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

Hogarth made one essay in sculpture. He wanted a sign to distinguish his house in Leicester-fields; and thinking none more proper than the Golden Head, he out of a mass of cork made up of several thicknesses compacted together, carved a bust of Vandyck, which he gilt and placed over his door. It decayed, and was succeeded by a head in plaster, which in its turn was supplied by a head of sir Isaac Newton. Hogarth also modelled another resemblance of Vandyck in clay; which has also perished. His works, as his elegant biographer has well observed, are his history; and the curious are highly indebted to Mr. Walpole for a catalogue of his prints, drawn up from his own valuable collection, in 1771. But as neither that catalogue, nor his appendix to it in 1780, have given the whole of Mr. Hogarth’s labours, Mr. Nichols, including Mr. Walpole’s catalogue, has endeavoured, from later discoveries of our artist’s prints in other collections, to arrange them in chronological order. There are three large pictures by Hogarth, over the altar in the church of St. Mary Redcliff at Bristol. Mr. Forrest, of York-buildings, was in possession of a sketch in oil of our Saviour (designed as a pattern for painted glass); and several drawings, descriptive of the incidents that happened during a five days’ tour by land and water. The parties were Messrs. Hogarth, Thornhill (son of the late sir James), Scott (an ingenious landscape-painter of that name), Tothall, and Forrest. They set out at midnight, at a moment’s warning, from the Bedford-Arms tavern, with each a shirt in his pocket. They had all their particular departments. Hogarth and Scott made the drawings; Thornhill the map; Tothall faithfully discharged the joint offices of treasurer and caterer; and Forrest wrote the journal. They were out five days only; and on the second night after their return, the book was produced, bound, gilt, and lettered, and read at the same tavern to the above parties then present. Mr. Forrest had also drawings of two of the members, remarkably fat men, in ludicrous situations. Etchings from all these have been made, and the journal has been printed. A very entertaining work, by Mr. John Ireland, entitled “Hogarth illustrated,” was published by Messrs. Boydell, in 1792, and has since been reprinted. It contains the small plates originally engraved for a paltry work, called “Hogarth moralized,” and an exact account of all his prints. Since that, have appeared “Graphic illustrations of Hogarth, from pictures, drawings, and scarce prints, in the possession of Samuel Ireland.” Some curious articles were contained in this volume. A supplementary volume to “Hogarth illustrated,” has more recently appeared, containing the original manuscript of the Analysis, with the first sketches of the figures. 2. A Supplement to the Analysis, never published. 3. Original Memoranda. 4. Materials for his own Life, &c. But the most ample Memoirs of Hogarth are contained in Mr. Nichols’s splendid publication of his life and works, 2 vols. 4to, with copies of all his plates accurately reduced.

, better known by his German name Hans Holbein, a most excellent painter, was born, according to some accounts, at Basil in Switzerland in 1498, but Charles Patin places his birth three years earlier, supposing it very improbable that he could have arrived at such maturity of judgment and perfection in painting, as he shewed in 1514 and 1516, if he had been born so late as 1498. He learned the rudiments of his art from his father John Holbein, who was a painter, and had removed from Augsburg to Basil; but the superiority of his genius soon raised him above his master. He painted our Saviour’s Passion in the town house of Basil; and in the fish-market of the same town, a Dance of peasants, and Death’s dance. These pieces were exceedingly striking to the curious; and Erasmus was so affected with them, that he requested of him to draw his picture, and was ever after his friend. Holbein, in the mean time, though a great genius and fine artist, had no elegance or delicacy of manners, but was given to wine and revelling company; for which he met with the following gentle rebuke from Erasmus. When Erasmus wrote his “Moriæ Encomium,” or “Panegyric upon Folly,” he sent a copy of it to Hans Holbein, who was so pleased with the several descriptions of folly there given, that he designed them all in the margin; and where he had not room to draw the whole figures, pasted a piece of paper to the leaves. He then returned the book to Erasmus, who seeing that he had represented an amorous fool by the figure of a fat Dutch lover, hugging his bottle and his lass, wrote under it, “Hans Holbein,” and so sent it back to the painter. Holbein, however, to be revenged of him, drew the picture of Erasmus for a musty book-worm, who busied himself in scraping together old M'Ss. and antiquities, and wrote. under it “Adagia.”

It is said, that an English nobleman, who accidentally saw some of Holbein’s performances at Basil, invited him to come to England, where his art was in high esteem; and promised him great encouragement from Henry VIII.; but Holbein was too much engaged in his pleasures to listen to so advantageous a proposal. A few years after, however, moved by the necessities to which an increased family and his own mismanagement had reduced him, as well as by the persuasions of his friend Erasmus, who told him how improper a country his own was to do justice to his merit, he consented to go to England: and he consented the more readily, as he did not live on the happiest terms with his wife, who is said to have been a termagant. In his journey thither he stayed some days at Strasburg, and applying to a very great master in that city for work, was taken in, and ordered, to give a specimen of his skill. Holbein finished a piece with great care, and painted a fly upon the most conspicuous part of it; after which he withdrew privily in the absence of his master, and pursued his journey. When the painter returned home, he was astonished at the beauty and elegance of the drawing; and especially at the fly, which, upon his first casting his eye upon it, he so far took for a real fly, that he endeavoured to remove it with his hand. He sent all over the city for his journeyman, who was now missing; but after many inquiries, found that he had been thus deceived by the famous Holbein, This story has been somewhat differently told, as if the painting was a portrait for one of his patrons at Basil, but the effect was the same, for before he was discovered, he had made his escape.

After almost begging his way to England, as Patin tells us, he found an easy admittance to the lord-chancellor, sir Thomas More, having brought with him Erasmus’s picture, and letters recommendatory from him to that great man. Sir Thomas received him with all the joy imaginable, and kept him in his house between two and three years; during which time he drew sir Thomas’s picture, and those of many of his friends and relations. One clay Holbein happening to mention the nobleman who had some years ago invited him to England, sir Thomas was very solicitous to know who he was. Holbein replied, that he had indeed forgot his title, but remembered his face so well, that he thought he could draw his likeness; and this he did so very strongly, that the nobleman, it is said, was immediately known by it. This nobleman some think was the earl of Arundel, others the earl of Surrey. The chancellor, having now sufficiently enriched his apartments with Holbein’s productions, adopted the following method to introduce him to Henry VIII. He invited the king to an entertainment, and hung up all Holbein’s pieces, disposed in the best order, and in the best light, in the great hall of his house. The king, upon his first entrance, was so charmed with the sight of them, that he asked, “Whether such an artist were now alive, and to be had for money?” on which sir Thomas presented Holbein to the king, who immediately took him into his service, with a salary of 200 florins, and brought him into great esteem with the nobility of the kingdom. The king from time to time manifested the greac value he had for him, and upon the death of queen Jane, his third wife, sent him into Flanders, to draw the picture of the duchess dowager of Milan, widowto Francis Sforza, whom the emperor Charles V. had recommended to him for a fourth wife; but the king’s defection from the see of Rome happening about that time, he rather chose to match with a protestant princess. Cromwell, then his prime minister (for sir Thomas More had been removed, and beheaded), proposed Anne of Cleves to him; but the king was not inclined to the match, till her picture, which Holbein had also drawn, was presented to him. There, as lord Herbert of Cherbnry says, she was represented so very charming, that the king immediately resolved to marry her; and thus Holbein was unwittingly the cause of the ruin of his patron Cromwell, whom the king never forgave for introducing him to Anne of Cleves.

In England Holbein drew a vast number of admirable portraits; among others, those of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. on the wall of the palace at Whitehall, which perished when it was burnt, though some endeavours were made to remove that part of the wall on which the pictures were drawn. There happened, however, an affair in England, which might have been fatal to Holbein, if the king had not protected him. On the report of his character, a nobleman of the first quality wanted one day -to see him, when he was drawing a figure after the life. Holbein, in answer, begged his lordship to defer the honour of his visit to another day; which the nobleman taking for an affront, came and broke open the door, and very rudely went up stairs. Holbein, hearing a noise, left his chamber; and meeting the lord at his door, fell into a violent passion, and pushed him backwards from the top of the stairs to the bottom. Considering, however, immediately what he had done, he escaped from the tumult he had raised, and made the best of his way to the king. The nobleman, much hurt, though not so much as he pretended, was there soon after him; and upon opening his grievance, the king ordered Holbein to ask pardon for his offence. But this only irritated the nobleman the more, who would not be satisfied with less than his life; upon which the king sternly replied, “JMy lord, you have not now to do with Holbein, but with me; whatever punishment you may contrive by way of revenge against him, shall assuredly be inflicted upon yourself: remember, pray my lord, that I can, whenever I please, make seven lords of seven ploughmen, but I cannot make one Holbein even of seven lords.”

We cannot undertake to give a list of Holbein’s works, but this may be seen in Walpole’s Anecdotes. Soon after the accession of the late king, a noble collection of his drawings was found in a bureau at Kensington, amounting to eighty-nine. These, which are of exquisite merit, have been admirably imitated in engraving, in a work published lately by John Chamberlaine, F. S. A. certainly ooe of the most splendid books, and most interesting collections of portraits ever executed. Holbein painted equally well in oil, water-colours, and distemper, in large and in miniature: but he had never practised the art of painting in miniature, till he resided in England, and learned it from Lucas Cornel ii; though he afterwards carried it to its highest perfection. His paintings of that kind have all the force of oil-colours, and are finished with the utmost delicacy. In general he painted on a green ground, but in his small pictures frequently he painted on a blue. The invention of Holbein was surprisingly fruitful, and often poetical; his execution was remarkably quick, and his application indefatigable. His pencil was exceedingly delU rate; his colouring had a wonderful degree of force; he finished his pictures with exquisite neatness; and his carnations were life itself. His genuine works are always distinguishable by the true, round, lively imitation of flesh, visible in all his portraits, and also by the amazing delicacy of his finishing.

It is observed by most authors, that Holbein always painted with his left hand; though Walpole objects against that tradition, (what he considers as a proof), that in a portrait of Holbein painted by himself, which was in the Arundelian collection, he is represented holding the pencil in the right hand. But that evidence cannot be sufficient to set aside so general a testimony of the most authentic writers on this subject; because, although habit and practice might enable him to handle the pencil familiarly with his left hand, yet, as it is so unusual, it must have had but an unseemly and awkward appearance in a picture; which probably might have been his real inducement for representing himself without such a particularity. Besides, the writer of Holbein’s life, at the end of the treatise by De Piles, mentions a print by Hollar, still extant, which describes Holbein drawing with his left hand. Nor is it so extraordinary or incredible a circumstance; for other artists, mentioned in this volume, are remarked for the very same habit; particularly Mozzo of Antwerp, who worked with the left; and Amico Aspertino, as well as Ludovico Cangiagio, who worked equally well with both hands. This great artist died of the plague at London in 1554; some think at his lodgings in Whitehall, where he had lived from the time that the king became his patron,' but Vertue rather thought at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in. the priory of Christ church near Aldgate, then called Uuke’s-place. Strype says that he was buried in St. Catherine Cree church; but this seems doubtful.

, a Danish historian, lawyer, and poet, was born at Bergen in Norway, in 1685. His family is said by some to have been low, by others noble; but it is agreed that he commenced life in very poor circumstances, and picked up his education in his travels through various parts of Europe, where he subsisted either by charity, or by his personal efforts of various kinds. On his return to Copenhagen, he found means to be appointed assessor of the consistory court, which place affording him a competent subsistence, he was able to indulge his genius, and produced several works, which gave him great celebrity. Among these are some comedies, a volume of which has been translated into French. He wrote also a History of Denmark, in 3 vols. 4to, which has been considered as the best that hitherto has been produced, though in some parts rather minute and uninteresting. Two volumes of “Moral Thoughts,” and a work entitled “The Danish Spectator,” were produced by him: and he is generally considered as the author of the “Iter subterraneum of Klimius,” a satirical romance, something in the style of Gulliver’s Travels. Most of these have been translated also into German, and are much esteemed in that country. His “Introduction to Universal History” was translated into English by Dr. Gregory Sharpe, with notes, 1755, 8vo. By his publications, and his place of assessor, he had osconomy enough to amass a considerable fortune, and even in his life gave 70,000 crowns to the university of Zealand, for the education of young noblesse; thinking it right that as his wealth had been acquired by literature, it should be employed in its support. This munificence obtained him the title of baron. At his death, which happened in 1754, he left also a fund of 16,000 crowns to portion out a certain number of young women, selected from the families of citizens in Copenhagen.

, a lawyer of considerable eminence, and law writer, flourished in the time of Charles I. but of his early history, we have no account. In 1640 he was chosen representative for St. Michael in Cornwall in the Long-parliament, and on one occasion argued for two hours in justification of the canons. In 1641 he was Lent reader of Lincoln’s-inn, but soon after quitted the parliament when he saw the extremities to which they were proceeding. He had formerly given his advice against ship-money, but was not prepared to overthrow the constitution entirely, and therefore went to Oxford, where, in 1643, he sat in the parliament assembled there by Charles I. [[he]] was made the prince’s attorney, one of the privy council, and received the honour of knighthood. In 1644 he was present at the treaty of Uxbridge, and afterwards at that of the Isle of Wight. Returning to London, after these ineffectual attempts to restore peace, he was forced to compound for his estate, and was not permitted to remain in any of the inns of court. He died in 1647, and was interred in the crypt under Lincoln’s-inn chapel. His “Readings on the Statute of Treasons, 25 Edward III. c. 2.” were published in 1642, 4to, and in 1681. He was the author also of “The Freeholder’s Grand Inquest touching our Sovereign Lord the King and his Parliament,” which hears the name of sir Robert Filmer, who reprinted it in 1679, and 1680, 8vo, with observations upon forms of government. He left also some Mss.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer and translator, was born in Orange-court, Leicesterfields, Dec. 22, 1744. His father was in the humble occupation of a shoe-maker, and does not appear to have given his son any education. The first employment mentioned, in which the latter was concerned, was as servant to the hon. Mr. Vernon, of whose race-horses he had the care, and became very expert in the art of horsemanship. He is said also to have worked for many years at his father’s trade. He possessed, however, good natural abilities, and a thirst for knowledge, of which he accumulated a considerable fund, and learned with facility and success the French, German, and Italian languages. When about his twenty-fifth year, he conceived a passion for the stage, and his first performance was in Ireland. He had afterwards an engagement of the same kind in London, but never attained any eminence as an actor, although he always might be seen to understand his part better than those to whom nature was more liberal. He quitted the stage in 1781, after the performance of his first play, “Duplicity,” which was successful enough to encourage his perseverance as a dramatic writer. From this time he contributed upwards of thirty pieces, which were either acted on the London stages, or printed without having been performed. Scarcely any of them, however, have obtained a permanent situation on the boards. He published also the following novels “Alwyn,” 1780; “Anna St. Ives,” 1792; “Hugh Trevor,” 1794; and “Brian Perdue,” 1807. His translations were, “The private Life of Voltaire,” 12mo; “Memoirs of Baron Trenck,” 3 vols. 12mo; Mirabeau f $ “Secret History of the Court of Berlin,” 2 vols. 8vo; madame de Genlis’s “Tales of the Castle,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The posthumous Works of Frederick II. of Prussia,” 13 vols. 8vo; “An abridgment of Lavater’s Physiognomy,” 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Holcroft having imbibed the revolutionary principles of France, had joined some societies in this country, which brought him under suspicion of being concerned with Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall, who were tried for high treason in 1794, but they being acquitted, Mr. Holcroft was discharged without being put upon his trial. His last work was his “Travels,” in Germany and France, 2 vols. 4to, which, like some other of his speculations, was less advantageous to his bookseller than to himself. Iri 1782 he published a poem called “Huntan happiness, or the Sceptic,” which attracted little notice on the score of poetical merit, but contained many of those loose sentiments on religion, which he was accustomed to deliver with more dogmatism than became a man so little acquainted with the subject. In these, however, he persisted almost to the last, when, on his death-bed, he is said to have acknowledged his error. He died March 23, 1809.

, an English Roman catholic divine, was born in Lancashire in 1596, and in 1618 was admitted a student in the English college at Doway, where he took the name of Johnson. Here he improved himself in the classics, and studied philosophy and divinity, and going to Paris in 1623, took the degree of D. D. in that university, to which he continued attached during the remainder of his life, having no other preferment but that of penitentiary or confessor in the parish church of St. Nicholas du Chardonet. He died about 1665, esteemed one of the ablest controversial divines of his time, and in this respect has been highly praised by Dupin. Some suspected him of Jansenism, but his biographers wish to repell this charge, as they think it. Among his works are three, which chiefly contributed to his fame, 1. “Analysis Fidei,” Paris, 1652, 8vo, translated into English by W. G. 4to, 1658. Of this Dupin has given a long analysis. It was reprinted by Barbou in 1766, and contains a brief summary of the whole ceconomy of faith, its principles and motives, with their application to controversial questions. It is considered as argumentative and sound. 2. “Marginal Notes on the New Testament,” Paris, 1660, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “A Letter concerning Mr. White’s Treatise De Medio Animarum statu,” Paris, 1661, 4to.

, a learned English philosopher, was born in Nottinghamshire, educated in Pembroke hall, Cambridge, and, in 1642, became rector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire. In 1660 he proceeded D. D. was afterwards canon of Ely, fellow of the royal society, canon of St. Paul’s, sub-dean of the royal chapel, and sub-almoner to his majesty. He gained particular celebrky by teaching a young gentleman of distinction, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak, an attempt at that time unprecedented. This gentleman’s name was Alexander Popham, son of colonel Edward Popham, uho was some time an admiral in the service of the long parliament. The cure was performed by him in his house at Blechingdon, in 1659; but Popham, losing what he had been taught by Holder, after he was called home to his friends, was sent to Dr. Wallis, who brought him to his speech again. On this subject Holder published a book entitled “The Elements of Speech; an essay of inquiry into the natural production of letters: with an appendix concerning persons that are deaf and dumb,” 1669, 8vo. In the appendix he relates how soon, and by what methods, he brought Popham to speak. In this essay he has analysed, dissected, and classed the letters of our alphabet so minutely and clearly, that it is well worthy the attentive perusal of every lover of philology, but particularly, says Dr. Burney, of lyric poets and composers of vocal music; to whom it will point out such harsh and untunable combinations of letters and syllables as from their difficult utterance impede and corrupt the voice in its passage. In 1678 he published, in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wailis’s Letter there inserted.” This was written to claim the glory of having taught Popham to speak, which Wallis in the letter there mentioned had claimed to himself: upon which the doctor soon after published, “A Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the cavils of Dr. William Holder,” 1678,“4to. Holder was skilled in the theory and practice of music, and composed some anthems, three or four of which are preserved in Dr. Tud way’s collection in the British museum. In 1694 he published” A Discourse concerning Time,“in which, among other things, the deficiency of the Julian Calendar was explained, and the method of reforming it demonstrated, which was afterwards adopted in the change of style. It is to be lamented that in treating this subject with so much clearness and ability, so good a musician did not extend his reflections on the artificial parts of time, to its divisions and proportions in musical measures; a subject upon which the abbate Sacchi has written in Italian,” Del Tempo nella Musica;" but which rhythmically, or metrically considered in common with poetry, has not yet been sufficiently discussed in our own language.

The same year was published by Dr. Holder, “A Treatise on the natural grounds of Harmony,” in which the propagation of sound, the ratio of vibrations, their coincidence in forming consonance, sympathetic resonance, or sons harmoniyites, the difference between arithmetical, geometrical, and harmonic proportions, and the author’s opinion concerning the music of the ancients, to whom he denies the use of harmony, or music in parts, are all so ably treated, and clearly explained, that this book may be read with profit and pleasure by most practical musicians, though unacquainted with geometry, mathematics, and harmonics, or the philosophy of sound. This book is said, in the introduction, to have been drawn up chiefly for the sake and service of the gentlemen of the chapel royal, of which he was sub-dean, and in which, as well as other cathedrals to which his power extended, he is said to have been a severe disciplinarian; for, being so excellent a judge and composer himself, it is natural to suppose that he would be the less likely to tolerate neglect and ignorance in the performance of the choral service. Michael Wise, who perhaps had fallen under his lash, used to call him Mr. Snub-dean. Dr. Holder died at Amen Corner, London, Jan. 24, 1696-7, and was buried in St. Paul’s, with his wife, who was only sister to sir Christopher Wren. Dr. Holder had a considerable share in the early education of that afterwards eminent architect.

, a very polite and elegant Scholar, son of the rev. Thomas Holdsworth, rector of North Stoneham, in the county of Southampton, was born Aug. 6, 1688, and trained at Winchester-school. He was thence elected demy of Magdalen college, Oxford, in July 1705; took the degree of M. A. in April 1711; became a college tutor, and had many pupils. In 1715, when he was to be chosen into a fellowship, he resigned his demyship, and left the college, because unwilling to swear allegiance to the new government. The remainder of his life was spent in travelling with young noblemen and gentlemen as a tutor: in 1741 and 1744 he was at Rome in this capacity, with Mr. Pitt and with Mr. Drake and Mr. Townson. He died of a fever at lord Digby’s house at Coleshill in Warwickshire, Dec. 30, 1746. He was the author of the “Muscipula,” a poem, esteemed a masterpiece in its kind, written with the purity of Virgil and the pleasantry of Lucian, and of which there is a good English translation by Dr. John Hoadly, in vol. V. of “Dodsley’s Miscellanies,” and another among Dr. Cobden’s poems. He was the author also of a dissertation entitled “Pharsalia and Philippi; or the two Philippi in Virgil’s Georgics attempted to be explained and reconciled to history, 1741,” 4to; and of “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil; with some other classical observations, published with several notes and additional remarks by Mr. Spence, 1768,” 4to. Mr. Spenoe speaks of him in his Polymetis, as one who understood Virgil in a more masterly manner than any person he ever knew. The late Charles Jennens, esq. erected a monument to his memory at Gopsal in Leicestershire.

