related by one of his intimate friends. Soon after he set up his carriage, he had occasion to pay a visit to the lord-mayor, Mr. Beckford. When he went, the weather was fine; but business detained him till a violent shower of rain came on. He was let out of the mansion-house by a different door from that at which he entered; and, seeing the rain, began immediately to call for a hackney-coach. Not one was to be met with on any of the neighbouring stands; and the artist sallied forth to brave the storm, and actually reached Leicester-fields without bestowing a thought on his own carriage, till Mrs. Hogarth (surprised to see him so wet and splashed) askeci him where he had left it.

In one of the early exhibitions at Spring-gardens, a very pleasing small picture by Hogarth made its first appearance. It was painted for the earl of Charlemont, in whose collection it remains; and was entitled “Picquet, orVir.tuein Danger,” and shews us ayounglady, who, during a tete-a-tete, had just lost all her money and jewels to a handsome officer of her own age. He is represented in the act of offering her the contents of his hat, in which are bank-notes, jewels, and trinkets, with the hope of exchanging them for a softer acquisition, and more delicate plunder. On the chimneypiece a watch-case and a figure of Time over it, with this motto Nunc. Hogarth has caught his heroine during this moment of hesitation, this struggle with herself, and has marked her feelings with uncommon success.

In the “Miser’s Feast,” Mr. Hogarth thought proper to pillory sir Isaac Shard, a gentleman proverbially avaricious. Hearing this, the son of sir Isaac, the late Isaac Pacatus Shard, esq a young man of spirit, just returned from his travels, called at the painter’s to see the picture; and among the rest, asking the Cicerone “whether that odd figure was intended for any particular person;” on his replying, “that it was thought to be very like one sir Isaac Shard,” he immediately drew his sword, and slashed the canvas. Hogarth appeared instantly in great wrath; to whom Mr. Shard calmly justified what he had done, saying, “that this was a very unwarrantable licence; that he was the injured party’s son, and that he was ready to defend any suit at law;” which, however, was never instituted.

About 1757, his brother-in-law, Mr. Thornhill, resigned the place of king’s serjeant-painter in favour of Mr. Hogarth. “The last memorable event in our artist’s life,” as Mr. Walpole observes, " was his quarrel with Mr. Wilkes, in which, if Mr. Hogarth did not commence direct hostilities on the latter, he at least obliquely gave the first offence, by an attack on the friends and party of that gentleman. This conduct was the more surprising, as he had all his life avoided dipping his pencil in political contests, and had early refused a very lucrative offer that was made, to engage him in a set of prints against the head of a courtparty. Without entering into the merits of the cause, I shall only state the fact. In September 1762, Mr. Hogarth published his print of * The Times.‘ It was answered by Mr. Wilkes in a severe ’ North Briton.‘ On this the painter exhibited the caricatura of the writer. Mr. Churchill, the poet, then engaged in the war, and wrote his ’ Epistle ta Hogarth,‘ not the brightest’ of his works, and in which the severest strokes fell on a defect that the painter had neither caused nor could amend his age; and which, however, was neither remarkable nor decrepit; much less had it impaired his talents, as appeared by his having composed but six months before, one of his most capital works, the satire on the Methodists. In revenge for this epistle, Hogarth caricatured Churchill, under the form of a canonical bear, with a club and a pot of porter So vituld tit dignus & hie never did two angry men of their abilities throw mud with less dexterity.

"When Mr. Wilkes was the second time brought from the Tower to Westminster-hall, Mr. Hogarth skulked behind in a corner of the gallery of the court of Common Pleas; and while the chief justice Pratt, with the eloquence and courage of old Koine, was enforcing the great principles of Magna Charta, and the English constitution, while every breast from him caught the holy flame of liberty, the painter was wholly employed in caricaturing the person of the man, while all the rest of his fellow-­citizens were animated in his cause, for they knew it to be their own cause, that of their country, and of its laws. It was declared to be so a few hours after by the unanimous sentence of the judges of that court, and they were all present.