, sometimes written Oldsworth, and Oldisworth, a learned and loyal English divine, the youngest son of Richard Holdsworth, a celebrated preacher at Newcastlerupon-Tyne, was born in 1590, and after the death of his father was committed to the care of the rev. William Pearson, a clergyman of the same place, who had married his sister. He was first educated at Newcastle, and in July 1607 admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge. Jn 1610 he took his bachelor’s degree, in 1613 was chosen fellow of his college, in 1614 was made master of arts, and incorporated at Oxford in the same degree in 1617, and in. 1620 was chosen one of the twelve university preachers at Cambridge. While at college he was tutor, among others, to the famous sir Symond D'Ewes. After this he was for some time chaplain to sir Henry Hobart, lord chief justice of the common pleas, and then, had a living given him in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which he exchanged for the rectory of St. Peter the Poor, Broad-street, London. He settled there a little before the great sickness in 1625, during which he continued to do the duties of his office, became a very popular preacher, and was much followed by the puritans. In 1629 he was chosen professor of divinity at Gresham college, and in his lectures, afterwards published, he discovered an unusual extent and variety of learning. They were frequented by a great concourse of divines and young scholars. About 1631 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1633 archdeacon of Huntingdon. In the same year he stood candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but neither he nor his competitor, Dr. Lane, being acceptable at court, the king, by mandate, ordered Dr. Beale to be chosen. In 1637, however, Mr. Holdsworth was elected master of Emanuel college, and created doctor of divinity. In the same year he kept the act at Cambridge, and in 1639 was elected president of Sion college by the London clergy. In 1641 he resigned his professorship at Gresham college, and the rebellion having now begun, he was marked out as one of the sacrifices to popular prejudice, although he had before suffered somewhat from the court. While vice-chancellor Dr. Holdsworth had supplied the king with money contributed by the university, a crime not easily to be forgiven. When, however, the assembly of divines was called, Dr. Holdsworth was nominated one of the number, but never sat among them. Soon after in obedience to the king’s mandate, he caused such of his majesty’s declarations to be printed at Cambridge as were formerly published at York, for which, and, as Dr. Fuller says, a sermon preached then by him, he was forced to leave the university before the expiration of his office as vice-chancellor. After some concealment he was apprehended near London, and imprisoned, first in Ely house, and then in the Tower. Such was the regard, however, in which he was held at Cambridge, that while under confinement he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, which he held until his death, although he could Meither attend the duties of it nor receive the profits; but his rectory of St. Peter the Poor, and the mastership of Emanuel, were both taken from him. It seems uncertain when he was released. We find him attending the king at Hampton Court in 1647; and in January following, when the parliament voted that no more addresses should be made to the king, he preached a bold sermon against that resolution, for which he was again imprisoned, but being released, assisted, on the king’s part, at the treaty in the Isle of Wight. The catastrophe that soon after befell his royal master is thought to have shortened his life, which terminated Aug. 29, 1649. He lived unmarried, and left his property to charitable uses, except his books, part of, which went to Emanuel college, and part to the public library at Cambridge. He was buried in the chnrch of St. Peter the Poor, where is a monument to his memory. He was of a comely appearance and venerable aspect; warm in his temper, but soon pacified; a great advocate for the king, and zealous in the cause of episcopacy. He was devout, charitable, and an excellent scholar. In his “Preelectiones” he shows not only an intimate acquaintance with the fathers and schoolmen, but likewise most of the eminent divines of later ages, popish as well as protestant, and his style is good. His works are, 1. “A Sermon preached in St. Mary’s, Cambridge, on his majesty’s inauguration,” 1642, 4to, the only thing he ever published. 2. “The Valley of Vision; or a clear sight of sundry sacred truths; delivered in twenty-one sermons,” Lond. 1651, 4to. These were taken in short hand, and Dr. Pearson says they are very defective. 3. “Praelectiones theologicae,” Lond. 1661, fol. published by his nephew, Dr. William Pearson, with a life of the author.

, an English historian, and famous for the Chronicles that go under his name, was descended from a family which lived at Bosely, in Cheshire: but neither the place nor time of his birth, nor scarcely any other circumstances of his life, are known. Some say he had an university education, and was a clergyman; while others, denying this, affirm that he was steward to Thomas Burdett, of Bromcote in the county of Warwick, esq. Be this as it will, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and to have had a particular turn for history. His “Chronicles” were first published in 1577, in 2 vols. folio; and then in 1587, in three, the two first of which are commonly bound together. In this second edition several sheets were castrated in the second and third volumes, because there were passages in them disagreeable to queen Elizabeth and her ministry: but the castrations were reprinted apart in 1723. Holinshed was not the sole author or compiler of this work, but was assisted in it by several other writers. The first volume opens with “An historical Description of the Island of Britaine, in three books,” by William Harrison; and then, “The Hislorie of England, from the time that it was first inhabited, until the time that it was last conquered,” by R. Holinshed. The second volume contains, “The description, conquest, inhabitation, and troublesome estate of Ireland; particularly the description of that kingdom:” by Richard Stanihurst. “The Conquest of Ireland, translated from the Latin of Giraldus Cambrensis,” by John Hooker, alias Vowell, of Exeter, gent. “The Chronicles of Ireland, beginning where Giraldus did end, continued untill the year 1509, from Philip Flatsburie, Henrie of Marleborow, Edmund Campian,” &c. by R. Holinshed; and from thence to 1586, by R. Stanihurst and J. Hooker. “The Description of Scotland, translated from the Latin of Hector Boethius,” by R. H. or W. H. “The Historie of Scotland, conteining the beginning, increase, proceedings, continuance, acts and government of the Scottish nation, from the original thereof unto the yeere 1571,” gathered by Raphael Holinshed, and continued from 1571 to 1586, by Francis Boteville, alias Thin, and others. The third volume begins at “Duke William the Norman, commonly called the Conqueror; and descends by degrees of yeeres to all the kings and queenes of England.” First compiled by R. Holinshed, and by him extended to 1577; augmented and continued to 1586, by John Stow, Fr. Thin, Abraham Fleming, and others. The time of this historian’s death is unknown; but it appears from his will, which Hearne prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Annals,” that it happened between 1578 and 1582.

As for his coadjutors; Harrison, as we have already noticed in his article, was bred at Westminster school, sent from thence to Oxford, became chaplain to sir William Brooke, who preferred him, and died in 1593. Hooker, who was uncle to the famous Richard Hooker, will be noticed hereafter. We know nothing of Botevile; only that Hearne styles him “a man of great learning and judgment, and a wonderful lover of antiquities.” In the late reprint of the series of English Chronicles by the booksellers of London, Holinshed very properly took the precedence, and was accurately edited in 6 vols. 4to.

, a noted translator, was descended from an ancient family of the Hollands of Lancashire, and was the son of John Holland, a pious divine, who, in queen Mary’s reign, was obliged to go abroad for the sake of religion; but afterwards returned, and became pastor of Dunmowin Essex, where he died in 1578. Philemon was born at Chelmsford in Essex, about the latter end of the reign of Edward VI. and after being instructed at the grammar-school of that place, was sent to Trinitycollege, Cambridge, where he was pupil to Dr. Hampton, and afterwards to Dr. Whitgift. He was admitted fellow of his college, but left the university after having taken the degree of M. A. in which degree he was incorporated at Oxford in 1587. He was appointed head master, of the free-school of Coventry, and in this laborious station he not only attended assiduously to the duties of his office, but served the interests of learning, by undertaking those numerous translations, which gained him the title of “Translator general of the age.” He likewise studied medicine, and practised with considerable reputation in his neighbourhood; and at length, when at the age of forty, became a doctor of physic in the university of Cambridge. He was a peaceable, quiet, and good man in all the relations of private life, and by his habits of temperance and regularity attained his 85th year, not only with the full possession of his intellects, but his sight was so good, that he never had occasion to wear spectacles. He continued to translate till his 80th year; and his translations, though devoid of elegance, are accounted faithful and accurate. Among these are, translations into English of “Livy,” written, it is said, with one pen, which a lady of his acquaintance so highly prized that she had it embellished with silver, and kept as a great curiosity. “Pliny’s Natural History,” “Plutarch’s Morals,” Suetonius,“”Ammianus Marcellinus,“” Xenophon’s Cyropaedia,“and” Camdeu’s Britannia,“to the last of which he made several useful additions: and into Latin he translated the geographical part of” Speed’s Theatre of Great Britain,“and a French” Pharmacopoeia of Brice Bauderon." A quibbling epigram upon his translation of Suetonius has often been retailed in jest books:

He died Feb. 9, 1636, and was buried in the church of Coventry. He married a Staffordshire lady, by whom he had seven sons and three daughters, all of whom he survived except one son and his daughters. One of his sons, Henry, appears to have been a bookseller in London, and was editor of the “Heroologia Anglicana,” a valuable collection of English portraits, with short lives, but the latter are not very correct, or satisfactory. These portraits were chiefly engraved by the family of Pass, and many of them are valued as originals, having never been engraved since but as copies from these. They are sixty-five in number. He also published “Monumenta Sepulchralia Ecclesiae S. Pauli, Lond.” 4to, and, “A Book of Kings, being a true and lively effigies of all our English kings from the Conquest,” 1618. When he died is not mentioned.

, a most admired engraver, was born at Prague in Bohemia, in 1607. He was at first instructed in schoollearning, and afterwards put to the profession of the law; but not relishing that pursuit, and his family being ruined when Prague was taken and plundered in 1619, so that they could not provide for him as had been proposed, he removed from thence in 1627. During his abode in several towns in Germany, he applied hiinselFto drawing and designing, to copying the pictures of several great artists, taking geometrical and perspective views and draughts of cities, towns, and countries, by land and water; in which at length he grew so excellent, especially for his landscapes in miniature, as not to be outdone in beauty and delicacy by any artist of his time. He had some instructions from Matthew Merian, an eminent engraver, and who is thought to have taught him that method of preparing and working on his plates which he constantly used. He was but eighteen when the first specimens of his art appeared; and the connoisseurs in his works have observed, that he inscribed the earliest of them with only a cypher of four letters, which, as they explain it, was intended for the initials of. “Wenceslaus Hollar Pragensis xcudit.” He employed himseif chieth in copying heads and portraits, sometimes from Rembrandt, Henzelman, Fselix Biler, and other eminent artists; but h ^ uule delicate views of Strasburgh, Cologne, Mentz, Bon>, Francfort, and other towns along the Riiine, Danube, Necker, &c. got him his greatest reputation; and when Howard earl of Arundel, was sent ambassador to the emperor Ferdinand II. in 1636, he was so iiighly pleased with his performances, that he admitted him into his retinue. Hollar attended his lordship froai Cologne to the emperor’s court, and in this progress made several draughts and prints of the places through which they travelled. He took that view of Wurtzburgh under whicn is written, “Hoilar delineavit, in legatione Arundeliana ad Imperatorem.” He then made also a curious large drawing, with the pen and pencil, of the city of Prague, which gave great satisfaction to his patron, then upon the spot.

After lord Arundel had finished his negotiations in Germany, he returned to England, and brought Hollar with him: where, however, he was not so entirely confined to his lordship’s service, but tnat he had the liberty to accept of employment from others. Accordingly, we soon find him to have been engaged by the printsellers; and Peter Stent, one of the most eminent among them, prevailed lipon him to make an ample view or prospect of and from the town of Greenwich, which he finished in two plates, 1637; the earliest dates of his works in this kingdom. In 1638, appeared his elegant prospect about Richmond; at which time he finished also several curious plates from the fine paintings in the Arundelian collection. In the midst of this employment, arrived Mary de Medicis, the queenmother of France, to visit her daughter Henrietta Maria queen of England; and with her an historian, who recorded the particulars of her journey and entry into this kingdom. His work, written in French, was printed at London in

1639, and adorned with several portraits of the royal family, etched for the purpose by the hand of Hollar. The same year was published the portrait of his patron the earl of Arundel on horseback; and afterwards he etched another of him in armour, and several views of his countryseat at Aldbrough in Surrey. In 1640, he seems to have been introduced into the service of the royal family,“togive the prince of Wales some taste in the art of designing; and it is intimated, that either before the -eruption of the civil wars, or at least before he was driven by them abroad, he was in the service of the duke of York. This year appeared his beautiful set of figures in twenty-eight plates, entitled,” Ornatus Muliebris Anglicanus," and containing the several habits of English women of all ranks or degrees: they are represented at full length, and have rendered him famous among the lovers of engraving. In 1641, were published his prints of king Charles and his queen: but now the civil wars being broke out, and his patron the earl of Arundel leaving the kingdom to attend upon the queen and the princess Mary, Hollar was left to support himself. He applied himself closely to his bu<iness, and published other parts of his works, after Holbein, Vandyck, &c. especially the portraits of several persons of quality of both sexes, ministers of state, commanders of the army, learned and eminent authors; and especially another set or two of female habits in divers nations in Europe. Whether he grew obnoxious as an adherent to the earl of Arundel, or as a malignant for drawing so many portraits of the royal party, is not expressly said: but now it seems he was molested, and driven to take shelter under the protection of one or more of them, till they were defeated, and he taken prisoner of xvar with them, upon the surrender of their garrison at Basing-house in Hampshire. This happened on Oct. 14, 1645; but Hollar, either making his escape, or otherwise obtaining his liberty, went over to the continent after the earl of Arundel, who resided at Antwerp, with his family, and had transported thither his most valuable collection of pictures.

He remained at Antwerp several years, copying from his patron’s collection, and working for printsellers, booksellers, and, publishers; but seems to have cultivated no interest among men of fortune and curiosity in the art, to dispose of them by subscription, or otherwise most to his advantage. In 1647, and 1648, he etched eight or ten of the painters’ heads with his own, with various other curious pieces, as the picture of Charles I. soon after his death, and of several of the royalists; and in the three following years, many portraits and landscapes after BreughUl, Ei sheimer, and Teniers, with the Triumphs of Death. He etched also Charles II. standing, with emblems; and also published a print of James duke of York, aetat. 18, aun. It>51, from a picture drawn of him when he was in Flanders, by Teniers. He was more punctual in his dates than roost other engravers, which have afforded very agreeable lights and directions, both as to his own personal history and performances, and to those of many others. At last, either not meeting with encouragement enough to keep him longer abroad, or invited by several magnificent and costly works proposed or preparing in England, in which his ornamental hand might be employed more to his advantage, he returned hither in 1652. Here he afterwards executed some of the most considerable of his publications: but though he was an artist superior to almost most others in genius as well as assiduity, yet he had the peculiar fate to work here, as he had done abroad, still in a state of subordination, and more to the profit of other people than himself. Notwithstanding his penurious pay, he is said to have contracted a voluntary affection to his extraordinary labour; so far, that he spent almost two-thirds of his time at it, and would not suffer himself to be drawn or disengaged from it, till his hour-glass had run to the last moment proposed. Thus he went on in full business, till the restoration of Charles II. brought home many of his friends, and him into fresh views of employment. It was but two years after that memorable epocha, that Evelyn published his “Sculptura, or the History and Art of Chalcography and engraving in copper:” in which he gave the following very honourable account of Hollar: “Winceslaus Hollar,” says he, “a gentleman of Bohemia, comes in the next place: not that he is not before most of the rest for his choice and great industry, for we rank them very promiscuously both as to time and pre-eminence, but to bring up the rear of the Germans with a deserving person, whose indefatigable works in aqua fortis do infinitely recommend themselves by the excellent choice which he fyath made of the rare things furnished out of the Arundelian collection, and from most of the best hands and designs: for such were those of L. da Vinci, Fr. Parmensis, Titian, Julio Komano, A. Mantegna, Corregio, Perino del Vaga, Raphael Urbin, Seb. del Piombo, Palma, Albert Durer, Hans Holbein, Vandyck, Rubens, Breughel, Bassan, Elheimer, Brower, Artois, and divers other masters of prime note, whose drawings and paintings he hath faithfully copied; besides several books of landscapes, towns, solemnities, histories, heads, beasts, fowls, insects, vessels, and other signal pieces, not omitting what he hath etched after I>e Cleyn, Mr. Streter, and Dankerty, for sir Robert Stapleton’s * Juvenal,‘ Mr. Ross’s * Silius Italicus,’ ‘ Polyglotta Biblia,’ * The Monasticon,‘ first and second part, Mr. Dugdale’s ’ St. Paul’s,‘ and ’ Survey of Warwickshire,' with other innumerable frontispieces, and things by him published, and done after the life; and to be on that account more valued and esteemed, than where there has been more curiosity about chimeras, and things which are not in nature: so that of Mr. Hollar’s works we may justly pronounce, there is not a more useful and instructive collection to be made.”

Some of the first things Hollar performed after the Restoration, were, “A Map of Jerusalem;” “The Jewish Sacrifice in Solomon’s Temple;” “Maps of England, Middlesex, &c.” “View of St. George’s Hospital at Windsor;” “The Gate of John of Jerusalem near London;” and many animals, fruits, flowers, and insects, after Barlow and others: many heads of nobles, bishops, judges, and great men; several prospects about London, and London itself, as well before the great fire, as after its ruin and rebuilding: though the calamities of the fire and plague in 1655 are thought to have reduced him to such difficulties, as he could never entirely vanquish. He was afterwards sent to Tangier in Africa, in quality of his majesty’s designer, to take the various prospects there of the garrison, town, fortifications, and the circumjacent views of the country: and many of his drawings on the spot, dated 1669, preserved in the library of the late sir Hans Sloane, were within three or four years after made public, upon some of which Hollar styles himself “Stenographus Regis.” After his return to England, he was variously employed, in finishing his views of Tangier for publication, and taking several draughts at and about Windsor in 1671, with many representations in honour of the knights of the garter. About 1672, he travelled northward, and drew views of Lincoln, Southwell, Newark, and York Minster; and afterwards was engaged in etching of towns, castles, churches, and their fenestral figures, arms, &c. besides tombs, monumental effigies with their inscriptions, &c. in such numbers as it would almost be endless to enumerate. Few artists have been able to imitate his works; for which reason many lovers of the art, and all the curious both at home and abroad, have, from his time to ours, been zealous to collect them. But how liberal soever the) 7 might be in the purchase of his performances, the performer himseU, it seems, was so incompetently rewarded for them, that he could not, in his old age, keep himself free from the incumbrances of debt; though he, was variously and closely employed to a short time before his death. But as many of his plates are dated that year, in the very beginning of which he died, it is probable they were somewhat antedated by him, that the sculptures might appear of the same date with the book in which they were printed: thus, in “Thoroton’s Antiquities of Nottinghamshire,” some of them appear unfinished; and the 50 1st page, which is entirely blank, was probably Jeft so for a plate to be supplied. When he was upon the verge of his seventieth year, he had the misfortune to have an execution at his house in Gardiner’s-lane, Westminster: he desired only the liberty of dying in his bed, and that he might not be removed to any other prison but his grave. Whether this was granted him or not, is uncertain, but he died March 28, 1677, and, as appears from the parishregister of St. Margaret’s, was buried in the New Chapel Yard, near the place of his death. Noble and valuable as the monuments were which Hollar had raised for others, none was erected for him: nor has any person proposed an epitaph worthy of the fame and merits of the artist.

Mr. Grose, from the information of Oldys, has favoured the public with some anecdotes of the conscientiousness of this eminent artist which are not noticed by Vertue. He used to work for the booksellers at the rate of four-pence an hour; and always had an hour-glass before him. He was so very scrupulously exact, that, when obliged to attend the calls of nature, or whilst talking, though with persons for whom he was working, and about their own business, he constantly laid down the glass, to prevent the sand from running. It is to be lamented that such a man should have known distress. His works amount, according to Yertue’s catalogue, to nearly 2400 prints. They are generally etchings performed almost entirely with the point, yet possess great spirit, with astonishing freedom and lightness, especially when we consider how highly be has finished some of them. In drawing the human figure he was most defective; his outlines are stiff and incorrect, and the extremities marked without the least degree of knowledge. In some few instances, he had attempted to execute his plates with the graver only: but in that has failed very much.

, esq. of Corscombe in Dorsetshire; a gentleman whose “Memoirs.” have been printed in two splendid volumes, 4to, 1780, with a considerable number of plates by Bartolozzi, Basire, and other engravers of eminence, and an admirable profile of himself in the frontispiece, was born in London, April 14, 1720; and sent to school, first at Newport in Shropshire, and afterwards at St. Alban’s. At 14, he was sent to Amsterdam, to learn the Dutch and French languages, writing, and accompts; stayed there about fifteen months, and then returned to his father, with whom he continued till his death in 1735. To give him a liberal education, suitable to the ample fortune he was to inherit, his guardian put him under the tuition of professor Ward, whose picture Mr. Hollis presented to the British Museum; and, in honour of his father and guardian, he caused to be inscribed round a valuable diamond ring, Mnemosynon patris tutorisque. He professed himself a dissenter; and from Dr. Foster and others of that persuasion, imbibed that ardent love of liberty, and freedom of sentiment, which strongly marked his character. In Feb. 1739-40, he took chambers in Lincoln’s-Inn, and was admitted a law-student; but does not appear ever to have applied to the law, as a profession. He resided there till July 1748, when he set out on his travels for the first time; and passed through Holland, Austrian and French Flanders, part of France, Switzerland, Savoy, and part of Italy, returning through Provence, Britanny, &c. to Paris. His fellow-traveller was Thomas Brand, esq. of the Hyde in Essex, who was his particular friend, and afterwards his heir. His second tour commenced in July 16, 1750; and extended through Holland to Embden, Bremen, Hamburg, the principal cities on the north and east side of Germany, the rest of Italy, Sicily, and Malta, Lorrain, &c. The journals of both his tours are said to be preserved in manuscript.

On his return home, he attempted to get into parliarnent; but, not being able to effect this without some small appearance of bribery, he turned his thoughts entirely to other objects. He began a collection of books and medals; “for the purpose,” it is said, “of illustrating and upholding liberty, preserving the memory of its champions, rendering tyranny and its abettors odious, extending art and science, and keeping alive the honour due to their patrons and protectors.” Among his benefactions to foreign libraries, none is more remarkable than that of two large collections of valuable books to the public library of Berne; which were presented anonymously as by “an Englishman, a lover of liberty, his country, and its excellent constitution, as restored at the happy Revolution.” Switzerland, Geneva, Venice, Leyden, Sweden, Russia, &c. shared his favours. His benefactions to Harvard-college commenced in 1758, and were continued to the amount of 1400l. His liberality to individuals, as well as to public societies, are amply detailed in the “Memoirs” abovementioned. In Aug. 1770, he carried into execution a plan, which he had formed five years before, of retiring into Dorsetshire; and there, in a field near his residence at Corscombe, dropped down and died of an apoplexy, on New-year’s-day, 1774. The character of this singular person was given, some time before, in one of the public prints, in the following, somewhat extravagant terms. “Thomas Hollis is a man possessed of a large fortune: above half of which he devotes to charities, to the encouragement of genius, and to the support and defence of liberty. His studious hours are devoted to the search of noble authors, hidden by the rust of time; and to do their virtues justice, by brightening their actions for the review of the public. Wherever he meets the man of letters, he is sure to assist him: and, were I to describe in paint this illustrious citizen of the world, I would depict him leading by the hands Genius and distressed Virtue to the temple of Resvard.”

If Mr. Hollis had any relations, his private affections were not as eminent as his public spirit, for he left the whole of his fortune to his friend T. Brand, esq. who, on that account, took the name of Hollis, and was as violent a 2ealot for liberty as his patron, although less pure in his practice. In 1764, Mr. HolSis sent to Sidney-college, Cambridge, where Cromwell was educated, an original portrait of him by Cooper; and, a fire happening at his lodgings in Bed ford -street, in 1761, he calmly walked out, taking an original picture of Milton only in his hand. A new edition of “Toland’s Life of Milton” was published under his direction, in 1761; and, in 1763, he gave a'n accurate edition of “Algernon Sydney’s Discourses on Government,” on which the pains and expence he bestowed are almost incredible. He meditated also an edition of Andrew Marvell; but did not complete it. In order to preserve the memory of those patriotic heroes whom he most admired, he called many of the farms and fields in his estate at Corscombe by their names; and, in the middle of one of these fields, not far from his house, he ordered his corpse to be deposited in a grave ten feet deep, and the field to be immediately ploughed over, that no trace of his burial place might remain. His religious principles have been suspected, as he joined no denomination of Christians. Another of his singularities was, to observe his nominal birth-day always, without any regard to the change of style. He never took it amiss that he was charged with singularities; he owned that he affected them: “the idea of singularity,” says he, “by way of shield, I try by all means to hold out,” and in this way got rid of those who would otherwise break in upon his time, customs, and way of living. Mr. Brand Hollis, his heir, died in Sept. 1804, and bequeathed his estates in, Dorsetshire and Essex to his friend Dr. Disney. This Brand Hollis did not exactly inherit the independent principles of his benefactor; for whereas Mr. Hollis would not accept of a seat in parliament, for fear of being led into corrupt practices, Mr. Brand had no scruple to apply his fortune to acquire a seat for Hindon, and was convicted of the most scandalous bribery, and imprisoned in the King’s Bench. It is not unuseful t know of what stuff clamorous patriots are made.

, an English antiquary, born in 1662, at Skipton, in Craven, Yorkshire, became about 1695 clerk to William Petyt, esq. keeper of the records at the Tower; and continued near sixty years deputy to Mr. Petyt, Mr. Topham, and Mr. Polhill. On the death of Mr. Petyt, which happened Oct. 9, 1707, Mr. Holmes was, on account of his singular abilities and industry, appointed by lord Halifax (then president of a committee of the House of lords) to methodize and digest the records deposited in the Tower, at a yearly salary of 200l. which was continued to his death, Feb. 16, 1748-9, in the 87th year of his age. He was also barrack-master of the Tower. He married a daughter of Mr. Marshall, an eminent sword-cutler in Fleet-street, by whom he had an only son George, who was bred at Eton, and was clerk under his father, but died, aged 25, many years before him. Holmes re-published the first 17 volumes of Rymer’s “Fœdera,” in 1727. His curious collections of books, prints, and coins, &c. were sold by auction in 1749. His portrait was engraved by the society of antiquaries, with this inscription: "Vera effigies Georgii Holmes generosi, R. S. S. & tabularii publici in Turre Londinensi Vicecustodis; quo munere annos circiter LX summa fide & diligentia perfunctus, XIV kalend. Mart. A. D. MDCCXLVIII, ætatis suæ LXXXVII, fato demum concessit. In fratris sui erga se meritorum testimonium hanc tabulam Societas Antiquariorum Londini, eujus commoda semper promovit, sumptu suo æri incidendum curavit, MDCCXLIX. R. Van Bteek, p. 1743. G. Vertue del. & sculp.“—In Strype’s London, 1754, vol. I. p 746, is a fac-simile of an antique inscription over the little door ftext to the cloister in the Temple church. It was in old Saxon capital letters, engraved within an half-circle; denoting the year when the church was dedicated, and by whom, namely, Heraclius the patriarch of the church of the Holy Resurrection in Jerusalem; and to whom, namely, the Blessed Virgin; and the indulgence of forty days pardon to such who, according to the penance enjoined them, resorted thither yearly. This inscription, which was scarcely legible, and in 1695 was entirely broken by the workmen, having been exactly transcribed by Mr. Holmes, was by him communicated to Strype. Mrs. Holmes out-lived her husband, and received of government 200l. for his Mss. about the records, which were deposited and remain in his office to this day. Few men, in a similar office, were ever more able or willing to assist the researches of those who applied to him, than Mr. Holmes; and he received many handsome acknowledgements of his politeness and abilities, in that respect, from Browne Willis, Dr. Tovey, principal of New-Inn-hall, Oxford, Dr. Richardson, editor of” Godwin de Presulibus," and others.

, D. D. a learned English divine, rector of Stanton in Oxfordshire, canon of Salisbury and Christ church, and dean of Winchester, was born in 1749, and educated at Winchester school. He was afterwards chosen to New-college, Oxford, where he took his degrees of M. A. 1774, of B. D. in 1787, and of D. D. in 1789. In 1790, on the death of Mr. Warton, he was appointed professor of poetry. His last ecclesiastical promotion was to the deanery of Winchester in 1804, which he did not long enjoy, dying at his house in St. Giles’s, Oxford, Nov. 12, 1805.

His first publication was a sermon preached before the university of Oxford, entitled “The Resurrection of the body deduced from the Resurrection of Christ,” 1777, 4to, a very ingenious discourse, in which the subject is illustrated in a manner somewhat new. In the same year he published “Alfred, an Ode, with six Sonnets,” 4to, in which Gray’s style is attempted with considerable success. In 1782 he was chosen the third Bampton lecturer, and in 1783 published his eight lectures “on the prophecies and testimony of John the Baptist, and the parallel prophecies of Jesus Christ,” in which he displayed great abilities and judgment. These were followed, in 1788, by a very able defence of some of the essential doctrines of the church, respecting the nature and person, death and sufferings of Christ, in “Four Tracts; on the principle of religion, as a test of divine authority; on the principle of redemption; on the angelical message to the Virgin Mary, and on the resurrection of the body; with a discourse on humility,” 8vo, the whole illustrated by notes and authorities. He published also one or two other single sermons, and an ode for the enccenia at the installation of the duke of Portland in 1793; but what confers the highest honour on his abilities, critical talents, and industry, was his collation of the Mss. of the Septuagint version, which he appears to have begun about 1786. Induced to think that the means of determining the genuine tenor of the Scriptural text would be much enlarged if the Mss. of the Septuagint version were carefully collated, as those of the Hebrew had been, and the collations published in one view, he laid down his plan, the essential parts of which were: that all Mss. known or discoverable at home or abroad, if prior to the invention of printing, should be carefully collated with one printed text; and all particularities in which they differed from it distinctly noted; that printed editions and versions made from all or parts of that by the seventy, and citations from it by ecclesiastical writers (with a distinction of those who wrote before the time of Aquila or after it), should also be collated with the same printed text, and all their variations from it respectively ascertained; and that these materials, when collected, should all be reduced to one plain view, and printed under the text with which the several collations have been made, as by Dr. Kennicott or without the text, as by De Rossi. Upon these general principles, Dr. Holmes embarked on his enterprize, having in the first instance been patronized by the delegates of the Clarendon press, and by liberal subscriptions from other universities, and the public aflarge. The delegates of the press agreed to allow him 40l. a year for three years, “on his exhibiting to them his collations annually, to be deposited in the Bodleian library, and when the whole was finished, to be printed at the university press, at his expen -;e, airj for his benefit, or of his assigns, if he should live to complete his collations; or if they were left imperfect, they were to be at the discretion of the delegates, they undertaking to promote the finishing of them to the best of their power, and to publish them when finished, allowing to his assigns a just proportion of the profits.”

With these encouragements, Dr. Holmes exhibited in 1789 his first annual account, by which it appeared that eleven folio volumes of collations were deposited, at the end of that year, in the Bodleian library; subsequent annual accounts followed, and at the end of 1795, the total number of ms volumes deposited in that library was seventy-three, and the sum received by subscriptions 4445l. which, liberal as it may seem, fell very far short of the expences incurred by the editor. Notwithstanding this he proceeded in the last-mentioned year to submit two folio specimens to the opinion of scholars and critics, the first containing chapters I. and II. of Genesis, and the second, chapter I. according to the Vatican text, the divisions of chapters and verses in which somewhat differs from the Vulgate. He was aware, however, that his original plan was so extensively laborious, that no perseverance or life would have been equal to its execution. He determined, therefore, to contract it, and in this form published in 1798 part of his first volume, containing the book of Genesis, which exhibits a very extraordinary monument of diligence. This was followed in 1801, by another portion of the same volume, containing Exodus and Leviticus; and in 1804 the volume was completed by the addition of Numbers and Deuteronomy, with a valuable preface, giving a history 'of the Septuagint and its various editions. Dr. Holmes then published the prophecy of Daniel, according to Theodotion and the Septuagint, departing from his proposed order, as if by a presentiment of his end. The loss of such a man at this critical time was unquestionably great, and was duly appreciated by every scholar who was a judge of his labours. They felt therefore a proportional gratification, in seeing the work resumed, in an uniform manner, after an interruption of only four years, by the rev. James Parsons, M. A. of Wadhatn college, who in 1810 published the first part of vol. II. containing the book of Joshua, and who appears in every respect qualified to carry on the laborious design with honour to himself and to the university.

, an ingenious and learned German, was born at Hamburg in 1596; and after a liberal education in his own country, went to France, and at Paris distinguished himself by uncommon parts and learning. He was educated a protestant, but afterwards by the persuasions of Sirmond the Jesuit, embraced the Roman catholic religion, and going from France to Rome, attached himself to cardinal Francis Barberini; who took him under his protection, and recommended him to favour. He was honoured by three popes, Urban VIII. Innocent X. and Alexander VII. The first gave him a canonry of St. Peter’s; the second made him librarian of the Vatican; and the third sent him, in 1665, to Christina of Sweden, whose formal profession of the Catholic faith he received at Inspruck. He spent his life in study, and died at Rome in 1661, Cardinal Barberini, whom he made his heir, caused a marble monument to be erected over his grave, with a Latin inscription much to his honour. He was very learned both in sacred and profane antiquity, was an acute critic, and wrote with the utmost purity and elegance. His works consisted chiefly of notes and dissertations, which have been highly esteemed for judgment and precision. Some of these were published by himself; but the greater part were communicated after his death, and inserted by his friends in their editions of authors, or other works that would admit them. His notes and emendations upon Eusebius’s book against Hierocles, upon Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras,” upon Apollonius’s “Argonautics,” upon the fragments of Demophilus, Democrates, Secundus, apd Sallustius the philosopher, upon Stephanus Byzantinus de Urbibus, &c. are to be found in the best editions of those authors. He wrote a “Dissertation upon the Life and Writings of Porphyry,” which is printed with his notes on Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras;” and other dissertations/ of his are inserted in Grsevius’s “Collection of Roman Antiquities,” and elsewhere.

, knight, lord chief justice of the court of King’s-bench in the reign of king William, was son of sir Thomas Holt, knight, serjeant at law; and born at Thame in Oxfordshire, 1642. He was educated at Abingdon-school, while his father was recorder of that town; and afterwards became a gentleman -commoner of Orielcollege, Oxford. In 1658 he entered himself of Gray’sinn, before he took a degree; some time after which he was called to the bar, where he attended constantly, and soon became a very eminent barrister. In the reign of James II. he was made recorder of London, which office he discharged with much applause for about a year and a half; but refusing to give his hand towards abolishing the test, and to expound the law according to the king’s design, he was removed from his place. In 1686 he was called to the degree of a serjeant at law, with many others. On the arrival of the prince of Orange, he was chosen a member of the convention parliament; and appointed one of the managers for the commons at the conferences held with the lords, about the abdication and the vacancy of the throne. He had here an opportunity of displaying his abilities; and as soon as the government was settled, he was made lord chief justice of the court of King’s-bench, and admitted into the king’s privy-council.

In 1700, when lord Somers parted with the great seal, king William pressed chief justice Holt to accept of it: but he replied, that he never had but one chancery cause in his life, which he lost; and consequently could not think himself fitly qualified for so great a trust. He continued in his post twenty-two years, and maintained it with great reputation for steadiness, integrity, and complete knowledge in his profession. He applied himself with great assiduity to the functions of his important office. He was perfect master of the common law; and, as his judgment was most solid, his capacity vast, and understanding most clear, so he had a firmness of mind, and such a degree of resolution, as never could be brought to swerve in the least from what he thought to be law and justice. Upon great occasions he shewed an intrepid zeal in asserting the authority of the law; for he ventured to incur the indignation of both houses of parliament, by turns, when he thought the law was with him. Several cases of the utmost importance, and highly affecting the lives, rights, liberties, and property of the people, came in judgment before him. There was a remarkable clearness and perspicuity of ideas in his definitions; a distinct arrangement of them in the analysis of his arguments; and the real and natural difference of things was made most perceptible and obvious, when he distinguished between matters which bore a false resemblance to each other. Having thus rightly formed his premises, he scarcely ever erred in his conclusions; his arguments were instructive and convincing, and his integrity would not suffer him to deviate from judgment and truth, in compliance to his prince, or, as observed before, to either house of parliament. They are most of them faithfully and judiciously reported by that eminent lawyer, chief justice Raymond. His integrity and uprightness as a judge are celebrated by the author of the “Tatler,” No. 14, under the noble character of Verus the magistrate. There happened in the time of this chief justice a riot in Hoi born, occasioned by an abominable practice then prevailing, of decoying young persons of both sexes to the Plantations. The persons so decoyed they kept prisoners in a house in Holborn, till they could find an opportunity of shipping them off; which being discovered, the enraged populace were going to pull down the house. Notice of this being sent to Whitehall, a party of the guards were commanded to march to the place; but they first sent an officer to the chief justice to acquaint him with the design, and to desire him to send some of his people to attend the soldiers, in order to give it the better countenance. The officer having delivered his message, Holt said to him, “Suppose the populace should not disperse at your appearance, what are you to do then?” “Sir,” answered the officer, “we have orders to fire upon them.” “Have you, Sir? (replied Holt) then take notice of what I say; if there be one man killed, and you are tried before me, I will take care that you, and every soldier of your party, shall be hanged. Sir, (added he) go back to those who sent you, and acquaint them, that no officer of mine shall attend soldiers; and let them know at the same time, that the laws of this kingdom are not to be executed by the sword: these matters belong to the civil power, and you have nothing to do with them.” Upon this, the chief justice, ordering his tipstaves with a few constables to attend him, went himself in person to the place where the tumult was; expostulated with the mob; assured them that justice should be done upon the persons who were the objects of their indignation: and thus they all dispersed quietly.

He married Anne, daughter of sir John Cropley, bart. whom he left without issue; and died in March 1709, after a lingering illness, in his 68th year. The following reports were published by himself, in 1708, fol. with some notes of his own upon them: “A Report of divers Cases in Pleas of the Crown, adjudged and determined, in the reign of the late King Charles the Second, with directions for justices of the peace, and others, collected by sir John Key ling, knight, late lord chief justice of his Majesty’s court of King’s-bench, from the original manuscript under his own hand. To which is added, The Report of three modern Cases, viz. Armstrong and Lisle; the King and Plumer; the Queen and Mawgridge.” A second edition was pretendedly published in 1739, but the title only was new.

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable merit, was born at Mottram in Cheshire in 1742, and educated with a view to the ministry among the dissenters; but this pursuit he very early relinquished, in consequence of becoming a member of the church of England. He continued, however, to cultivate his mind by every opportunity within his power, although his circumstances in early life were unfavourable to a liberal education. About the year 1761 he removed to Walton in Lancashire, three miles from Liverpool, where he commenced schoolmaster and parish-clerk; the latter he resigned some years before his death. Having married a very sensible and worthy woman, he opened a boarding-school for young ladies, with the assistance of his wife, and carried it on with great reputation. His time was for many years divided between the cares of the school and the study of agriculture, which had always in some measure engaged his mind. For his scholars he compiled several useful manuals, particularly the “Characters of the Kings and Queens of England,” 1786 1788, 3 vols. 12mo, so judiciously laid down, and illustrated by so many sensible and original remarks, that had Mr. Holt applied himself to history only, it is not improbable he might have produced a work of higher importance in that science. In the course of his agricultural pursuits, he wrote “An Essay on the Curie in Potatoes,'” for which he received the medal from the society of arts, manufactures, and commerce. The many essays and memoirs which he drew up on such subjects having acquired him the character of a minute and skilful observer, the Board of agriculture appointed him surveyor of the county of Lancaster, and the “Report” which he returned, rich in valuable matter, judiciously arranged, was the first that was republished by the Board; and he had various premiums and other testimonies of approbation adjudged to him. It appears to have been his utmost ambition to employ his time in what was useful, and no part of that time was allowed to pass without adding something to his stock of knowledge. He was at last employed in collecting materials for a History of Liverpool, when a bilious disorder carried him off, March 21, 1801, to the very great regret of all who knew his amiable character. A portrait, and some other particulars of his life, may be seen in our authority.

, author of the first Latin grammar of any noie in England, was a native of the county of Sussex, flourished about the latter part of the fifteenth century. After having been for some time usher of the school next to Magdalen college gate in Oxford, he took his degree of B. A. and in 1491 was admitted fellow of that college. He afterwards completed his degrees in arts, and commenced schoolmaster, in which capacity he acquired great reputation, and prepared for college many students, who were afterwards men of eminence. When he died is unknown, but he was alive in 1511. The grammar he published was entitled “Lac Puesorum. M. Holti. Mylke for chyldren,” 4to, printed by Wynkyn de Wprde, 1497. It is dedicated to Morton archbishop of Canterbury, and has some very elegant Latin verses by sir Thomas More, when he was a young man. The only copy known is in Mr. Heber’s fine collection. This grammar, the first methodical piece of the kind for the use of schools, was long followed by John Stanbridge, Robert Whittington, William Lily, Leonard Cox, Henry Prime, and other schoolmasters.

, a learned English gentleman, well known in the history of British India, was the son of Zephaniah Holwell, timber-merchant and citizen of London, and grandson of John Holwell, a mathematical writer of much fame in the seventeenth century. The father and grandfather of this John Holwell both fell in support of the royal cause during the usurpation, and the family estate of Holwell-hall, in Devonshire, was lost to their descendants for ever; for although Mr. Holwell applied to king Charles at the restoration, the only recompense he obtained was to be appointed royal astronomer and surveyor of the crown lands, and the advancement of his wife to a place of some honour, but of little emolument, about the person of the queen. Some years after he was appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Monmouth, for whom he conceived a warm attachment, and, believing him to be the legitimate sou of the king, was induced to take a very active and imprudent part against the succession of the duke of York, which in the end proved his ruin. Having published in 1683 a small Latin tract called “Catastrophe Mundi,” which was soon after translated, and is a severe attack on the popish party, he was marked for destruction as soon as the duke of York came to the throne. Accordingly, in 1685, it was contrived that, in quality of surveyor to the crown, he should be sent to America, to survey and lay down a chart of the town of New York; and at the same time secret orders were sent to the government agents there, to take some effectual means to prevent his return. In consequence of this, it is said, that he had no sooner executed his commission, than he died suddenly, and his death was attributed, at the time and on the spot, to the application of poison administered to him in a dish of coffee. His son was father to the subject of the present article.

John Zephaniah Holwell was born at Dublin, Sept. 17, 1711, and at the age of eight was brought over to England, and placed at Mr. M'Kenzie’s grammar-school at Richmond in Surrey, where he distinguished himself in classical learning. After this, his father having determined to breed him up to mercantile life in Holland, sent him to an academy at Iselmond on the Meuse, where he learned the French and Dutch languages, and was instructed in bookkeeping. He was then placed in the counting-house of Lantwoord, a banker and ship’s-husband at Rotterdam, with a stipulation that he was to be admitted as a partner at the expiration of five years. The unceasing toil, however, of his new situation soon affected his health to a very alarming degree; and although he recovered by consulting the celebrated Boerhaave at Leyden, his inclination for trade was gone, and on his return to England, his father, finding him inflexible on this point, bound him apprentice to Mr. Forbes, a surgeon in the Park, Southwark, and upon the death of that gentleman he was placed under the care of Mr. Andrew Cooper, senior surgeon of Guy’s hospital.

Being now duly qualified, and having lost his father in 1729, who left a very slender provision for his widow and: son, he quitted the hospital, and engaged himself as surgeon’s mate on board the Duke of Cumberland Indiaman, which sailed from Gravesend Feb. 2, 1732, and proceeded to Bengal, where he was appointed surgeon of a frigate belonging to the company, bound for the gulph of Persia. In the course of this voyage he acquired some knowledge of the Arabic tongue, and on his return to Calcutta employed his leisure hours in studying the Moorish and common Hinduee languages, and the Lingua Franca of the Portuguese. In January 1734 he made another voyage, as aurgeon of the ship Prince of Wales, to Surat, &c. and soon after his return to Bengal, he was appointed surgeonmajor to the Patna party, usually consisting of about 400 European infantry, which annually left the presidency in the latter end of September, with the company’s trade for their factory at Patna. His next voyage was in the ship Prince of Orange, to Mocha and Judda in the Arabian gulph. During nis stay there he added to his knowledge of the Arabic tongue, and on his return to Calcutta was able to speak it with tolerable fluency. After another visit, however, to Patna, as surgeon -major, he was anxious to quit this rambling life, and by the interest of his friends was appointed surgeon to the company’s factory at Decca; and here, besides farther improving himself in the Moorish and Hinduee tongues, he commenced his researches into the Hindu theology.

At the close of the year 1736 he returned to Calcutta, and was elected an alderman in the mayor’s court; and in 1740 was appointed assistant surgeon to the hospital, which first gave him a solid establishment in the company’s service. In 1746 he succeeded to the place of principal physician and surgeon to the presidency; and in the years 1747 and 1748 was successively elected mayor of the corporation. In Sept. 1749 his bad state of health rendered it necessary for him to return to England, where he arrived in the March following. During this voyage he had leisure to arrange his materials on the theology and doctrines of the ancient and modern Brahmans, and to digest a plan which he had formed for correcting abuses in the Zemindar’s court at Calcutta. This scheme of reform he submitted to the court of directors, who, in consequence of the advantages it promised to produce, appointed him perpetual Zemindar, and twelfth, or youngest, in the council at the bpard of Calcutta; but with an exception to any further advancement in it. On his arrival in Calcutta, in August 1751, he immediately began his system of reform, which gave so much satisfaction to the directors, that the exception against his rising in the council was removed, and 4000 rupees added to his salary. The nature and object of this reform is fully delineated in his “India Tracts,” a 4to volume, which he published at London in 1764.

In 1756 he rose to be seventh in council, and in the month of June in that year, Surajah Dowlah, nabob of Bengal, attacked Calcutta. The governor and seniors in council having deserted the place, the remaining members of the board, with the inhabitants and troops, elected Mr. Holwell governor and commander in chief of the fort and presidency; who, supported by a few gallant friends, and the remains of a feeble garrison, bravely held out the fort to the last extremity; but a noble defence could not preserve an untenable place, or affect an ungenerous enemy. The opposition he had met with so incensed the nabob, that although on the surrender he had given Mr. Holwell his word that no harm should come to him, he ordered him and his unfortunate companions in arms, 146 persons in number, to be thrust into a close prison called the Black Hole, not eighteen feet square, into which no supply of air could come but by two small windows in one end. Here for one whole night they were confined, and in the morning only twenty-three were found alive, one of whom was Mr. Holwell, whose affecting and highly interesting “Narrative” of the event was published at London in 1758 . On his delivery from this place he was carried in irons to Muxadabad, but was released on July 31st following, by the intercession of the Begum, Surajah Dowlah’s grandmother, who was influenced to this act of compassion by the reports of his upright and lenient conduct to the natives during the time he presided in the Zemindar and Cutcherry courts. He soon after joined the wretched remains of the colony at Fultah. In December following the presidency was retaken by vice-admiral Watson and colonel Clive, and the governor and council re-established by them.