“The print of Mr. Wilkes was soon after published, drawn from the life by William Hogarth. It must be allowed to be an excellent compound caricatura, or a caricatura of what nature had already caricatured. I know but one short apology that can be made for this gentleman, or, to speak more properly, for the person of Mr. Wilkes. It is, that he did not make himself, and that he never was solicitous about the ease of his soul, as Shakspeare calls it, only so far as to keep it clean and in health. I never heard that he once hung over the glassy stream, like another Narcissus, admiring the image in it, nor that he ever stole an amorous look at his counterfeit in a side mirrour. His form, such as it is, ought to give him no pain, because it is capable of giving pleasure to others. I fancy he finds himself tolerably happy in the clay-cottage to which he is tenant for life, because he has learnt to keep it in good order. While the share of health and animal spirits, which, heaven has given him, shall hold out, I can scarcely imagine he will be one moment peevish about the outside of so precarious, so temporary a habitation, or will even be brought to own, ingenium Galba male habitat. Monsieur est mal logé.

“Mr. Churchill was exasperated at this personal attack on his friend. He soon alter published the ‘Epistle to William Hogarth,’ and took for the motto, ut pictura poesis. Mr. Hogarth’s revenge against the poet terminated in vamping up an old print of a pug-dog and a bear, which he published under the title of ‘The Bruiser C. Churchill (once the Revd.!)’ in the character of a Russian Hercules. &c.”

At the time when these hostilities were carrying on in a manner so virulent and disgraceful to all the parties, Hogarth was visibly declining in his health. In 1762, he complained of an inward pain, which, continuing, brought on a general decay that proved incurable. This last year of his life he employed in re-touching his plates, with the assistance of several engravers whom he took with him to Chiswick. Oct. 25, 1764, he was conveyed from thence to Leicester-fields, in a very weak condition, yet remarkably cheerful; and, receiving an agreeable letter from the American Dr. Franklin, drew up a rough draught of an answer to it; but going to bed, he was seized with a vomiting, upon which he rung his bell with such violence that he broke it, and expired about two hours afterwards. His disorder was an aneurism; and his corpse was interred in the church-yard at Chiswick, where a monument is erected to his memory, with an inscription by his friend Mr. Garrick.

It may be truly observed of Hogarth, that all his powers of delighting were restrained to his pencil. Having rarely been admitted into polite circles, none of his sharp corners had been rubbed off, so that he continued to the last a gross uncultivated man. The slightest contradiction transported him into rage. To some confidence in himself he was certainly entitled; for, as a comic painter, he could have claimed no honour that would not most readily have been allowed him; but he was at once unprincipled and variable in his political conduct and attachments. He is also said to have beheld the rising eminence and popularity of sir Joshua Reynolds with a degree of envy; and, if we are not misinformed, frequently spoke with asperity both of him and his performances. Justice, however, obliges us to add, that our artist was liberal, hpspitable, and the most punctual of paymasters; so that, in spite of the emoluments his works had procured to him, he left but an inconsiderable fortune to his widow. His plates indeed were such resources to her as could not speedily be exhausted. Some of his domestics had lived many years in his service, a circumstance that always reflects credit on a master. Of most of these he painted strong likenesses, on a canvas which was left in Mrs. Hogarth’s possession.

The plates which remained in his possession were secured to Mrs. Hogarth by his will, dated Aug. 12, 1764, chargeable with an annuity of 80l. to his sister Anne, who survived him. When, on the death of his other sister, she left off the business in which she was engaged, he kindly took her home, and generously supported her, making her, at the same time, useful in the disposal of his prints. Want of tenderness and liberality to his relations was not among the failings of Hogarth.

In 1745, one Launcelot Burton was appointed naval officer at Deal. Hogarth had seen him by accident; and on a piece of paper, previously impressed by a plain copper-plate, drew his figure with a pen in imitation of a coarse etching. He was represented on a lean Canterbury hack, with a bottle sticking out of his pocket; and underneath was an inscription, intimating that he was going down to take possession of his place. This was inclosed to him in a letter; and some of his friends, who were in the secret, protested the drawing to be a print which they had seen exposed to sale at the shops in London; a circumstance that put him in a violent passion, during which he wrote an abusive letter to Hogarth, whose name was subscribed to the work. But, after poor Burton’s tormentors had kept him in suspense throughout an uneasy three weeks, they proved to him that it was no engraving, but a sketch with a pen and ink. He then became so perfectly reconciled to his resemblance, that he shewed it with exultation to admiral Vernon, and all the rest of his friends. In 1753, Hogarth returning with a friend from a visit to Mr. Rich at Cowley, stopped his chariot, and got out, being struck by a large drawing (with a coal) on the wall of an alehouse. He immediately made a sketch of it with triumph; it was a St. George and the Dragon, all in straight lines.