Mr. Holwell being in a most deplorable state of health, from his unparalleled sufferings, obtained leave to take dispatches for the company to England, and for that purpose embarked on board the Syren sloop, of no more than eighty tons burthen. In February 1757, after a most hazardous voyage of six months in that small vessel (a very curious journal pf which he afterwards published), he arrived in England; and in consideration of his meritorious services, eminent abilities, and distinguished integrity, was appointed, by a majority of fifteen against nine, in the court of directors, to return to Bengal as successor to colonel Clive in that government; but this appointment he, with great modesty, declined in favour of Mr. Manningham. He was then named second in council, and successor to that gentleman. In this situation he embarked on. board the Warren Indiamau in March 1758; but being detained by adverse winds till an election of new directors took place, they reversed the whole proceedings of the former court, and Mr. Holwell was returned to his previous situation as seventh in council. With what justice or liberality this proceeding was instituted we know not: Mr. Holwell, however, on his arrival in Bengal, found himself, by the departure of some senior members of the council, fourth in rank; and in 1759, from a similar removal, he became second, when colonel Clive resigned the government to him. The conduct of his administration, and the benefits the company derived from it, are displayed with equal truth and modesty in the “India Tracts” already mentioned.

At the close of the year 1760 he was superseded by Mr. Vansittart, and in February following he resigned all employment in the company’s service; and in the succeeding month embarked for England in a most wretched state of health, which it required upwards of twelve months residence and care to re-establish. Tired of the bustle of public life, he now made his election in favour of retirement and tranquillity, being possessed of an ample and independent fortune, acquired in the most honourable manner; although it has been complained that he did not receive those returns from the East India Company, to which he was entitled by his long and meritorious services. Mr. Holwell was the first European who studied the Hindu antiquities; and although he was unavoidably led into many errors concerning them, from his being totally unacquainted with the Sanscreet language, he must be allowed the merit of having pointed out the path which has finally conducted others to those repositories of learning and science. By the capture of Calcutta in 1756, governor Holwell lost many curious Hindu manuscripts, and among them two copies of the Sastras, or book of divine authority, written in the common Hinduee language, for which the commissioners of restitution allowed him two thousand Madras rupees. He also lost a translation of a considerable part of that work, on which he had employed eighteen months. However, during his residence in Bengal, after he was removed from the government, he resumed his researches, and having recovered some manuscripts by an unforeseen and extraordinary event, he was enabled, in August 1765, to publish the first part of his “Interesting historical events relative to Bengal and Indostan; as also the Mythology of the Gentoos; and a dissertation on the Metempsychosis,” Lond. 8vo. In 1766 and 1771 he published the second and third parts of the same work, in which there is much curious information, although in his reasonings he has been supposed to attribute too much of divine authority to the Sastras. One of his most valuable publications was “An account of the manner of inoculating for the small pox in India,” with observations on the medical practice and mode of treating that disease in the east. He published also “A new experiment for the prevention of crimes,” 1786, which consisted chiefly in establishing a system of rewards for virtue. His last publication, “Dissertations on the origin, nature, and pursuits of intelligent beings, and on Divine Providence, Religion, and religious Worship,” which appeared in 1788, bore some marks of the whims of old age, and contains some singular and fanciful opinions, such as that God created angels of different degrees, who on their fall became, the best of them, men, dogs, and horses; the worst, lions, tigers, and other wild beasts, &c. Mr. Holwell survived this publication about ten years, dying Monday, Nov. 5, 1798, at his house at Pinner, Middlesex. He was twice married, and of his family three of his children only survived him, lieut.-col. James Holwell, of Southborough in Kent; Mrs. Birch, the wife of William Birch, esq.; and Mrs. Swinney, relict of the late Dr. Swinney.

Mr. Holwell’s mind was stored with general knowledge: his understanding was at once sagacious and comprehensive; while his imagination gave a lively and pleasing colour to all he knew and every thing he said. A taste for elegant literature, and the possession of elegant accomplishments, completed his intellectual qualifications. There was a superior urbanity in his manners, which did not proceed more from the habits of his life than the benevolence of his heart; and while his demeanour assimilated him to the highest station, it rendered him eminently pleasing in every subordinate rank of social life. He was, indeed, throughout life a man of great benevolence, generosity, and candour.

, an ingenious and learned English divine, was the son of a taylor in Oxford, and born in the parish of All Saints there about 1593. He was entered early of Christ-church in the time of Dr. Ravis, his relation and patron, by whom he was chosen student; and in 1615 he took orders. He was before noticed for his skill in poetry and oratory, and now distinguished himself so much by his eloquence and popularity as a preacher, that he had two benefices conferred on him in the diocese of Oxford. In 1618 he went as chaplain to sir Francis Stewart, when he accompanied the count Gundamore to Spain, in which journey Holyday exhibited such agreeable conversationtalents, that the count was greatly pleased with him. Afterwards he became chaplain to the king, aud was promoted to the archdeaconry of Oxford before 1626. In 1642 he was made a doctor of divinity by mandamus at Oxford; near which place he sheltered himself during the time of the rebellion. When the royal party declined, he so far sided with the prevailing powers, as to undergo the examination of the triers, in order to be inducted into the rectory of Chilton in Berkshire; for he had lost his livings, and the profits of his archdeaconry, and could not well bear poverty and distress. This drew upon him much censure from his own party; some of whom, however, says Wood, commended him, since he had thus made provision for a second wife he had lately married. After the Restoration he quitted this living, and returned to Iffley near Oxford, to live on his archdeaconry; and had he not acted a temporizing part, it was said he might have been raised to much higher promotion. His poetry, however, got him a name in those days, and he stood fair for preferment. His philosophy also, discovered in his book “De Anima,” and his well-languaged sermons, says Wood, speak him eminent in his generation, and shew him to have traced the rough parts of learning, as well as the pleasant paths of poetry. He died at Iffley, Oct. 2, 1661, and was buried at Christ-church.

His works consist of twenty sermons, published at different times. “Technogamia, or the Marriage of Arts, a comedy,” 1630*. “Philosophise polito-barbarae specimen, in quo de anima & ejus habitibus intellectualibus qiuBstiones aliquot libris duobus illustrantur,” 1633, 4to. “Survey of the World, in ten books, a poem,” 1661, 8vo. But the work he is known for now is his “Translation of the Satires of Juvenal and Persius;” for though his poetry is but indifferent, his translation is allowed to be faithful, and his notes good. The second edition of his “Persius” was published in 1616; and the fourth at the end of the “Satires of Juvenal illustrated, with notes and sculptures,” 1673, folio. Dryden, in the dedication of his “Translation of Juvenal and Persius,” makes the following critique upon our author’s performance: “If/' says he,” rendering the exact sense of these authors, almost line for line, had been our business, Barten Holyday had done it already to our hands; and by the help of his learned notes and illustrations, not only Juvenal and Persius, but (what is yet more obscure) his own verses might be understood.“Speaking, a little further on, of close and literal translation, he adds, that” Holyday, who made this way his choice, seized the meaning of Juvenal, but the poetry has always escaped him.“In his account of Holyday’s writings, Wood has omitted an instructive and entertaining little work entitled” Comes jucundus in via," which he published anonymously in 1658. In the latter part of the second address to the reader, there is a quaint allusion to his name.

, a learned Englishman, memorable for having made an “Etymological Dictionary of Latin words,” was born at Nether Whitacre in Warwickshire, about 1567, and studied in the university of Oxford about 1582; but it does not appear that he ever took a degree. He taught school at Oxford, and in his own country; and became rector of Southam in Warwickshire, 1604. He was elected a member of the convocation of the clergy in the first year of Charles the First’s reign; and afterwards, in the civil wars, suffered extremely for his attachment to that king. He died Nov. 13, 1653, and was buried at Warwick. His “Dictionary” was first printed in 1606-7, 4to; and the fourth edition in 1633, augmented, was dedicated to Laud, then bishop of London. He subscribed himself in Latin, “Franciscus de sacra quercu.”

, son of the preceding, was born in 1616 at Stony-Thorp near Southam in Warwickshire, and educated in grammar learning under Mr. White at Coventry; from whence he was sent in Michaelmas term 1632, at the age of sixteen years, to Queen’s college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts July 5, 1636, and that of master, May 16, 1639, and became chaplain of the college. In the beginning of the civil wars, when Oxford became the seat of king Charles, and was garrisoned for his use, he was put into commission, for a captain of a foot company, consisting mostly of scholars. In this post he did great service, and had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him by the favour of his majesty, though no such matter occurs in the public register of the university, which was then sometimes neglected. After the surrender of the garrison of Oxford to the parliament, he, by the name of Thomas Holyoke, without the addition of master of arts, bachelor or doctor of divinity, obtained a licence from the university to practise physic, and settling in his own country, he practised with good success till the Restoration in 1660, in which year Thomas lord Leigh, baron of Stone Leigh in Warwickshire, presented him to the rectory of Whitnash near Warwick. He was soon after made prebendary of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton tn Staffordshire. In 1674 Robert lord Brook conferred upon him the donative of Breamour in Hampshire (which he had by the marriage of his lady), worth about two hundred pounds per annum; but, before he had enjoyed it a year, he died of a fever, June 10, 1675. His body was interred near that of his father in the church of St. Mary in Warwick. His Dictionary was published after his death in 1677, in fol. and, as Wood says, “is made upon the foundation laid by his father.” Before k are two epistles, one by the author’s son, Charles Holyoake of the Inner Temple, dedicating the work to lord Brooke, and another by Dr. Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, which contains many particulars of the work and its author. He had another son, the Rev. Henry Holyoake, who was for forty years master of Rugby school in Warwickshire, and died in 1731.

, or Halifax, or Sacrobosco, was, according to Leland, Bale, and Pits, born at Halifax in Yorkshire, which Mr. Watson thinks very improbable; according to Stainhurst, at Holywood near Dublin; and according to Dempster and Mackenzie, in Nithsdale in Scotland. There may perhaps have been more than one of the name to occasion this difference of opinion. Mackenzie informs us, that having finished his studies, he entered into orders, and became a canon regular of the order of St. Augustin in the famous monastery of Holywood in Nithsdale. The English biographers, on the contrary, tell us that he was educated at Oxford. They all agree however in asserting, that he spent most of his life at Paris; where, says Mackenzie, he was admitted a member of the university, June 5, 1221, under the syndics of the Scotch nation; and soon after was elected professor of mathematics, which he taught with applause for many years. According to the same author, he died in 1256, as appears from the inscription on his monument in the cloisters of the convent of St. Maturine at Paris.

Holywood was contemporary with Roger Bacon, but probably older by about 20 years. He was certainly the first mathematician of his time; and he wrote, 1. “De Sphaera Mundi,” Venice, 1478, 1490, 4to, a work often reprinted, and illustrated by various commentators. 2. “De Anni Ratione, seu de Computo Ecclesiastico.” 3. “De Algorismo,” printed with “Comm. Petri Cirvilli Hisp.” Paris, 1498.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Batavia in the island of Java, Jan. 3, 1652, the son of John Homberg, a Saxon gentleman, governor of the arsenal of that place. His father at first put him into the army, but soon after quitting the service of the Dutch, and a military life, brought him to Amsterdam, where he settled. He was now educated, by paternal indulgence, at Jena and Leipsic, for the law, and was received as an advocate in 1674 at Magdebourg, but the sciences seduced him from the law: in his walks he became a botanist, and in his nocturnal rambles an astronomer. An intimacy with Otto de Guericke, who lived at Magdebourg, completed his conversion, and he resolved to abandon his first profession. Otto, though fond of mystery, consented to communicate his knowledge to so promising a pupil; but as his friends continued to press him to be constant to the law, he soon quitted Magdebourg, and went into Italy. At Padua and Bologna he pursued his favourite studies, particularly medicine, anatomy, botany, and chemistry. One of his first efforts in the latter science was the complete discovery of the properties of the Bologna stone, and its phosphoric appearance after calcination, which Casciarolo had first observed. The efforts of Hombergr in several scientific inquiries, were pursued at Rome, in France, in England with the great Boyle, and afterward in Holland and Germany. With Baldwin and Kunckel he here pursued the subject of phosphorus. Not yet satisfied with travelling in search of knowledge, he visited the mines of Saxony, Hungary, Bohemia, and Sweden. Having materially improved himself, and at the same time assisted the progress of chemistry at Stockholm, he returned to Holland, and thence revisited France, where he was quickly noticed by Colbert. By his interposition, he was prevailed upon to quit his intention of returning to Holland to marry, according to the desire of his father, and fixed himself in France. This step also alienated him from his religion. He renounced the Protestant communion in 1682, and thus losing all connexion with his family, became dependent on Louis XIV. and his minister. This, however, after the death of Colbert in 1683, became a miserable dependence; men of learning and science were neglected as much as before they had been patronized; and Homberg, in 1687, left Paris for Rome, and took up the profession of physic. He now pursued and perfected his discoveries on phosphorus, and prosecuted his discoveries in pneumatics, and other branches of natural philosophy. Finding, after some time, that the learned were again patronized at Paris, he returned there in 1690, and entered into the academy of sciences tinder the protection of M. de Bignon. He now resumed the study of chemistry, but found his finances too limited to carry on his experiments as he wished, till he had the good fortune to be appointed chemist to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. In this situation he was supplied with the most perfect apparatus, and all materials for scientific investigation. Among other instruments, the large burning mirror of Tschirnaus was given to his care, and he made with it the most interesting experiments, on the combustibility of gold and other substances. In examining the nature of borax he discovered the sedative salt, and traced several remarkable properties of that production. Pleased with the researches of his chemist, the duke of Orleans in 1704 appointed him his first physician. About the same time he was strongly solicited by the elector palatine to settle in his dominions, but he was too much attached to his present patron to quit Paris, and was besides not without an inclination of a more tender kind for mademoiselle Dodart, daughter to the celebrated physician of that name. He married her in 1708, though hitherto much averse to matrimony; but enjoyed the benefit of his change of sentiments only seven years, being attacked in 1715 with a dysentery, of which he died in September of that year.

Homberg was indefatigable in application, and his manners were mild and social. Though his constitution was not robust, he was rather addicted to pleasure, and was glad to forget his fatigues in the charms of good company. He did not publish any complete work, the productions he has left being only memoirs in the volumes of the academy.

, was a protestant minister of a distinguished family in Scotland, but educated in France, where he passed the chief part of his life. James I. employed him to reconcile the differences between Tilenus and du Moulin, on the subject of justification; and, if possible, to reconcile the protestants throughout Europe to one single form of doctrine; but this was found impracticable. The chief work of Home is, his, 1. “Apologia Basilica; seu Machiavelli ingenium examinatum,” 1626, 4to. There are attributed to him also, 2. “Le contr' Assassin, ou reponse a TApologie des Jesuites,” Geneve, 1612, in 8vo. 3. “L'Assassinat du Roi, ou maximes du Viel de la Montagne, pratiquees en la personne de defunt Henri le Grand,” 1617, 8vo. He is also the author of several conipositions in the “Delicise Poetarum Scotorum.” The times of his birth and death are not known,

, usually called Lord Kames, an eminent Scotch lawyer, philosopher, and critic, the son of George Home of Kames, in the county of Berwick, was born at Kames in 1696. He was descended from an ancient and honourable family; being on his father’s side, the great grandson of sir John Home of Renton, whose ancestor was a cadet of the family of the earls of Home, who held the office of lord justice-clerk in the reign of king Charles II. His mother was a daughter of Mr. Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, and grand-daughter of Mr. Robert Baillie, principal of the university of Glasgow, of whom an account is given in our third volume. His father having lived beyond his income, and embarrassed his affairs, Henry, on entering the world, had nothing to trust to but his own abilities and exertions, a circumstance which although apparently unfavourable, was always most justly regarded by him as the primary cause of his success in life. The only education he had was from private instructions at home from a tutor of the name of Wingate, of whom he never spoke in commendation.

With no other stock of learning than what he had acquired from this Mr. Wingate, he was, about 1712, bound by indenture to attend the office of a writer of the signet in Edinburgh, as preparatory to the profession of a writer or solicitor before the supreme court; but circumstances inspired him with the ambition of becoming an advocate; and now being sensible of his defective education, he resumed the study of the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added French and Italian, and likewise applied himself to the study of mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. These pursuits, which he followed at the same time with the study of the law, afforded, independently of their own value, a most agreeable variety of employment to his active mind. His attention appears to have been much turned to metaphysical investigation, for which he all his life entertained a strong predilection. About 1723, he carried on a correspondence with the celebrated Andrew Baxter, and Dr. Clarke, upon subjects of that kind. In January 1724, he was called to the bar, at a time when bath the bench and bar were filled by men of uncommon eminence. As he did not possess in any great degree the powers of an orator, he engaged for some time but a moderate share of practice as a barrister. In 1728, he published a folio volume of “Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Session,” executed with so much judgment, that he began to be regarded as a young man of talents, who had his profession at heart, and would spare no pains to acquit himself, with honour, in the most intricate causes in which he might be employed. His practice was quickly increased; and after 1732, when he published a small volume, entitled “Essays upon several subjects in Law,” he was justly considered as a profound and scientific lawyer. These essays afford an excellent example of the mode of reasoning which he afterwards pursued in most of his jurisprudential writings, and, in the opinion of his biographer, furnish an useful model for that species of investigation.

Mr. Home, in every period of his life, was fond of social intercourse, and with all his ardour of study, and variety of literary and professional occupations, a considerable portion of his time was devoted to the enjoyments of society in a numerous circle of acquaintance. Among his early friends or associates we find the names of colonel Forrester, Hamilton of Bangour, the earl of Findlater, Mr. Oswald, David Hume, and Dr. (afterwards bishop) Butler, with whom he had a correspondence. In 1741 be married miss Agatha Drummond, a younger daughter of James Drummond, esq. of Blair, in the county of Perth. His fortune being then comparatively small, ceconomy became a necessary virtue, but unfortunately, this lady, who had a taste for every thing that is elegant, was particularly fond of old china; and soon after her marriage had made such frequent purchases in that way as to impress her husband with some little apprehension of her extravagance. After some consideration, he devised an ingenious expedient to cure her of this propensity. He framed a will, bequeathing to his spouse the whole of the china that should be found in his possession at his death; and this deed he immediately put into her own hands. The success of the plot was complete; the lady was cured from, that moment of her passion for old china. This stratagem his biographer justly considers as a proof of the authors intimate knowledge of the human mind, and discernment of the power of the passions to balance and restrain each other. It is, indeed, in its contrivance and result, equally honourable to the husband and wife.

The mode in which Mr. Home occupied his time, both in town and country, appears to have been most judicious. In town he was an active and industrious barrister; in the country he was a scientific farmer on his paternal estate, which came to him in a very waste and unproductive condition. He had the honour to be among the first who introduced the English improvements in agriculture into Scotland. Amidst all this he found leisure, during the vacations of the court, to compose those various works which he has left to posterity. In 1741 he published, in 2 vols. fol. the “Decisions of the Court of Session, from its institution to the present time, abridged and digested tinder proper heads, in the form of a Dictionary,” a composition of great labour, the fruit of many years, and a work of the highest utility to the profession of the law in Scotland. In 1747 he published a small treatise entitled “Essays upon several subjects concerning British Antiquities.” The subjects are, the feudal law; the constitution of parliament; honour and dignity; succession or descent; and the hereditary and indefeasible rights of kings. These were delicate subjects at that time in Scotland, and the general doctrines perhaps more seasonable than now.

In 1751 Mr. Home, though now at the head of the bar, published a work entitled “Essays on the principles of Morality and Natural Religion,” the object of which is to prove that the great laws of morality which influence the conduct of man as a social being, have their foundation in the human constitution; and are as certain and immutable as those physical laws which regulate the whole system of nature. His biographer attributes this publication to the desire of its author to counteract some sceptical doctrines of his friend David Hume, which he had in vain endeavoured to suppress. That the work, however, had not this effect, we know, in point of fact; and we have no hesitation in. asserting that it was not calculated to produce the effect, as it leads to consequences as fatal as any which have followed David Hume’s works. It accordingly attracted the notice of the church of Scotland, although he appears to have had friends enough in the general assembly to prevent its being censured. In some respect he saw his error, and endeavoured to amend it in a second edition; but in the third it seems doubtful whether he has not retained the roost offensive of his opinions.

In Feb. 1752 he was appointed one of the judges of the court of session, and took his seat on the bench by the title of lord Kames. This promotion was attended with the general satisfaction of his country, as he stood high in the public esteem, both on the score of his abilities, and knowledge of the laws, and his integrity and moral virtues. As a judge, his opinions and decrees were dictated by an acute understanding, an ardent feeling of justice, and a perfect acquaintance with the jurisprudence of his country; which, notwithstanding the variety of pursuits in which his comprehensive mind had already found exercise, had always been his principal study, and the favourite object of his researches. The situation which he now filled, while it extended his opportunities of promoting every species of improvement, gave the greater weight and efficacy to his patronage; and his example and encouragement were more particularly beneficial in exciting a literary spirit, which now began to prevail among his countrymen, and which was destined to shine forth in his own times with no common lustre. It was but a just tribute to his merit, when, many years afterwards, Dr. Adam Smith, then in the height of his literary reputation, said, in reference to a remark on the great number of eminent writers which Scotland had of late years produced, “We must every one of us acknowledge Kames for our master.”

It was not, however, to the cultivation and patronage of literature, and to the duties of a judge in the court of session, that the time and talents of lord Kames were wholly confined. He was appointed in 1755 a member of the board of trustees for the encouragement of the fisheries, arts, and manufactures of Scotland, and soon after one of the commissioners for the management of the forfeited estates; and in the discharge of these important trusts he was a zealous and faithful servant of the public. Amidst such multifarious employment, he found leisure to compose, and in 1757, to publish, in one volume 8vo, “The Statute Law of Scotland abridged, with historical notes,” a work which still retains its rank among those which are in daily use with barristers and practitioners. About this period he conceived the hope of improving the law of Scotland by assimilating it as much as possible with the law of England. With this view, after corresponding on the subject with the lord chancellor Hardwicke, he published “Historical Law Tracts,” 1759, 8vo. In this he advances some singular opinions on the subject of the criminal law, which are, in our opinion, but feebly defended by his biographer. The work, however, has undergone several editions, and still preserves its reputation; and with the same view of counteracting, as far as possible, the inconveniencies arising troin two systems of law regulating the separate divisions of the united kingdom, he published in 1760 his “Principles of Equity,” fol. Courts of equity and common law are separate in England, but the powers of both are united in the supreme civil court of Scotland, and it is for this union lord Kames contends in the publication just mentioned.

In 1763 he was appointed one of the lords of justiciary, the supreme criminal tribunal in Scotland. The mere fact of his appointment is stated by his biographer, but we have seen a letter from him in which he applied for it to a nobleman in power. Tins important duty he continued to discharge with equal diligence and ability, and with the strictest rectitude of moral feeling. In 1766 he received a very large addition to his income by succession to an. estate called Blair-Drummond, which devolved on his wife by the death of her brother, and which furnished him with opportunities of displaying his taste and skill in embellishing his pleasure-grounds and improving his lands. His ideas as a land-holder do him much honour: “In point of morality,” he says in a letter to the late duchess of Gordon, “I consider, that the people upon our estates are trusted by Providence to our care, and that we are accountable for our management of them to the great God, their Creator as well as ours.” Before this accession to his fortune he had published, in 1765, a small pamphlet on the progress of flax-husbandry in Scotland, with the patriotic design of stimulating his countrymen to continue their exertions in a most valuable branch of national industry. He was also very active in promoting the project of the canal between the Forth and Clyde, now completed, and which has been beneficially followed by other undertakings of a similar kind. In 1766 he published “Remarkable decisions of the Court of Session, from 1730 to 1752,” fol. a period which includes that of his own practice at the bar. These reports afford the strongest evidence of the great ability and legal knowledge of their compiler, but his biographer allows that the author’s own argument is generally stated with greater amplitude, and is more strenuously enforced than that which opposes his side of the question.

In 1774 he published, in 2 vols. 4to, his “Sketches of the History of Man,” which of all his works, if we except the “Elements of Criticism,” has been the most generally read. It is greatly to his honour that when many of his opinions were controverted, he not only received the hints and remarks with candour, but sought out and behaved with great liberality to the authors. In pursuance of his patriotic wish to improve the agriculture of his country, he published, in 1776, when he had attained the age of eighty, the “Gentleman Farmer, being an attempt to improve agriculture by subjecting it to the test of rational principles.” None of his works is more characteristic of his genius and disposition in all their principal features than this, which was one of the most useful books that had appeared at the time of its publication.

At the advanced period we have just mentioned, lord Kames’s constitution had suffered nothing from the attacks of old age. There was no sensible decay of his mental powers, or, what is yet more extraordinary, of the flow of his animal spirits, which had all the gaiety and vivacity of his early years. Indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge; ever looking forward to some new object of attainment; one literary task was no sooner accomplished than another was entered upon with equal ardour and unabated perseverance. Jn 1777 he published “Elucidations respecting the Common and Statute Law of Scotland,” 8vo, in which it is his object to vindicate the municipal law of his country from the reproach it has incurred from the writings of the old Scotch jurists. In 1780 he published a supplement to his “Remarkable Decisions,” under the title of “Select Decisions of the Court of Session,” recording the cases most worthy of notice from 1752 to 176S.

The subject of education had always been regarded by lord Kames in a most important point of view, and furnished the matter of that work with which he closed his literary labours. In 1781 he published, when in his eightyfifth year, an octavo volume entitled “Loose hints on Education, chiefly concerning the Culture of the Heart.” A work composed at such an advanced age ought not to be subjected to rigorous criticism, yet there are many shrewd and useful remarks in the book, although mixed with others in which the decay of mental powers is visible. In the following year his constitution began to give way, principally from old age, for he had very little that could be called disease. In November he left his seat at BlairDrummoiid for Edinburgh, and the court of session meeting soon after, for the winter, he went thither on the first day of the term, and took his seat with the rest of the judges. He continued for some little time to attend the meetings of the court, and to take his share in its usual business, but soon became sensible that his strength was not equal to the effort. On the last day of his attendance he took a separate and affectionate farewell of each of his brethren. He survived that period only about eight days. He died December 27, 1782, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

His excellent biographer, the late lord Woodhouselec, has drawn up his character with impartiality and just discrimination, without dwelling extravagantly on his virtues, or offensively and impertinently on his foibles. The latter appear to have been of a kind perhaps inseparable from, humanity in some shape or other, such as a degree of fondness for flattery, and somewhat, although certainly in a small proportion, of literary jealousy. A suspicion of lord Kames’s religious principles has long prevailed in his own, country, and his biographer has taken such pains on this subject as to leave the reader with an impression that lord Kames was more a friend to revealed religion than he appears to be in some of his writings; but while those writings remain, we question whether the suspicion to which we allude can be effectually removed. Too much, however, cannot be said in favour of his genius and industry in many branches of literature; his private virtues and public spirit; his assiduity through a long and laborious life in the many honourable offices with which he was entrusted, and his zeal to encourage and promote every thing that tended to the improvement of his country, in laws, literature, commerce, manufactures, and agriculture. The preceding sketch has been taken, often literally, from lord Woodhouselee’s valuable work, which appeared in 1807, entitled “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the hon. Henry Home of Kames, &c.” 2 vols. 4to, which contains what we have been in other instances indebted to,“Sketches of the progress of Literature and general improvement in Scotland during the greater part of the eighteenth century.”

, a clergyman of the church of Scotland, but known only as a dramatic writer, was born in the vicinity of Ancrum in Roxburghshire, Scotland, in 1724, and was educated at the parish school, whence he went to the university of Edinburgh, and went through the usual academical course, as preparatory for his entering the church. Here his studies were for some time suspended by the rebellion in 1745. On the approach of the rebels, the citizens of Edinburgh assembled, and formed themselves into an association for the support of their sovereign, and the defence of their city. Mr. Home, having once taken up arms in this cause, was not to be deterred by danger, and inarched with a detachment of the royal army to Falkirk, where he was taken prisoner in the battle fought in that neighbourhood, and confined for some time in the castle of Donne. He contrived, however, to make his escape about the time that tranquillity was restored to the country by the battle of Culloclen; and having resumed his studies, was licensed to preach the gospel in 1747.

Not long after, while on a visit in England, he was introduced to Collins, the poet, at Winchester, and Collins addressed to him his “Ode on the Superstition of the Highlanders.” In 1750 Home was settled as minister of the parish of Athelstaneford in East Lothian, on the demise of the rev. Robert Blair, author of the “Grave;” but such a situation could not be very agreeable to one who had tasted the sweets of literary society, and who, in particular, had a paramount ambition to shine as a dramatic writer. His first tragedy was “Agis,”“with which it is said he went to London, where the managers refused it, and immediately returning home he wrote his” Douglas,“which Garrick peremptorily refused. By such discouragement, however, the ardour of the author was not to be suppressed. Being acquainted with the leading characters in Scotland, a ready reception of his play was secured; and accordingly” Douglas" was performed at the theatre in the Canongate, Edinburgh, in December 1756, Mr. Home and several of his clerical brethren being present. Such a departure from the decorum enjoined by the church of Scotland could not be overlooked, and the author was so threatened with ecclesiastical censures, and in reality became so obnoxious in the eyes of the people, that in the following year he resigned his living, and with it all connexion with the church, wearing ever afterwards a lay habit. In the mean time the presbytery of Edinburgh published an admonition and exhortation against stage-plays, which was ordered to be read in all the pulpits within their bounds on a Sunday appointed, immediately after divine service. In it there is no mention of Home or his play, although the latter was probably the cause. It merely contains a recapitulation of what had formerly been done by the church and the laws to discourage the theatres.

This opposition, which has been too hastily branded with the epithets of “bigotry and malice,” turned out much to Mr. Home’s advantage, whose friends contrived now to add to his other merits that of being a persecuted man; and David Hume, whose taste for the drama was the least of his qualifications, addressed his “Four Dissertations” to the author, and complimented him with possessing “the true theatric genius of Shakspeare and Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one, and licentiousness of the other.” With such recommendation, “Douglas” was presented at Covent-garden in March 14, 1757, but received at first with moderate applause. Its worth, however, was gradually acknowledged, and it is now fully established as a stock-piece. It would hare been happy for the author had he stopt here; but the success of “Douglas” had intoxicated him, and he went on from this time to 1778, producing “Agis,” “The Siege of Aquileia,” “The Fatal Discovery,” “Alonzo,” and Alfred,“none of which had even a temporary success. In the mean time lord Bute took him under his patronage, and procured him a pension. In March 1763 he was also appointed a commissioner for sick and wounded seamen, and for the exchange of prisoners; and in April of the same year was appointed conservator of the Scotch privileges at Campvere in Zealand. With his” Alfred,“which lived only three nights, he took his leave of the stage, and retired to Scotland, where he resided the greater part of his life. In. 1778, when the late duke of Buccleugh raised a regiment of militia, under the name of fencibles, Mr. Home received a captain’s commission, which he held until the peace. A few years ago, he published” The History of the Rebellion in Scotland in 1745-6," 4to, a work of which great expectations were formed, but whether he delayed it until too late, for he was now seventy-eight years old, or whether he did not feel himself at liberty to make use of all his materials, the public was not satisfied. For a considerable time prior to his death, his mental faculties were impaired, and in this distressful state he died at Merchiston-house, Sept. 4, 1808, at the advanced age of eightyfive.

, the most ancient of the Greek poets extant, has been called the Father of poetry; but, however celebrated by others, he has been so very modest about himself, that we do not find the least mention of him throughout his poems: Where he was born, who were his parents, at what exact period he lived, and ulmost every circumstance of his life, remain at this day in a great measure, if not altogether unknown. The Arundel marbles say that he flourished in the tenth century before Christ, and other authorities say the eighth. The most copious account we have of the life of Homer is that which goes under the name of Herodotus, and is usually printed with his history: and though it is generally supposed to be spurious, yet as it is ancient, was made use of by Strabo, and exhibits that idea which the later Greeks, and the Romans in the age of Augustus, entertained of Homer, an abstract of it cannot be unnecessary.

A man of Magnesia, whose name was Menalippus, went to settle at Cumae, where he married the daughter of a citizen called Homyres, and had by her a daughter called Critheis. The father and mother dying, Critheis was left under the tuition of Cleonax her father’s friend; and, suffering herself to be deluded, became pregnant. The guardian, though his care had not prevented the misfortune, was however willing to conceal it; and therefore sent Critheis to Smyrna. Critheis being near her time, went one day to a festival, which the town of Smyrna was celebrating on the banks of the river Meles; where she was delivered of Homer, whom she called Melesigenes, because he was born on the banks of that river. Having nothing to maintain her, she was forced to spin: and a man of Smyrna called Phemius, who taught literature and music, having often seen Critheis, who lodged near him, and being pleased with her housewifery, took her into his house to spin the wool he received from his scholars for their schooling. Here she behaved herself so modestly and discreetly, that Phemius married her, and adopted her son, in whom he discovered a wonderful genius, and an excellent natural disposition. After the death of Phemius and Critheis, Homer succeeded to his father-in-law’s fortune and school; and was admired not only by the inhabitants of Smyrna, but by strangers, who resorted from all parts to that place of trade. A ship-master called Mentes, who was a man of wit, very learned, and a lover of poetry, was so pleased with Homer, that he persuaded him to leave his school, and to travel with him. Homer, whose mind was then employed upon his “Iliad,” and who thought it of great consequence to see the places of which he should have occasion to treat, embraced the opportunity, and during their several voyages, never failed carefully to note down what he thought worth observing. He travelled into Egypt, whence he brought into Greece the names of their gods, and the chief ceremonies of their worship. He visited Africa and Spain, in his return from which places he touched at Ithaca, and was there much troubled with a rheum falling upon his eyes. Mentes being in haste to visit Leucadia his native country, left Homer well recommeMcled to Mentor, one of the chief men of the island of Ithaca, and there he was informed of many things relating to Ulysses, which he afterwards made use of in composing his “Odyssey,” Mentes returning to Ithaca, found Homer cured. They embarked together; and after much time spent in visiting* the coasts of Peloponnesus and the Islands, they arrived at Colophon, where Homer was again troubled with the defluxion upon his eyes, which proved so violent, that he is said to have lost his sight . This misfortune made him resolve to return to Smyrna, where he finished his “Iliad.” Some time after, the baJ state of his affairs obliged him to go to Cumae, where he hoped to have found some relief. Stopping by the way at a place called the New Wall, which was the residence of a colony from Cumae, he lodged in the house of an armourer called Tichius, and recited some hymns he had made in honour of the Gods, and his poem of Amphiaraus’s expedition against Thebes. After staying here some time and being greatly admired, he went to Cumae; and passing through Larissa, he wrote the epitaph of Midas, king of Phrygia, then newly dead. At Cumas he was received with extraordinary joy, and his poems highly applauded; but when he proposed to immortalize their town, if they would allovr him a salary, he was answered, that “there would be no end of maintaining all the 'O^oi or Blind Men,” and hence got the name of Homer. From Cumae he went to Phocasa, where he recited his verses in public assemblies. Here one Thestoricles, a schoolmaster, offered to maintain him, if he would suffer him to transcribe his verses: which Homer complying with through mere necessity, the schoolmaster privily withdrew to Chios, and there grew rich with Homer’s poems, while Homer at Phocaea hardly earned his bread by repeating them.

Obtaining, however, at last some intimation of the schoolmaster, he resolved to find him out; and landing near Chios, he was received by one Glaucus, a shepherd, by whom he was carried to his master at Bolissus, who, admiring his knowledge, intrusted him with the education of his children. Here his praise began to get abroad, and the schoolmaster hearing of him, fled before him. At Chios, Homer set up a school of poetry, gained a competent fortune, married a wife, and had two daughters; one of which died young, and the other was married to his patron at Bolissus. Here he composed his “Odyssey,” and inserted the names of those to whom he had been most obliged, as Mentes, Phemius, Mentor; and resolving to visit Athens, he made honourable mention of that city, to dispose the Athenians for a kind reception of him. But as he went, the ship put in at Samos, where he continued the whole winter, singing at the houses of great men, with a train of boys after him. In the spring he went on board again, in. order to prosecute his journey to Athens; but, landing by the way at Chios, he fell sick, died, and was buried on the sea-shore.

This is the most regular life we have of JHomer; and though probably but little of it is exactly true, yet it has this advantage over all other accounts which remain of him, that it is more within the compass of probability. The only incontestable works which Homer has left behind him, are the “Iliad,” and the “Odyssey.” The “Batrachomyomachia,” or “Battle of the Frogs and Mice,” has been disputed, but yet is allowed to be his by many authors. The Hymns have been doubted also, and attributed by the scholiasts to Cynaethus the rhapsodist: but Thucydides, Lucian, and Pausanias, have cited them as genuine. We have the authority of the two former for that to Apollo; and of the last for a “Hymn to Ceres,” of which he has given us a fragment. The whole hymn has been lately found by Matthsei at Moscow, and was published by Ruhnkenius in 1782, at Leyden. A good translation has since been given by Mr. Hole. The Hymn to Mars is objected against; and likewise the first to Minerva. The “Hymn to Venus” has many of its lines copied by Virgil, in the interview between yEneas and that goddess in the first “Æneid.” But whether these hymns are Homer’s or not, they were always judged to be nearly as ancient, if not of the same age with him. Many other pieces were ascribed to him: “Epigrams,” the “Margites,” the “Cecropes,” the “Destruction of Oechalia,” and several more. Time may here have prevailed over Homer, by leaving only the names of these works, as memorials that such were once in being; but, while the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” remain, he seems like a leader, who, though he may have failed in a skirmish or two, has carried a victory, for which he will pass in triumph through all future ages.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

, an excellent classical scholar, the son of the rev. Henry Homer, rector of Birdingbury, in Warwickshire, who died a few months after this son, in 1791, was born in 1752, and at the age of seven was sent to Rugby school, where he remained seven years, and became the head-boy of about sixty. He afterwards went to Birmingham-school, where he remained three years more. In November 1768, he was admitted of Emanuel-college, Cambridge, under Dr. Farmer, where he became acquainted with Dr. Samuel Parr, and was in some measure directed in his studies by this eminent scholar. He proceeded regularly to his degree of B. A. in 1773, of M. A. in 1776, and that of B. D. in 1783. He was elected fellow of his college in 1778, but had lived in Warwickshire about three years before he became fellow, and returned to the university soon after his election. He then resided much at Cambridge, frequently visiting the public library, and making himself acquainted with the history or contents of many curious books which are noticed only by scholars, and particularly turned his attention to several philological works of great utility and high 'reputation. He was well versed in the notes subjoined to some of the best editions of various authors; and of his general erudition the reader will form no unfavourable opinion from the following account of the works in which he was engaged. He joined with Dr. Parr in the republication of Bellenden’s Tracts in 1787, and about the same year published three books of “Livy,” viz. the 1st, 25th, and 31st from Drachenborch’s edition, with dissertations, &c. This was followed by, 1. “Tractatus varii Latini aCrevier, Brotier,” &c. 1788. 2. Ovid’s “Epistles” ex editione Burman. 1789. 3. “Sallust. ex cditione Cortii,” 1789. 4. “Pliny, ex editione Cortii et Longolii,” 1790; 5. “Caesar, ex edit. Oudendorp,” 1790. 6. “Persius ex edit. Heninii.” 7. “Tacitus, ex edit, Brotier,” complete all but the Index. 8. “Livy” and “Quintilian,” in the press at the time of his death. He also intended to have published “Quintus Curtius,” but no steps were taken towards it. To these, however, may be added his “Tacitus de Moribus Germanorum et de Vita Agricolje,” 1788, and Tacitus “De Oratoribus,” 1789. Dr. Parr having considered him as a very proper person to undertake a variorum edition of Horace, he had made some progress in that work, which was finally published by Dr. Combe, and occasioned a paper-war between Dr. Combe and Dr. Parr, which we had rather refer to than detail. Mr. Homer, in consequence of some religious scruples, refused to take priest’s orders, when by the founder’s statutes he was required to take them, in order to preserve the rank he had attained in the college; in consequence of which his fellowship was declared vacant in June 1788. HediedMay4, 1791, of a decline, hastened, if not occasioned, by too close an attention to his literary pursuits. The works he left unfinished were completed by his brothers, but, we are sorry to hear, have not met with that encouragement from the public, which they amply merit.

, a lawyer, philologer, and historian of Leipsic, was born in 1722. He published his first work in 1743, which was a tract in 4to. 1. “De Legum civilium et naturalium Natura.” 2. “Oblectamenta Juris Feudalis, sive Grammaticaj Observationes jus rei clientelaris, et antiquitates Germanicas, varie illustrantes,” 1755. This was also in quarto, and tends, as well as his other works, to prove the pleasing qualities and the acuteness of his mind. 3. “Literatura Juris,” 1761, 8vo. 4. “Jurisprudentia numismatibus illustrata, necnon sigillis, gemmis, aliisque picturis vetustis varie exornata,” 1763, 8vo. 5. “Corpus juris civilis, cum notis variorum,” 1768, 8vo. 6. “Palingenesia librorum juris veterum,” &c. 1768, 3 vols. 8vo. He published some smaller tracts, but these are the most important. Hommel died in 1781.

, an Arabian, and celebrated translator of the ninth century, was a Christian and a native of Hira. Having quitted Bagdad, where he had been improperly treated, he went to Greece, and remained there two years, studying the language, and collecting a library of the best writers. He then returned to Bagdad, and some time after went to Persia, where he learned the Arabic, and then finally settled at Bagdad, and executed very valuable translations of the Elements of Euclid, the Almagestus of Ptolemy, and the writings of Hippocrates and other Greek authors. At the desire of Almamon or Abdaliah III. he translated into Arabic all the works of Aristotle; and for every book of that philosopher is said to have received from Almamon its weight in gold. An anecdote very honourable to him is told by Abulfaragius. One day, after some medical conversation, the Caliph said to him, “Teach me a prescription by which I may take off any enemy I please, without being discovered.” Honain declining to give an answer, and pleading ignorance, was imprisoned. Being brought again, after a year’s interval, into the Caliph’s presence, and still persisting in ignorance, though threatened with death, the Caliph smiled upon him, and said, “Be of good cheer, we were only trying thee, that we might have the greater confidence in thee.” As Honain upon this bowed down and kissed the earth, “What hindered thee,” says the Caliph, “from granting our request, when thou sawest us appear so ready to perform what we had threatened?” “Two things;” replied Honain, “my Religion, and my Profession. My religion, which commands me to do good to my enemies; and my profession, which was purely instituted for the benefit of mankind.” v Two noble laws," said the Caliph; and immediately presented him, according to the Eastern usage, with rich garments, and a sum of money. This Caliph was not only an, illustrious patron of the learned, but was himself no mean adept in several branches of science. He was well acquainted with astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy; and was frequently present at the conferences of learned men, entering with great spirit into the subjects of their debates. In the midst of the praise which is due to this Caliph, it must, however, be mentioned with regret, that, through an ill-judged partiality for his vernacular tongue, he gave orders that, after the Arabic versions were finished, the original Greek manuscripts should be burned. A similar folly seized the Caliphs of Africa: and to this cause we are, doubtless, to ascribe the entire loss of many ancient, writings. The diligence, however, with which this Caliph cultivated and encouraged learning, cancels’ in some measure this disgrace, and leaves him entitled to an honourable station among philosophers.

, the son and grandson of two Dutch painters of considerable reputation, was born, at Utrecht in 1636, and carefully trained up to the profession by his father. He chose the same subjects; but, in his manner, he surpassed not only his master, but even the best of his contemporaries, in a very high degree. Till he was seventeen years of age he practised under his father’s direction, and accustomed himself to paint several sorts of birds; but he was particularly pleased to represent cocks, hens, ducks, chickens, and peacocks, which he described in an elegant variety of actions and attitudes. After the death of his father, in 1653, he received some instructions from his uncle John Baptist Weeninx; but his principal and best instructor was nature, which he studied with intense application, and that enabled him to give to every animal he painted such truth, such a degree of force, expression, and life, as seemed to equal nature itself; nor did any artist take more pains to study every point that might conduce to the perfection of his art. His pencil was wonderfully neat and delicate; his touch light, his colouring exceedingly natural, lively, and remarkably transparent; and the feathers of his fowls were expressed with such a swelling softness, as might readily and agreeably deceive the eye of any spectator. It is reported, that he had trained up a cock to stand in any ajttitude he wanted to describe, and that it was his custom to place that creature near his easel; so that, at the motion of his hand, the bird would fix itself in the proper posture, and would continue in that particular position, without the smallest perceptible alteration, for several hours at a time.

The landscapes which he introduces as the back grounds of his pictures, are adapted with peculiar judgment and skill, and admirably finished; they harmonize with his subject, and always increase the force and the beauty of his principal objects. His touch was very singular in imitating the natural plumage of the fowls he painted; which not only produced a charming effect, but also may prove serviceable to an intelligent observer, to assist him in determining which are the genuine pictures of this master, and which are impositions. The works of Hondekotter are justly in very great request and estimation, and they generally afford a large price, almost in proportion to their value. He died 1695, aged 59.

, another artist, well known in this kingdom, was born at Rotterdam in 1638, according to the most authentic writers, though Descamps fixes his birth in 1650. He appears to have been an universal master, painting, with equal readiness, landscapes, animals of all kinds, particularly dogs, huntings of wild animals, boars, deer, wolves, and foxes, as also conversations and fowls; but his favourite subjects were huntings. His manner seems peculiar to himself; it was bold and free; and, except Rubens and Snyders, few masters have painted animals in a greater style, or with more spirit. There is certainly a great deal of fire in his compositions; but his colouring is often extravagant, and his drawing extremely incorrect. In general his pencilling was harsh, and he delighted in a fiery tint; yet some of his small pictures are very neatly finished. There is a great inequality as to the merit of the works of Hondius, some of them being in every respect abundantly superior to others; but there is scarce any master whose compositions are so easily distinguishable as those of Hondius, by certain particularities in his touch, his taste of design, and his colouring.

Several of his pictures of dogs are much esteemed; and one especially is mentioned, in which he represented thirty different species of those animals, all being well designed, and every distinct animal being characterised with some peculiar air, action, expression, or attitude. As he was exceedingly harassed and tormented with the gout, the works of his latter time are more negligently executed than those which he finished in his prime; and, therefore, they very much contribute to lessen the reputation he had acquired by some of his more studied and better finished performances. His most capital picture is the burning of Troy, in which there are a variety of figures, many of them well designed, and disposed with judgment. Houbraken also mentions a candle-light of this master’s hand, in which appeared a fine opposition of light and shadow, and the figures were extremely well designed and well coloured. When he came to England is not known. Vertue says he was a man of humour. He lived on Ludgate-hill, but died of a severe fit of the gout in 1695 at the Blackmoor’s head, over against Water-lane, Fleet-street. Iodocus or Jesse Hondius is supposed to have been his grandfather. He was born at Wackerne, a small town in Flanders, in 1563, and died in 1611. He was a self-taught engraver both on copper and ivory, and a letter-founder; in all which branches he attained great excellence. He studied geography also, and in 1607 published a work entitled “Descriptio Geographica orbis terrarum,” in folio.

, a lawyer of Nuremberg, was born there in 1662. He became counsellor to the duke of Meinungen, and bailli of Cobourg,' at which place he died in 1747. His works are chiefly these: 1. “Iter Juridicum, per Belgium, Angliam, Galliam, Italiam.” 2. “Lexicon Topographicum Franconia3.” 3. “History of the Duchy of Saxe-Cobourg,” in German. 4. “Thoughts on the Suppression of Mendicity,” in the same language.

, was born in Dublin in 1767, and came to England in the early part of life, painting in several parts of the country, particularly at York, where he married a lady of some property. A short time after his marriage, he settled in London, and practised with reputation, both as a painter in oil, and in miniature, particularly enamel; and after the death of Zincke, ranked among the principal artists of his day in that branch. He was chosen one of the members of the royal academy at its first institution; but took offence at one of his pictures, intended as a satire on sir Joshua Reynolds, being rejected from the exhibition. Another was also objected to, as containing a very profane allusion, which he altered with a substance easily washed away, and the picture was again exhibited in its original state at an exhibition of his own, in 1775. As a painter in oil, he was by no means an inferior artist, yet the colouring of his pictures was too red for the carnations, and the shadows not sufficiently clear. A few years before his death, he removed to Rathboneplace. He died Aug. 14, 1784, and was buried at Hendon, where five of his children lie.

, bishop of Marseilles, flourished about the year 490. He was, according to Gennadius, who celebrates him, a man of ready and abundant eloquence. He published many homilies, some delivered in an extemporary manner, others regularly composed; in which his object was to confute the dreams of heretics, and exhort his hearers to piety. He wrote also lives of many eminent leaders of the church, of which no one is extant, except his life of St. Hilary of Aries.

, whose proper name was Blaize Vauzelle, was born July 4, 1651, at Limoges. He made profession among the Carmelites at Toulouse, in 1671; taught theology with reputation in his order, in which he was prior, counsellor, provincial, and visitorgeneral of the three provinces of France. He died 1729, at Lisle, aged seventy-eight. His most curious work is entitled “Reflexions sur les regies, et sur l'usage de la Critique,” 3 vols. 4to; the first volume is most esteemed. He also left, “La Tradition des Peres, et des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, sur la Contemplation^ avec un Traite sur les motifs, et la pratique, de l'Amour Divin,” 3 vols. 12mo; “Traite des Indulgences et du Jubile,” 12mo; <( Dissertations historiques et critiques sur les Ordres militaires," 1718, 4to. He wrote some pieces in favour of the Formulary, and the constitution Unigenitus, &c. 2 Hontan (The Baron de), was a native of Gascony, in the seventeenth century, and is principally known by his travels in North America, which, however, are written in an embarrassed and barbarous style, confounding truth and falsehood, disfiguring names, and disguising facts. They contain some episodes of pure fiction, particularly the narrative of the voyage up the long river, which is supposed to be of equal authority with the Voyage to Lilliput. He describes, nevertheless, with some success, the general face of the country, and the disposition, customs, government, and other particulars of the inhabitants. There is an edition of his travels published at Amsterdam in 1705, 2 vols. 12mo. He began his career in Canada as a common soldier, was raised to the rank of an officer, went to Newfoundland in the quality of royal lieutenant, there quarrelled with the governor, was broken, and retired first to Portugal, and finally to Denmark.

, a celebrated artist, called also Gerardo Dalle Notti, from his principal subjects, was born at Utrecht in 1592, and was a disciple of Abraham Bloemavt; but completed his studies at Home, where he continued several years, employed there by persons of the first rank, and particularly by prince Justiniani. He imitated the style of Caravaggio, with whose vivid tone and powerful masses of light and shade, he attempted to combine correctness of outline, refinement of forms, graceful attitudes, and that dignity which ought to be the characteristic of sacred subjects. In this he often succeeded. His subjects are generally night-pieces as large as life, and illuminated by torch or candle-light. Among his numerous pictures, that of our Saviour before the Tribunal of Pilate, in the gallery Justiniani, for energy, dignity, and contrast, is the most celebrated. Soon after his return to his own country he visited London, and obtained the favour of king Charles I. by several grand performances and portraits; especially by one allegorical picture, in which he represented the portraits of the king and queen, in the characters of two deities, and the portrait of the. duke of Buckingham in the character of Mercury, introducing the liberal arts to that monarch and his consort. For that composition, which was well drawn and extremely well coloured, the king presented him with three thousand florins, a service of plate for twelve persons, and a beautiful horse; and he had afterwards the honour to instruct the queen of Bohemia, and the princesses her children, in drawing.

His pencil is free and firm, and his colouring has a great deal of force, although it often is not pleasing, by a predominancy of the yellow and brown tints; yet undoubtedly Honthorst would have been an excellent painter if he had known how to give more grace and more correctness to his figures. At his return from London to Holland he adorned the pleasure houses of the prince of Orange with many poetical subjects, which he executed in fresco as well as in oil; but he principally was employed in painting portraits, which are described as having good expression, and extraordinary life and force, by their broad masses of light being contrasted by strong shadows. He died in 1660, aged sixty-eight. His brother, William, was born at Utrecht in 1604, and learned the art of painting from Abraham Bloemart. The portraits which he painted were very much esteemed, and are far superior to his historical subjects, which are in no degree equal to those of Gerard, although they are frequently sold for the works of that master. He died in 1683, aged seventy-nine.

, a Dutch poet and historian, but principally eminent in the latter capacity, was born at Amsterdam in 1581. He was honoured by Louis XIII. with a ribband of the order of St. Michael, probably in consequence of his history of Henry IV. Frederic Henry prince of Orange being dead, Hooft was preparing to attend his funeral, when he was himself taken violently ill, and died in 1647. His works consist of, 1. “Epigrams, Comedies, and other Poems.” 2. “The History of the Low Countries, from the abdication of Charles V. to the year 1598.” A good edition of it appeared in 1703, in 2 vols. folio. 3. “A History of Henry IV. of France,” in Latin. 4. “A Translation of Tacitus into Dutch,” very highly esteemed in that country. To familiarize the style of his author completely to his mind, he is said to have read all the extant works of Tacitus fiftytwo times.

, a very celebrated Dutch philologer, was born at Leyden, in the latter end of January 1712. His parents were poor, but of great probity; and, had it not been for a very laudable ambition in his father to make his son a scholar, the obscurity of a mechanical trade would probably have concealed his powers through life. At ten years of age he was sent to school, but for a considerable time gave not the slightest proof of talents for literature, so completely depressed was he by the wanton tyranny of a severe master. When at length he was removed into another class, and was under a milder teacher, his powers began to expand, and he took the lead among those of his standing, instead of holding an inferior place. So early as at fifteen he began the task of teaching others, to alleviate the expences of his parents, being now highly qualified for such an undertaking. He was employed in teaching the inferior classes of the school to which he still belonged. While he was yet employed in his studies, he lost his father; but this misfortune rather redoubled his efforts than subdued his spirit. In 1732, before he had exceeded his twentieth year, he obtained the appointment of co-rector (or under-master) at Gorcum. Within nine months the magistrates of the city of Woerden gave him an appointment there, which induced him to think of matrimony. He married in March 1733, and began the care of this school in May, the same year. By this wife, who died in 1738, he had three sons and two daughters. In the same year he was solicited by the magistrates of Culembourg to undertake the care of their school, to which, with much reluctance in leaving his former situation, he at length consented. Here he took a second wife, who produced him eight children; and here, notwithstanding solicitations from other places, he continued for several years. At length, much fatigued by incessant attention to a great number of scholars, he went in 1745 to Breda, on a more liberal appointment. The very next year, Breda being harassed by a French invasion, Hoogeveen was obliged to send his collection of books to Leyden, and literary pursuits were at a stand. He remained, however, sixteen years at Breda, and had determined there to end his days, but Providence decided otherwise. The malice and turbulence of a person who had taken up some unreasonable cause of offence against him, inclined him to leave Breda. His intention being known, he was liberally invited to Dort, whither he transferred his residence in 1761. From this place, after living there three years, he was in a manner forced away by the importunity and liberality of the city of Delft. On his first arrival there, he encountered some difficulties from calumny and malice, but he weathered the storm, and remained there the remainder of his life in peace and honour. He died about Nov. 1, 1794, leaving some surviving children by both his marriages.

His works are, 1. An edition of “Vigerus de Idiotismis Linguae Graecae,” published at Leyden in 1743, and several times republished. His improvements to this work are of the highest value. 2. “An Inaugural Speech at Culembourg,” in 1738. 3. “An Alcaic Ode to the people of Culembourg,” De Inundatione feliciter averruncata.“4.” An Elegiac Poem,“in defence of poets, against Plato; and several other occasional pieces, few of which are published. 5.” Doctrina particularurn Linguae Graecae," 1769, 2 vols. 4to. This great work, the foundation of his well-earned fame, is executed with a prodigious abundance of learning, and has been approved and received throughout Europe. He followed Devarius professedly to a certain point, but went far beyond him in copiousness and sagacity. A very useful abridgment of this work, the only fault of which is too great prolixity, was published at Dessau, in 1782, by Schutz. This edition will be found more useful to the young student than the vast work on which it is faunded, as more easily purchased, and more easily read.

, a professor of the belles lettres, was born at Rotterdam in 1658, and died at Amsterdam in 1724. In the evening of Nov. 13, there suddenly arose so thick a mist, that he lost his way, and fell into a canal. He was soon taken out; but the coldness of the water, and the fright from the fall, brought on so strong an oppression upon the breast, that he died in eight days after. There are of Ims, 1. “Latin Poems.” 2. “Flemish Poems.” 3. “A Flemish and Latin Dictionary.” 4. “Notes upon C. Nepos and Terence.” 5. “An edition of Phaedrus,” for the prince of Nassau, 4to, in imitation of the Delphin editions. 6. A fine edition of “Janus Broukhusius’s Poems.”

, a Dutch designer and engraver, who nourished towards the close of the seventeenth century, bad a lively imagination, by which he was sometimes led astray and his works must be viewed with some allowance for incorrectness of design and injudicious choice of subjects, which were in general of an allegorical cast, or distinguished by a kind of low caricature. His works are chiefly extant in certain editions of books for which he was employed; as, 1. Plates for the Old and New Testament, in folio, published by Basnage in 1704. 2. Plates to “the Academy of the Art of Wrestling,” in Dutch, 1674, and in French in 1712. 3. Plates to the Bible, with Dutch explanations. 4. Plates for the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Amsterdam, 1735, small folio. 5. Plates to Fontaine’s Fables, 1685, 2 vols. 8vo. 6. To Boccace, 1695, 2 vols. 8vo. 7. To the Tales of the Queen of Navarre. 8. To the “Cent Nouvelles nouvelles,” 1701? 2 vols. 8vo. Such of his plates as are to be met with separate from the works to which they belong, bear a higher price.

, celebrated for a “Roman History,” died July 19, 1763, but we know not at what age; as indeed few particulars of him are recorded, though he is said, “from 1723 till his death, to have enjoyed the confidence and patronage of men not less distinguished by virtue than hy titles.” The first particular that occurs of him is from a letter to lord Oxford, dated Oct. 17,1722, by which it appears, that, having been “seized with the late epidemical distemper of endeavouring to be rich,” meaning the South-sea infatuation, “he was in some measure happy to find himself at that instant just worth nothing,” Some time after, however, he was recommended to Sarah duchess of Marlborough, who presented him with 5000l. the condition of which donation was expressly, that he the said Hooke should aid and assist her the said duchess in drawing up and digesting “An account of the conduct of the dowager duchess of Marl borough, from her first coming to court to the year 1710.” This was done, and the work was published in 1742, 8vo; but soon after she took occasion, as was usual with her, to quarrel with him, “because,” finding her without religion, “he attempted,” as she affirmed, “to convert her to popery.” Hooke was a mystic and quietist, and a warm disciple of Fenelon, whose life he translated from the French, and published in 1723, 12mo. It was he who brought a catholic priest to take Pope’s confession upon his death-bed: the priest had scarcely departed, when Bolingbroke coming in, flew into a great passion upon the occasion. He is said to have been a remarkably fine reader. Richardson informs us, that he once read some speeches of his Roman History to the speaker Onslow, who piqued himself too upon reading, and begged him to give his opinion of the work: the Speaker answered, as in a passion, “he could not tell what to think of it: it might be nonsense for aught he knew; for that his manner of reading had bewitched him.”

The “Roman History” of Hooke was published in, 4 vols. 4to; the first in 1733, the second in 1745, the third in 1764, and the fourth in 1771. It embraces the events from the building of Rome to the ruin of the commonwealth. In 1758 he published “Observationson four pieces upon the Roman Senate,” among which were those of Middleton and Chapman; and was answered in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “A short Review of Mr. Hooke’s Observations, &c. concerning the Roman Senate, and the character of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” 1753, 8vo. But the author of this was Edward Spelman, esq. who was then publishing an English translation of Dionysius. Hooke published also a translation of Ramsay’s “Travels of Cyrus,” 1739, 4to. Mr. Hooke left two sons; one a clergyman of the English church, rector of Birkby and vicar of Leek in Yorkshire, who died in 1791; the other a doctor of the Sorbonne, and professor of astronomy in that seminary.

, an eminent English mathematician, and one of the most inventive geniuses that the world has ever seen, was son of Mr. John Hooke, rector of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, and born there July 18, 1635. He was designed for the church; but being of a weakly constitution, and very subject to the head-ache, he was left to follow the bent of his genius, which led him to mechanics, and first appeared in his making little toys, which he did with wonderful art and dexterity. Seeing, on one occasion, an old brass clock taken to pieces, he made a wooden one that would go: he made likewise a small ship about a yard long, fitly shaped, masted, and rigged, with a contrivance to make it fire small guns, as it was sailing across a haven of some breadth. These indications led his friends to think of some trade for him in which such talents might be useful; and after his father’s death in 1648, as he had also a turn for drawing, he was placed with sir Peter Lely, but the smell of the oil-colours increased his headaches, and he quitted painting in a very short time. Afterwards he was kindly taken by Dr. Busby into his house, and supported there while he attended Westminster-school. Here he not only acquired Greek and Latin, together with some knowledge of Hebrew and other oriental languages, but also made himself master of a good part of Euclid’s Elements; and Wood adds, that while he lived with Dr. Busby he “learned of his own accord to play twenty lessons on the organ, and invented thirty several ways of flying as himself and Dr. Wilkins of Wadham- college have reported.” About 1653 he went to Christ-church, Oxford, and in 1655 was introduced to the philosophical society there; where, discovering his mechanic genius, he was first employed to assist Dr. Willis in his operations of chemistry, and afterwards recommended to Mr. Boyle, whom he served many years in the same capacity. He was also instructed about this time by Dr. Seth Ward, Savilian professor of astronomy, in that science; and from henceforward distinguished himself by a greater number of important inventions and improvements of the mechanic kind, than any one man had ever discovered. Among these were several astronomical instruments for making observations both at sea and land; and he was particularly serviceable to Boyle, in completing the air-pump. Wood tells us, that he also explained “Euclid’s Elements,” and “Des Cartes’s Philosophy,” to Boyle. In Nov. 1662, sir Robert Moray, then president, having proposed him for curator of experiments to the Royal Society, he was unanimously accepted, and it was ordered that Boyle should have the thanks of the society for dispensing with him for their use; and that he should come and sit among them, and both exhibit every day three or four of his own experiments, and take care of such others as should be mentioned to him by the society. He executed this office so much to their satisfaction, that when that body was established by the royal charter, his name was in the list of those who were first nominated by the council, May 20, 1663; and he was admitted accordingly, June 3, with a peculiar exemption from all payments. Sept. 28 of the same year, he was nominated by Clarendon, chancellor of Oxford, for the degree of M.A.; and Oct. 19, it was ordered that the repository of the Royal Society should be committed to his care, the white gallery in Gresham-college being appointed for that use. In May 1664, he began to read the astronomical lecture at Gresham for the professor, Dr. Pope, theri in Italy; and the same year was made professor of mechanics to the Royal Society by Sir John Cutler, with a salary of 50l. per annum, which that gentleman, the founder, v settled upon him for life. On Jan. 11, 1664-5, he was elected by that society curator of experiments for life, with an additional salary of“30l. per annum to sir John Cutler’s annuity, settled on him” pro tempore:“and, March folJowing, was elected professor of geometry in Greshamcollege. In 1665, he published in folio his” Micrographia, or some philosophical descriptions of minute bodies, made by magnifying glasses, with observations and enquiries thereupon:" and the same year, during the recess of the Royal Society on account of the plague, attended Dr. Wilkins and other ingenious gentlemen into Surrey, where they made several experiments. In Sept. 1666, he produced his plan for rebuilding the city of London, then destroyed by the great fire; which was approved by the lord -may or and court of aldermen. According to it, all the chief streets were to have been built in regular lines; all the other cross streets to have turned out of them at right angles; and all the churches, public buildings, marketplacesj &c. to have beetl fixed in proper and convenient places; but the nature of the property, and the impossibility of raising funds to indemnify the landholders who would be injured by this scheme, prevented its being carried into execution. The rebuilding of the city, however, according to the act of parliament, requiring an able person to set out the ground to the several proprietors, Hooke was appointed one of the city surveyors, and Oliver, a glass-painter, the other. In this employment he acquired the greatest part of that estate of which he died possessed; as appeared sufficiently evident from a large iron chest of money found after his death, locked down with a key in it, and a date of the time, which shewed that the contents had been so shut up for above thirty years, and seldom disturbed, for he almost starved himself and all in his house.

In 1668, Hevelius, the famous astronomer at Dantzick, presented a copy of his “Cometographia” to Hooke, in acknowledgment for an handsome compliment which Hooke had paid to him on account of his “Selenographia,” printed in 1647; and Hooke, in return, sent Hevelius a description of the dioptric telescope, with an account of his manner of using 1 it, and recommended it to him as preferable to those with plain sights. This circumstance gave rise to a great dispute betwee'n them, noticed in our account of Hevelius, hi which many learned men afterwards engaged, and which Hooke so managed, as to be univeraiiy condemned, though it has since been agreed that he had the best side of the question. In 1671 he attacked sir Isaac Newton’s “New Theory of Light and Colours;” where, though he was forced to submit in respect to the argument, he is said to have couie off with a better reputation than in the former instance. The Royal Society having begun their meetings at Gresham-college, in Nov. 1674, the committee in December allowed him 40l. to erect a turret over part of his lodgings, for proving his instruments, and making astronomical observations; and the year following he published “A Description of Telescopes, and some other instruments,” made by him, with a postscript, complaining of some injustice done him by Oldenburg, the publisher of the “Philosophical Transactions,” in regard to his invention of pendulum watches. This charge drew him into a dispute with that gentleman, which ended in a declaration of the Royal Society in their secretary’s favour. Oldenburg dying in Aug. 1677, Hooke was appointed to supply his place, and began to take minutes at the meeting in October, and published seven numbers of the “Philosophical Collections,” which have been always considered as a part of the “Philosophical Transactions.” Soon after this be grew more reserved than formerly, and though he read his Cutlerian lectures, and often made experiments, and shewed new inventions before the Royal Society, yet'he seldom left any account of them to be entered in their registers, designing, as he said, to fit them for himself, and make them public, which however he never performed. In 1636, when sir Isaac Newton’s Principia were published, Hooke, with that jealousy which was natural to him, claimed priority respecting the idea of gravitation. Newton, with a candour equally natural to him, admitted his claim, but shewed at the same time that Hooke’s notion of gravitation was different from his own, and that it did not coincide with the phenomena. In reality, the notion of gravitation is as ancient at least as the days of Lucretius, and is particularly notice<i by Kepler. Newton’s merit consisted, not in ascribing the planetary motions to gravitation, but in determining the law which gravitation follow:;, and in shewing that it exactly accounts for all the planetary phenomena, which no other system. does.

In 1687, his brother’s daughter, Mrs. Grace Hooke, who had lived with him several years, died; and he was so affected at her death, that he hardly ever recovered it, but was observed from that time to grow less active, more melancholy, and, if possible, more cynical than ever. At the same time a chancery-suit, in which he was concerned with sir John Cutler, on account of his salary for reading the Cutlerian lectures, made him very uneasy, and increased his disorder. In 1691, he was employed in forming the plan of the hospital near Hoxton, (bun Jed by Aske, alderman of London, who appointed archbishop Tillotson one of his executors; and in December the same year, Hooke was created M. D. by a warrant from that prelate. He is also said to have been the architect of Bedlam, and the College of Physicians. In July 1696, his chancerysuit for sir John Cutler’s salary was determined in his favour, to his inexpressible satisfaction. His joy on that occasion was found in his diary thus expressed “Domshlgissa that is, Deo Optimo Maximo sit honor, laus, gloria, in saecula saeculorum. Amen. I was born on this day of July, 1635, and God has given me a new birth: may I never forget his mercies to me! whilst he gives me breath may I praise him!” The same year an order was granted to him for repeating most of his experiments, at the expence of the Royal Society, upon a promise of his finishing the accounts, observations, and deductions from them, and of perfecting the description of all the instruments contrived by him, which his increasing illness and general decay rendered him unable to perform. For the two or three last years of his life he is said to have sat night and day at a table, engrossed with his inventions and studies, and never to have gone to bed, or even undressed; and in this wasting condition, and quite emaciated, he died March 3, 1702, at his lodgings in Gresham-college, and was buried in St. Helen’s church, Bishopsgate- street, his corpse being attended by all the members of the Royal Society then in London.

Waller, the writer of his life, has given the following character of him, which, though not an amiable one, seems to be drawn with candour and impartiality. He was in person but a despicable figure; short of stature, very crooked, pale, lean, and of a meagre aspect, with dark brown hair, very long, and hanging over his face, uncut, and lank. Suitable to this person, his temper was penurious, melancholy, mistrustful, and jealous; which qualities increased upon him with his years. He set out in his youth with a collegiate or rather a monastic recluseness, and afterwards led the life of a cynical hermit; scarcely allowing himself necessaries, notwithstanding the great increase of his fortunes after the fire in London . He declared sometimes, that he had a great project in his head as to the disposal of his estate, for the advancement of natural knowledge, and to promote the ends and designs for which the Royal Society was instituted; to build a handsome fabric for the society’s use, with a library, repository, laboratory, and other conveniences for making experiments; and to found and endow a physico-mechanic lecture like that of sir John Cutler. But though he was often solicited by his friends to put his designs down in writing, and make his will as to the disposal of his estate, yet he could never be prevailed on to do it, but died without any will that could be found. In like manner, with respect to his philosophical treasures, when he first became known to the learned world, he was very communicative of his inventions and discoveries, but afterwards grew close and reserved to a fault; alleclging for an excuse, that some persons challenged his discoveries for their own, and took occasion from his hints to perfect what he had not finished. For this reason he would suggest nothing, till he had time to perfect it himself; so that many things are lost which he affirmed he knew, though he was not supposed to know every thing which he affirmed. For instance, not many weeks before his death, he told Mr. Waller and others, that he knew a certain and infallible method of discovering the longitude at sea; yet it is evident that his friends distrusted his asseveration of this discovery; and how little credit was then given to it in general, appears from Waller’s own account. “Hooke,” says he, “suffering this invention to be undiscovered to the last, gave some persons cause to question, whether he was ever the possessor of it; and to doubt whether what in theory seemed very promising, would answer when put in practice. Others indeed more severely judged, that it was only a kind of boasting in him to assert that which had not been performed though attempted by many.” In the religious part of his character he was so far exemplary, that he always expressed a great veneration for the Deity, and seldom received any remarkable benefit in life, or made any considerable discovery in nature, or invented any useful contrivance, or found out any difficult problem, without setting down his acknowledgment to God, as many places in his diary plainly shew. He frequently studied the sacred writings in the originals; for he vvas acquainted with the ancient languages, as well as with all the parts of mathematics. “To conclude,” says Waller, “all Ins errors and blemishes were more than made amends for by the greatness and extent of his natural and acquired p-trts, and more than common if not wonderful sagacity, in diving into the most hidden secrets of nature, and in contriving proper methods of forcing her to confess the truth, by driving and pursuing the Proteus through all her changes to her last and utmost recesses. There needs no other proof of this, than the great number of experiments he made, with the contrivances for them, amounting to some hundreds; his new and useful instruments and inventions, which were numerous; his admirable facility and clearness in explaining the phenomena of nature, and demonstrating his assertions; his happy talent in adapting theories to the phenomena observed, and contriving easy and plain, not pompous and amusing, experiments to back and prove those theories; proceeding from obsenations to theories, and from theories to farther trials, which he asserted to be the most proper method to succeed in the interpretation of nature. For these his happy qualifications he was much respected by the most learned philosophers at home and abroad; and as with all his failures he may be reckoned among the great men of the last age, so, had he been free from them, possibly he might have stood in the front.”

His papers being put by his friends into the hands of Richard Waller, esq. secretary to the Royal Society, that gentleman collected such as he thought worthy of the press, and published them under the tide of his “Posthumous Works,” in 1705, to which he prefixed an account of his life, in folio.- It is thought, that this gentleman would have published more of Hooke’s manuscripts, had he lived. Mr. Professor Robison of Edinburgh, who ascribes the invention of spring watches to Hooke, had an opportunity of seeing some of Hooke’s Mss. that had been rescued from the fire at the burning of Gresham-college, and says that they are full of systematic views many of them, it must be acknowledged, hasty, inaccurate, and futile, but still systematical. Hooke called them algebras, and considered thein as having a sort of inventive power, or rather as means of discovering things unknown by a process somewhat similar to that art He valued himself highly on account of this view of science, which he thought peculiar to himself: and he frequently speaks of others, even the most eminent, as childishly contenting themselves with partial views of the corners of things. He was likewise very apt to consider other inventors as encroacbers on his systems, which he held as a kind of property, being seriously determined to prosecute them all in their turn, and never recollecting that any new object immediately called him off, and engaged him for a while in the most eager pursuit. His algebras had given him many signal helps, and he had no doubt of carrying them through in every investigation. Stimulated by this overfond expectation, when a discovery was mentioned to him he was too apt to think and to say, that he had long ago invented the same thing, when the truth probably was, that the course of his systematic thoughts on the subjects with which it was connected had really suggested it to him, with such vivacity, or with such notions of its importance, as to make him set it down in his register in its own systematic place, which was his constant practice: but it was put out of his mind by some new object of pursuit. These remarks are part of a series, by the same learned professor, on the merits and inventions of Dr. Hooke, which are new, and highly necessary to enable the reader to form a just estimate of Hooke as a benefactor to science. They are to be found in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” under the article Watch, and in Dr. Gleig’s supplement to that work, under Hooke. No English biographer appears to have done so much justice to our philosopher. 1 >

an English historian, was born at Exeter, about the year 1524. His father Hobert Hooker, a wealthy citizen, was in 1529 mayor of that city. Dr. Moreman, vicar of Menhinit in Cornwall, was his tutor in grammar, after which he studied at Oxford, but in what college Wood was not able to discover. Having left the University, he travelled to Germany, and resided some time at Cologn, where he studied the law; and thence to Strasburgh, where he heard the divinity lectures of Peter Martyr. He intended also to have visited France, Spain, and Italy, but a war breaking out, he returned to England, and, residing at his native city, Exeter, was elected chamberlain in 1554, being the first person who held that office; and in 1571 he represented Exeter in parliament. He died in 1601, and was buried in the cathedral of Exeter. His works are, 1. “Order and usage of keeping of Parliaments in Ireland.” The ms. of this is in Trinity-college-library, Dublin. He had been sent into Ireland by sir Peter Carew to negotiate his affairs there, and was elected burgess for Athenry in the parliament of 1568. This tract is printed with his Irish Chronicle in Holinshed. 2. “The events of Comets, or blazing stars, made upon the sight of the comet Pagonia, which appeared in November and December 1577.” Lond. 1577, 8vo. 3. “An addition to the Chronicles of Ireland from 1546 to 1568,” in the second volume of Holinshed. 4. “Catalogue of the bishops of Exeter,” and “a Description of Exeter,” in the third volume of Holinshed. 5. A translation of the history of the conquest of Ireland from Giraldus Cambrensis, in the second volume of Holinshed, and some other pieces not printed. This gentleman was uncle to the celebrated Richard Hooker.

, an eminent English divine, and author of an excellent work, entitled “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books,” was born at Heavytree near Exeter, about the end of March 1554. His parents, not being rich, intended him for a trade; but his schoolmaster at Exeter prevailed with them to continue him at school, assuring them, that his natural endowments and learning were both so remarkable, that he must of necessity be taken notice of, and that God would provide him some patron who would free them from any future care or charge about him. Accordingly his uncle John Hooker, the subject of the preceding article, who was then chamberlain of the town, began to notice him; and being known to Jewell, made a visit to that prelate at Salisbury soon after, and “besought him for charity’s sake to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar; bill the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning; and that the bishop therefore would become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for he was a boy of remarkable hopes.” The bishop examining into his merits, found him to be what the uncle had represented him, and took him immediately under his protection. He got him admitted, in 1567, one of the clerks of Corpus-Christi college in Oxford, and settled a pension on him; which, with the contributions of his uncle, afforded him a very comfortable subsistence. In 1571, Hooker had the misfortune to lose his patron, together with his pension. Providence, however, raised him up two other patrons, in Dr. Cole, then president of the college, and Dr. Edwyn Sandys, bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of York. To the latter of these Jewell had recommended him so effectually before his death, that though of Cambridge himself, he immediately resolved to send his son Edwyn to Oxford, to be pupil to Hooker, who yet was not much older; for, said he, “I will have a tutor for my son, that shall teach him learning by instruction, and virtue by example.” Hooker had also another considerable pupil, namely, George Cranmer, grand nephew to Cranmer the archbishop and martyr; with whom, as well as with Sandys, he cultivated a strict and lasting friendship. In 1573, he was chosen scholar of Corpus, and in 1577, having taken his master’s degree, was elected fellow of his college; and about two years after, being well skilled in the Oriental languages, was appointed deputy-professor of Hebrew, in the room of Kingsmill, who was disordered in his senses. In 1581, he entered into orders; and soon after, being appointed to preach at St. Paul’s-cross in London, was so unhappy as to be drawn into a most unfortunate marriage; of which, as it is one of the most memorable circumstances of his life, we shall give the particulars as they are related by Walton. There was then belonging to the church of St. Paul’s, a house called the Shunamites house, set apart for the reception and entertainment of the preachers at St. Paul’s cross, two days before, and one day after the sermon. That house was then kept by Mr. John Churchman, formerly a substantial draper in Watluig-sti'eet, but now reduced to poverty. Walton says, that Churchman was a person of virtue, but that he cannot say quite so much of his wife. To this house Hooker came from Oxford so wet and weary, that he was afraid he should not be able to perform his duty the Sunday following: Mrs. Churchman, however, nursed him so well, mat he presently recovered from the ill effects of his journey. For this he was very thankful; so much indeed that, as Walton expresses it, be thought himself bound in conscience to believe all she said; so the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he had a very tender constitution; and that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such a one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such a one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” Hooker, not considering “that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light,” and fearing no guile, because he meant none, gave her a power to choose a wife for him; promising, upon a fair summons, to return to London, and accept of her choice, which he did in that or the year following. Now, says Walton, the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s which Solomon compares to a dripping-house; that is, says Wood, she was “a clownish silly woman, and withal a mere Xantippe.”

Hooker, having now lost his fellowship by this marriage, remained without preferment, and supported himself as well as he could, till the latter end of 1584, when he was presented by John Cheny, esq. to the rectory of DraytonBeauchamp, in Buckinghamshire, where he led an uncomfortable life with his wife Joan for about a year. In this situation he received a visit from his friends and pupils Sandys and Cranmer, who found him with a Horace in his hand, tending a small allotment of sheep in a common field; which he told them he was forced to do, because his servant was gone home to dine, and assist his wife in the household business. When the servant returned and released him, his pupils attended him to his house, where their best entertainment was his quiet company, which was presently denied them, for Richard was called to rock the cradle, and the rest of their welcome being equally repulsive, they stayed but till the next morning, which was long enough to discover and pity their tutor’s condition. At their return to London, Sandys acquainted his father with Hooker’s deplorable state, who entered so heartily into his concerns, that he procured him to be made master of the Temple in 1585. This, though a valuable piece of preferment, was not so suitable to Hooker’s temper, as the retirement of a living in the country, where he might be free from noise; nor did he accept it without reluctance. At the time when Hooker was chosen master of the Temple, one Walter Truvers was afternoon-lecturer there; a man of learning and good manners, it is said, but ordained by the presbytery of Antwerp, and warmly attached to the Geneva church discipline and doctrines. Travers had some hopes of establishing these principles in the Temple, and for that purpose endeavoured to be master of it; but not succeeding, gave Hooker all the opposition he couid in his sermons, many of which were about me doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies of the church; insomuch that they constantly withstood each other to the face; for, as somebody said pleasantly, “The forenoon sermon spake Canterbury, and the afternoon Geneva.” The opposition became so visible, and the consequences so dangerous, especially in that place, that archbishop Whitgift caused Travers to be silenced by the high commission court. Upon that, Travers presented his supplication to the privycouncil, which being without effect, he made it public. This obliged Hooker to publish an answer, which wa.s inscribed to the archbishop, and procured him as much reverence and respect from some, as it did neglect and hatred from others. In order therefore to undeceive and win these, he entered upon his famous work “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity ;” and laid the foundation and plan of ir, while he was at the Temple. But he found the Temple no fit place to finish what he had there designed; and therefore intreated the archbishop to remove him to some quieter situation in the following letter:

“My lord, When I lost the freedom of my cell, which was my college, yet I found some degree of it in my quiet country parsonage. But I am weary of the noise and oppositions of this place; and indeed God and nature did not intend me for contentions, but for study and quietness. And, my lord, my particular contests here with Mr. Travers have proved the more unpleasant to me, because I believe him to be a good man; and that belief hath occasioned me to examine mine own conscience concerning his opinions. And to satisfy that, I have consulted the Holy Scripture, and other laws, both human and divine, whether the conscience of him, and others of his judgment, ought to be so far complied with by us as to alter our frame of church government, our manner of God’s worship, our praising and praying to him, and our established ceremonies, as often as their tender consciences shall require us. And in this examination I have not only satisfied myself, but have begun a treatise, in which I intend the satisfaction of others, to a demonstration of the reasonableness of our laws of ecclesiastical polity. But, my lord, I shall never be able to finish what I have begun, unless I be removed into some quiet parsonage, where I may see God’s blessings spring out of my mother earth, and eat my Owh bread in peace and privacy; a place where I may without disturbance meditate my approaching mortality, and that great account which all flesh must give at the last day to the God of all spirits.”

Upon this application, he was presented in 1591 to the rectory of Boscomb, in Wiltshire and July the same year, to the prebend of Nether- Haven, in the church of Sarum, of which he was also made sub-dean. At Boscomb he finished four books, which were entered into the register-book at Stationers’-hall, in March 1592, but not printed till 1594. In 1595 he quitted Boscomb, and was presented by queen Elizabeth to the rectory of Bishop’sBourne, in Kent, where he spent the remainder of his life. In this place he composed the fifth book of his “Ecclesiastical Polity,” which was dedicated to the archbishop, and published by itself in 1597. He finished there the th, 7th, and 8th books of that learned work; but whether we have them genuine, and as left by himself, has been a matter of much dispute. Dr. Zouch, however, seems to have advanced almost unanswerable arguments against their being directly from the pen of Hooker. Some time after, he caught cold in a passage by water between London and Gravesend, which drew upon him an illness that put an end to his life when he was only in his fortyseventh year. He died Nov. 2, 1600. His illness was severe and lingering; he continued, notwithstanding, his studies to the last. He strove particularly to finish his “Ecclesiastical Polity,” and said often to a friend who visited him daily, that “he did not beg a long life of God for any other reason, but to live to finish the three remaiuing books of Polity; and then, Lord, let thy servant depart in peace,” which was his usual expression. A few days before his death, his house was robbed; of which having notice, he asked, “are my books and written papers safe?” And being answered that they were, “then,” said he, “it matters not, for no other loss can trouble me.”

But whatever value Hooker himself might put upon his books of “Ecclesiastical JPolity,” he could not in that respect exceed the estimate which has been formed by the general judgment of mankind, with the exception only of the enemies of our church establishment. This work has ever been admired for soundness of reasoning, and prodigious extent of learning; and the author has universally acquired from it the honourable titles of “the judicious,” and “the learned.” When James I. ascended the throne of England, he is said to have asked Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker, from whose books of “Ecclesiastical Polity” he had so much profited; and being informed by the archbishop that he died a year before the queen, he expressed the greatest disappointment, and the deepest concern. Charles I. it is well known, earnestly recommended the reading of Hooker’s books to his son; and they have ever since been held in the highest veneration and esteem by all. An anecdote is preserved by the writer of his life, which, if true, shews that his fame was by no means confined to his own country, but reached even the ears of the pope himself. Cardinal ALen and Dr. Stapleton, though both in Italy when his books were published, were yet so affected with the fame of them, that they contrived to have them sent for; and after reading them, are said to have told the pope, then Clement VIII. that “though his holiness had not yet met with an English book, as he was pleased to say, whose writer deserved the name of an author, yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and so they did not doubt it would appear to his holiness, if it was in Latin; which was, that ‘a pure obscure English priest had written four such books of law and church polity, in so majestic a style, and with such clear demonstrations of reason,’ that in all their readings they had not met with any thing that exceeded him.” This begetting in the pope a desire tq know the contents, Stapleton read to him the first book in Latin upon which the pope said, “there is no learning that this man hath not searched into nothing too hard for his understanding. This man indeed deserves the name of an author. His books will get reverence by age; for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning;” all which, whether the pope said it or no, we take to be strictly true.

Dr. Gauden published Hooker’s “Works,” 1662, fol. with a life, in which there are some inaccuracies. A second edition, with Hooker’s Life by Walton, appeared in 1666, fol. reprinted in 1676, 1682, and 1723, which last some call “the best edition.” A more commodious one for use was printed at Qxford, 1793, 3 vols. 8vo. It is needless to add how much Walton’s Life of Hooker has been improved in Zouch’s edition of those valuable memorials. Hooker’s other works, published separately, were, 1. “Answer to the Supplication that Mr. Travers made to the Council,” Oxon. 1612, 4to. 2. “A learned discourse of Justification, Works, and how the foundation of Faith is overthrown, on Habak. i. 4.” ibid. 1612, 4to. 3. “A learned Sermon on the nature of Pride, on Habak, ii. 4.” ibid. 1612, 4to. 4. “A Remedy against Sorrow and Fear, delivered in a funeral sermon on John xiv. 27.” ibid. 1612, 4to. 5. “A learned and comfortable Sermon of the certainty and perpetuity of Faith in the elect; especially of the prophet Habakkuk’s faith,” ibid. 1612, 4to. 6. “Two Sermons upon part of Jude’s Epistles,” ibid. 1613, 4to. These Sermons were originally published by Mr. Henry Jackson, with “Wickliff’s Wicket,” and afterwards reprinted without that tract, and met with a very welcome reception from the public. 7. “A Discovery of the causes of these Contentions touching Church-government, out of the fragments of Richard Hooker,” published in 1641, along with a work entitled “A Summarie View of the government both of the Old and New Testament; whereby the episcopal government of Christ’s church is vindicated,” out of the rude draughts of Launcelot Andrews, late bishop of Winchester. 8. “Three treatises inserted in a work edited by bishop Sanderson, and entitled” Clavi Trabales,“on the king’s power in matters of religion, in the advancement of bishops, &c. Dr. Zouch mentions as a publication of great merit, f” A faithful abridgment of the Works of Hooker, with an account of his life: by a Divine of the Church of England," London, 1705.

, a celebrated divine of New England, whose works frequently occur in our public libraries, and may render their author the object of curiosity, was born at MarHeld, in Leicestershire, in 1586, and was educated at Emanuel-college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow. On his leaving the university, he preached occasionally for some time in London, but in 1626 was chosen lectuier and assistant to a clergyman at Chelmsford, where he officiated with great reputation, until silenced for non-conformity by Laud, then bishop of London. On this occasion forty-seven of the neighbouring clergy sent a petition to the bishop, attesting his orthodoxy and peaceable disposition. But this had no effect; and even when Mr. Hooker set up a grammar-school in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford, he was cited to appear before the high commission court, which determined him to go to Holland, where he preached for two or three years, and in 1633 went to New-England, and became pastor of the church of Hertford, in the colony of Connecticut, and from his pious services and usefulness, was called the father of that colony. He died July 7, 1647. Among his works are, 1. “An exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 2. “The Saint’s Guide,” ibid. 1645, 12mo. 3. “A Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline, wherein the way of the churches of New England is warranted,” ibid. 164-8, 4to. 4. “The Covenant of Grace opened in several Sermons,” ibid. 1649, 4to. 5. “The Saints’ Dignity and Duty,” ibid. 1651, 4to.

, a schoolmaster of very considerable note in his day, and the publisher of some schoolbooks not yet out of use, was born at Wakefield, in Yorkshire, in 1610, and educated at the free-school there. At the age of eighteen years, by the advice of his kinsman Dr. Robert Sanderson, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was sent to Lincoln-college, Oxford, where he became a proficient in the Greek and Hebrew tongues, and in philosophy. After he had taken one degree in arts, he entered into orders, retired to Lincolnshire for a time, and was appointed master of the free-school at Rotheram, in Yorkshire. In the beginning of the civil war he went to London, and by the invitation of some of the citizens, he taught a private school, first near Red-cross street, and afterwards in Token-house garden, in Lothbury. About the restoration, he was invited into Monmouthshire; but the promises made to induce him to go there not being answered, he returned to London, and was taken under the protection of his relation bishop Sanderson, who gave him a prebend in the church of Lincoln. About that time he became rector of Stock, near Billericay, in Essex, where he died on the 7th of March, 1666. He published, “Pueriles confabulatiunculse;” “Aditus facilis ad linguam Latinam;” “Corderius’s Colloquies;” “Rudiments of the Latin Grammar;” “Examination of the Common Accidence,” and in all, above twenty little books of this kind, many of which were adopted in schools, and reprinted again and again for the remainder of the seventeenth and part of the eighteenth century.

, a dramatic poet and translator, was the son of Samuel Hoole, of London, watch-maker, by Sarah his wife, the daughter of James Drury, a clockmaker, whose family came from Warwickshire. He was born in. Moorfields, in December 1727, and received part of his early instruction from his uncle, a taylor, who lived in Grub-street. He was afterwards sent to a private boarding-school in Hertfordshire, kept by Mr. James Bennet, the publisher of Roger Ascham’s works, where he acquired an accurate knowledge of the Latin and French languages, and a small portion of the Greek. His father, who had carried on the business of watch-making to considerable advantage, in consequence of some newly-invented machinery of his own construction, wished to have his son brought up to his own trade, but his being extremely near-sighted proved an insuperable objection, and therefore, at the age of seventeen, he was placed as a clerk in the East- India-house, in the accountant’s office. At this time, as he often accompanied his father to the theatre, who had access behind the scenes, and assisted in constructing some of the pantomime scenery, he contracted a fondness for this amusement which might have been fatal to him, for he had no qualifications for the stage, had not his father prevented him. He employed his leisure hours, therefore, more profitably, in improving himself in the Latin, and especially the Italian tongue, which last he studied with a view to be able to read in the original his favourite Ariosto, of whom, when a boy, he became enamoured by reading the “Orlando Furioso” in sir John Harrington’s old translation.

From admiring he proceeded to translate this poet, but laid this task aside for some time, to execute a translation of Tasso’s “Jerusalem Delivered,” which he began iii 1758, and printed in 1761 a specimen for the perusal of his friends, who probably encouraged him to proceed, as in 1763 he published the whole, and was permitted to dedicate and present it at court to the queen. The dedication was written by Dr. Johnson. This was Mr. Hoole' 9 first avowed production, but he had before printed a few poetical essays without his name, and a Monody on the death of Mrs. Woffington, which is in Pearch’s collection. In 1767 he published two volumes of the dramas of Metastasio, consisting of six pieces, a copy of which he transmitted to the author, who wrote a very elegant letter to him. His own dramas were, “Cyrus,” 1768; “Timanthes,” 1770; and “Cleonice,” 1775; none of which had success on the stage.

In 1773, the first volume of his “Orlando Furioso” appeared, and was favourably received, but the farther prosecution of the work was interrupted by his appointment to the office of auditor of Indian accounts to the East India company, which occupied much of his time and attention. Ilein ruing again, however, to his task, he completed the “Orlando Furioso” in 1783, in 5 vols. 8vo. In 1785 he wrote fhe life of his friend Mr. Scott, the poet of Amvvell, with whom he had become acquainted in 1757, by marrying a quaker lady, Susannah Smith, of Bishop Stortford. About the end of 1783 he resigned his employment in the India- house, after a service of nearly forty-two years and in April 1786 retired with his wife and son, the rev. Samuel Hoole, to the parsonage-house of Abinger, near Dorking. Here, adverting to the objections which had been made to the length and perplexity of Ariosto’s poem, he published “The Orlando, reduced to twenty-four books, the narrative connected, and the stories disposed in a regular series,” 1791, 2 vols. 8vo; but this has not prevented the republication of his former edition, which, with all its imperfections, conveys the truest idea of the tedious and extravagant original. In 1792 he gave to the English public Tasso’s juvenile poem of “llinaldo.” His last production was a more complete collection of Metastasio-'s “Dramas and other Poems” in 3 vols. 8vo. In this, if we mistake not, Mr. Hoole has displayed more poetical energy and variety than in his translations of Tasso and Ariosto, in whicjti his chief merit is smooth versification, and his chief defect a want of variety in his harmony. Mr. Hoole died at Dorking, Aug. 2, 1803, leaving the reputation of an amiable and estimable man in his private character; a man of taste, and a good scholar. He lived much in habits of friendship with Dr. Johnson, and attended that eminent man in his last illness, of which he left an interesting diary.

, an eminent English divine, son of George Hooper, gent, was born at Grimley, in Worcestershire, Nov. 18, 1640, and educated in grammar and classical learning first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at Westminster-school, where he was a king’s scholar. From thence he was elected to Christ-church in Oxford, in 1657, where he took his degrees at the regular times and distinguished himself above his contemporaries by his superior knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, Greek and Roman antiquities, and the oriental languages, in which last he was assisted by Dr. Pocock. In 1672 he became chaplain to Morley, bishop of Winchester, who collated him to the rectory of Havant, in Hampshire, which, the situation being unhealthy, he resigned for the rectory of East Woodhay, in the same county. In July 1673 he took the degree of B. D. and not long afterwards became chaplain to archbishop Sheldon, who begged that favour of the bishop of Winchester, and who in 1675 gave him the rectory of Lambeth, and afterwards the precentorship of Exeter. In 1677 he commenced D. D. and the same year, being made almoner to the princess of Orange, he went over to Holland, where, at the request of her royal highness, he regulated her chapel according to the usage of the church of England. After one year’s attendance, he repassed the sea, in order to complete his marriage to Abigail, daughter of Richard Guildford, gent, the treaty for which had been set on foot before his departure. He then went back to her highness, who had obtained a promise from him to that purpose; but, after a stay of about eight months, she consented to let him return home. In 1680 he is said to have been offered the divinity-professorship at Oxford, but the succession to that chair had been secured to Dr. Jane. About the same time, however, Dr. Hooper was made king’s chaplain. In 1685, by the king’s command, he attended the duke of Monmouth, and had much free conversation with him in the Tower, both the evening before, and the day of his execution, on which, that unhappy nobleman assured him “be had made his peace with God,” the nature of which persuasion Dr. Hooper solemnly entreated him to consider well, and then waited on him in his last moments. The following year he took a share in the popish controversy, and wrote a treatise, which will be mentioned presently with his works. In 1691, he succeeded Dr. Sharp in the deanery of Canterbury. As he never made tae least application for preferment, queen Mary surprised him vvitn this offer, when the king her husband was absent in Holland. With a disinterestedness not very common, he now proposed to resign either of his livings, but the queen observed that though the king and she never gave two livings to one man, yet they never took them away,“and ordered him to keep both. However, he resigned the rectory of Woodhay. He was made chaplain to their majesties the same year. In 1698, when a preceptor was chosen forttie duke of Gloucester, though both the royal parents of that prince pressed earnestly to have Hooper, and no objection was ever made against him, yet the king named bishop Burnet for that service. In 1701, he was chosen prolocutor to the lower house of convocation and the same year was offered the primacy cf Ireland by the earl of Rochester, then lord-lieutenant, which he declined. In May 1703, he was nominated to the bishopric of St. Asaph. This he accepted, though against his inclination on this occasion be resigned Lambeth, but retained his other preferments with this bishopric, in which, indeed, he continued but a few months, and on that account he generously refused the usual mortuaries or pensions, then so great a burthen to the clergy of Wales, saying” They should never pay so dear for the sight of him." In March following, being translated to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, he earnestly requested her majesty to dispense with the order, not only on account of the sudden charge of such a translation, as well as a reluctance to remove, but aiso in regard to his friend Dr. Ken, the deprived bishop of that place, for whom he begged the bishopric. The queen, readily complied vvitb Hooper’s request; but the offer being declined by Ken, Hooper at his importunity yielded to become his successor. He now relinquished the deanery of Canterbury, but wished to have retained the precentorship of Exeter in commendam, solely for the use of Dr. Ken. But this was not agreeable to Dr. Trelauney, bishop of Exeter. His intention, however, was supplied by the bounty of the queen, who conferred an annual pension of 200l. on the deprived prelate. In 1705, bishop Hooper distinguished himself in the debate on the danger of the church, which, with many other persons, he apprehended to be more than imaginary. His observation was candid; he complained with justice of that invidious distinction which the terms high church and low church occasioned, and of that enmity which they tended to produce. In the debate in 1706, he spoke against the union between England and Scotland, but grounded his arguments on 'fears which have not been realized. In 1709-10, when the articles of Sachevereli’s impeachment were debated, he endeavoured to excuse that divine, and entered his protest against the vote, which he could not prevent.

But, whatever were his political opinions, his prudent, courteous, and liberal behaviour in his diocese, secured the esteem both of the laity and clergy. To the latter he was a faithful friend. For while he confined his preferments to those of his own diocese, his disposal of them was judicious and disinterested. The modest were often dignified without any expectation, and the diligent were always advanced without the least solicitation. His regulation also in official proceedings was so conspicuous, that “no tedious formalities protracted business, no imperious officers insulted the clergy.” The regard which he experienced, inseparably attached him to this diocese, and it is said that he could not be prevailed on to accept the see of London on the death of Dr. Compton, or that of York on the death of Dr. Sharp.

Having presided over the see of Bath and Wells twentythree years and six months, and having nearly attained to the great age of eighty seven, he died at Barkley, in Somersetshire, whither he sometimes retired, Sept. 6, 1727. His remains were interred, at his own request, in the cathedral of Wells, under a marble monument with a Latin inscription, and adjoining to it is a monument with an inscription to the memory of his wife, who died the year before him. By this lady he had nine children, one of whom only, a daughter, survived him, then the widow of Prowse, esq. It had been observed of this prelate by the celebrated Dr. Busby, “that he was the best scholar, the finest gentleman, and would make the completest bishop that ever was educated at Westminster-school;” and Dr. Coney, who knew the bishop well, has proved this testimony to have been just in every respect. Bishops Burnet and Atterbury are the only writers of any note who have spoken, evidently from prejudice, against him, as an ambitious man, a charge which the history of his promotions amply refutes.

Besides eight sermons, he published several books in his life-time, and left several Mss. behind him, some of which he permitted to be printed. The following is a catalogue of both: 1. “The Church of England free from the imputation of Popery,” 1682. 2. “A fair and methodical Discussion of the first and great Controversy between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, concerning the Infallible Guide: in three Discourses.” The first two of these were licensed by Dr. Morrice, in 1687, but the last was never printed. 3. “The Parson’s case under the present Land-Tax, recommended in a Letter to a member of the House of Commons,” 1689. 4. “A Discourse concerning Lent, in two Parts. The first, an historical account of its observation: the second, an essay concerning its original. This subdivided into two repartitions, whereof the first is preparatory, and shews that most of our Christian ordinances are derived from the Jews; and the second conjectures, that Lent is of the same original,” 1694. 5. A paper in the “Philosophical Transactions” for Oct. 1699, entitled “A Calculation of the Credibility of Human Testimony.” 6. “New Danger of Presbytery,” 1737. 7. fl Marks of a defenceless Cause.“8.” A Narrative of the Proceedings of the lower House of Convocation from Feb. 10, 1700, to June 25, 1701, vindicated.“9.” De Valentinianorum Hseresi conjecturae, quibus illius origo ex ^gyptiaca theologia deducitur,“1711. 10.” An Inquiry into the state of the ancient Measures, the Attic, the Roman, and especially the Jewish. With an Appendix concerning our old English money and measures of content,“1721. 11.” De Patriarchs Jacobi Benedictione Gen. 49, conjecturae,“published by the rev. Dr. Hunt, afterwards the Hebrew professor, with a preface and notes, according to the bishop’s directions to the editor, a little before his death. The Mss. before mentioned are the two following: 1.” A Latin Sermon, preached in 1672, when he took the degree of B. D.; and, 2. “A Latin Tract on Divorce.” A beautiful edition of his whole works was printed at Oxford, 1757, folio, by the above Dr. Hunt.

, an eminent prelate and martyr, was horn in Somersetshire, in 1495, and entered of Merton college, Oxford, in 1514, under the tuition of his uncle John Hooper, a fellow of that house. In 1518 he was admitted B. A.; the only degree he took in this university. It is supposed that he afterwards became one of the number of Cistercians, or white monks, and contir nued some years, until, becoming averse to a monastic life, he returned to Oxford, where, by the writings of some of the reformers which had reached that place, he was in-r duced to embrace the principles of protestantism. In. 1539, when the statute of the six articles was put in execution, he left Oxford, and got into the service of sir Thomas Arundel, a Devonshire gentleman, to whom he became chaplain, and steward of his estate; but this gentleman discovering his principles, withdrew his protection, and he was then obliged to go to France, where he conti r nued for some time among the reformed, until his dislike of some of their proceedings made him return to England; but, being again in danger here, he in the disguise of a, sailor escaped to Ireland, and thence to Holland and Swisserland. At Zurich be met with Bullinger, himself a refugee from his country for the sake of religion, and who, therefore, gave Hooper a friendly reception. During his residence here, Hooper married a Burgundian lady.

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

, an illustrious professor of divinity in the universities of Utrecht and Leyden, was born at Haerlem in 1617, and studied there till he was sixteen, when he was sent to Leyden, and afterwards in 1635, went to study at Utrecht. In 1632, he was admitted a minister, went to pertform the functions of his office secretly at Cologne, and was never discouraged by the dangers to which he was exposed, in a city where most of the inhabitants were zealous papists. He returned to Holland in 1643, and that year was made D. D. The proofs he gave of his great learning were such> that he was chosen in 1644 to fill the chair of divinity professor at Utrecht; and the next year was made minister in ordinary of the church in that C;ty. However difficult the functions of these two employments were, yet he acquitted himself in them with great diligence almost ten years. As a pastor, he often visited the members of his church: he encouraged the pious, instructed the ignorant, reproved the wicked, refuted the heretics, comforted the afflicted, refreshed the sick, strengthened the weak, cheered the drooping, assisted the poor. As a professor, he took as much care of the students in divinity, as if they had been his own children: he used to read not only public lectures, but even private ones, for them; and to hold ordinary and extraordinary disputations. He was chosen to exercise the same employments at Leyden which he had at Utrecht, and accepted them in 1654. He died in 1666; and though he was but forty-nine years of age, yet considering his labours, it is rather a matter of wonder that he lived so long, than that he died so soon. He published a great number of works, didactical, polemical, practical, historical, and oratorical. The principal are, “A Refutation of Socinianism,” from 1650 to 1664, 3 vols. 4to a treatise for the “Conviction of the Jews,” 1658, 8vo, and “of the Gentiles,” 1669, 4to “A System of Practical Divinity,” 4to “Theological Institutions,” &c. all in Latin. He understood many languages, both ancient and modern the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Rabbinical, Dutch, German, English, French, Italian, and some little of Arabic and Spanish. He never departed one inch from the most strict orthodoxy; and was not less commendable for his integrity, than for his parts and learning. Bayle, who had little in common with so sound a divine, exhibits him as the complete model of a good pastor and divinity-professor. He married at Utrecht in 1650; and left two sons.

, a distinguished anatomist and physician, was born at Amsterdam in 1621, and educated at the university of Utrecht, where he went through his medical studies with honour. With a view to farther improvement he visited Italy; but on his arrival in that country he entered the Venetian army, in which he served for some time. Subsequently, however, his taste for science returned; and having studied under the most eminent professors of Italy, he went to the universities of Basil, Montpellier, and Orleans, in the first of which he received the degree of M. D. On his return he was appointed professor of anatomy and surgery at Amsterdam; and in 1653 he was made professor of the same sciences in the university of Leyden, where he died January 1670.

Van Hoorne was a man of considerable literary attainments, being master of eight languages. His reputation with posterity, however, rests principally on his anatomical knowledge. He seems to have first described the thoracic duct in the human body, which Pecquet had already demonstrated in other animals; and the intimate structure of the testes. He drew a great number of anatomical figures, with great elegance; and besides editing the works of Botallus, in 1660, and the book of Galen “De Ossibus,” with the commentaries of Vesalius, Sylvius, &c. in 1665, he wrote, 1. “Exercitationes Anatomicae I & II ad Observationes Fallopii anatomicas,” &c. Liege, 1649, 4to. 2. “Novus ductus chyliferus, nunc primum delineatus, descriptus, et eruditorum examini propositus,” ibid. 1652. 3. “Microcosmus, seu brevis manuductio ad historiam corporis humani, in gratiam discipuloium,” ibid. 1660, and several subsequent editions. 4. “Mjcrotechne, id est, brevissima Chirurgiae Methoclus,” ibid. 1663, 1668, Lipsiae, 1675. 5. “ProdromusObservationum suarum circa partes gemtales in utroque sexu,” Leyden, 1668. This work was afterwards published by Swammerdam, who had made the greater part of the experiments there recorded, of which Van Hoorne only paid the expences, under the title “Miraculum Naturae,” 1672, 4to. 6. “Observationes Anatomico-Medicce,” &c. Amst. 1674, 12mo. 7. A posthumous collection, under the title of “Opnscula Anatomico-Chirurgica,” was published by professor Pauli, at Leipsic, in 1707, 8vo, with annotations.

, an eminent professor of botany in the university of Edinburgh, was the son of Mr. Robert Hope, surgeon, and grandson of lord Rankeilar, one of the sena tors of the college of justice in Scotland. He was bori May 10, 1725, and educated at the university of Edinburgh, where his attention was first directed to the medical art. He afterwards visited other medical schools, particularly Paris, where he studied his favourite science, botany, under the celebrated Bernard Jussien. On hi; return to Scotland, he obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow in 1750, and being a few monthi after admitted a member of the royal college of physicians Edinburgh, entered upon the practice of medicine in that city. On the death of Dr. Alston, in 1761, he was appointed king’s botanist in Scotland, superintendant of the royal garden, and professor of botany and materia medic. The latter, the professorship of materia medica, he resignd in 1768, and by a new commission from his majesty, was nominated regius professor of medicine and botany in the university, and had the offices of king’s botanist and supeintendant of the royal gardens conferred upon him for lit;, which till that time had been always granted during pleasnre only. While he thus enjoyed his honours at horn;, he received the most flattering marks of esteem from t/e learned of other countries, having been elected a member not only of the royal society of London, but also of several celebrated foreign societies, and having been enrolledin the first class of botanists even by Linnæus, who denoiiinated a beautiful shrub by the name of Hopea and a time when he might be justly considered as at the very head of his profession in Edinburgh, holding the distingnished office of president of the royal college of pysicians, he was seized with an alarming illness, which in the space of a few days, put a period to his life, Nov. 10, 1786. This gentleman richly deserves to be remembred as one of the earliest lecturers on the vegetable physiology, as well as an experienced practical botanist. Edinbrgli is indebted to his spirit and perseverance, in establihing and providing suitable funds for its botanic garden, one of the first in the kingdom. Besides some useful manuals for facilitating the acquisition of botany by his students, Dr. Hope was long engaged in the composition of an extensive work, on which he bestowed much study and reflection; the object of which was, to increase the advantages which result from the highly ingenious artificial system of Linnæus, by conjoining with it a system of vegetables distributed according to their great natural orders. He had made very considerable progress in this valuable work; and it is much to be regretted by every lover of botany, that it was left imperfect at his death. Two valuable dissertations were published by him in the Philosophical Transactions, one on the Rheum palmatum, and the other on the Femla Assafoetida, in which he demonstrates the practicability of cultivating these two officinal plants in our own country. The true rhubarb has been since extensively and successfully cultivated; but that of the assafaetida plant has not been equally attended to.

, a Scotch lawyer, was the son of Henry Hope, a merchant of Edinburgh, who had many commercial transactions with Holland, where he afterwards resided, and where he married Jacque or Jacqueline de Tott. His son Thomas soon distinguished himself at the bar; and was made king’s advocate in 1627, when he was also created a baronet by Charles I. He however attached himself to the covenanters, and was consulted by them in all difficult points. The king nevertheless, perhaps either to render him suspected to that party, or with a view to win him over, appointed sir Thomas commissioner to the general assembly in August 1643.

, a learned and worthy prelate, whojxperienced a fate extremely singular, was born in 1633, at Sandford in Devonshire, where his father was curate; became chorister of Magdalen college, Oxford, ia 1649; at the age of about sixteen, he was usher of the school adjoining, being already B. A.; he was chaplain of the college when M. A.; and would have been fellow, had his county qualified him. All this time he lived and was educated under presbyterian and independent discipline; and about the time of the restoration became assistant to Dr. Spurstow of Hackney. He was afterwards elected preacher at one of the city churches; the bishop of London, however, refused to admit him, as he was a popular preacher among the fanatics; but after some time he was settled in the parish church of St. Mary Wolnoth. Having retired to Exeter on account of the plague, he obtained the living of St. Mary’s church at Exeter, was countenanced by bishop Ward, and much admired for the comeliness of his person and elegance of preaching. The lord Robartes in particular (afterwards earl of Truro) w*as so pleased with him, that he gave him his daughter Araminta in marriage, took him as his chaplain to Ireland in 1669, gave him the deanery of llaphoe, and recommended him so effectually to his successor lord Berkeley, that he was consecrated bishop of Raphoe, Oct. 27, 1671, and translated to Londonderry in 1681. Driven thence by the forces under the earl of Tyrconnel, in 1688, he retired into England, and was elected minister of Aldermanbury in Sept. 1689, where he died, June 22, 1690. He published five single sermons, afterwards incorporated in two volumes; “An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1692, 4to, with his portrait; and an” Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer," 1691, all printed in one volume, 171O, folio. An edition of his works has very recently appeared in 4 vols. 8vo.

, son of the preceding, was born at Exeter, in 1664; but his father being taken chaplain to Ireland, he received the early part of his education at Trinity college, Dublin; and afterwards was a student at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1688. The rebellion breaking out in Ireland in that year, he returned thither, and exerted his early valour in the cause of his country, religion, and liberty. When public tranquillity was restored, he came again into Elngland, and formed an acquaintance with gentlemen of wit, whose age and genius were most agreeable to his own. In 1694 he published some “Epistolary Poems and Translations,” which may be seen in Nichols’s “Select Collec-' tion;” and in 1695 he shewed his genius as a dramatic writer, by “Pyrrhus king of Egypt,” a tragedy, to which Congreve wrote the epilogue. He published also in that year, “The History of Love,” a connection of select fables from. “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” 1695; which, by the sweetness of his numbers and easiness of his thoughts, procured him considerable reputation. With Dryden in particular he became a great favourite. He afterwards published the “Art of Love,” which, Jacob says, “added to his fame, and happily brought him acquainted with the earl of Dorset, and other persons of distinction, who were fond of his company, through the agreeableness of his temper, and the pleasantry of his conversation. It was in his power to have made his fortune in any scene of life; but he was always more ready to serve others than mindful of his own affairs; and by the excesses of hard drinking, and too passionate an addiction to women, he died a martyr to the cause in the thirty-sixth year of his age.” Mr. Nichols has preserved in his collection an admirable hymn, “written about an hour before his death, when in great pain.” His “Court-Prospect,” in which many of the principal nobility are very handsomely complimented, is called by Jacob “an excellent piece;” and of his other poems he adds, “that they are all remarkable for the purity of their diction, and the harmony of their numbers.” Mr. Hopkins was also the author of two other tragedies; “Boadicea Queen of Britain,” 1697; and “Friendship improved, or the Female Warrior,” with a humourous prologue, comparing a poet to a merchant, a comparison which will hold in most particulars except that of accumulating wealth. The author, who was at Londonderry when this tragedy came out, inscribed it to Edward Coke of Norfolk, esq. in a dedication remarkably modest and pathetic. It is dated Nov. 1, 1699, and concludes, “I now begin to experience how much the mind may be influenced by the body. My Muse is confined, at present, to a weak and sickly tenement; and the winter season will go near to overbear her, together with her household. There are storms and tempests to beat tier down, or frosts to bind her up and kill her; and she has no friend on her side but youth to hear her through; If that can sustain the attack, and hold out till spring comes to relieve me, one use I shall make of fa<ther life shall be to shew how much I am, sir, your most devoted humble servant, C. Hopkins.”

, another son of the bishop of Londonderry, who deviated likewise from his father’s character, was born January 1, 1675. Like his elder brother, his poetry turned principally on’subjects of love; like him too, his prospects in lite appear to have terminated unfortunately. He published, in 1693, “The Triumphs of Peace, or the Glories of Nassau; a Pindaric poem occasioned by the conclusion of the peace between the Confederacy and France; written at the time of his grace the duke of Ormond’s entrance into Dublin.” “The design of this poem,” the author says in his preface, “begins, after the method of Pindar, to one great man, and rises to another; first touches the duke, then celebrates the actions of the king, and so returns to the praises of the duke again.” In the same year he published “The Victory of Death; or the Fall of Beauty; a visionary Pindaric poem, occasioned by the ever to-be-deplored death of the right honourable the lady Cutts,” 8vo. But the principal performance of J. Hopkins was “Amasia, or the works of the Muses, a collection of Poems,” 1700, in 3 vols. Each of these little volumes is divided into three books, and each book is inscribed to some beautiful patroness, among whom the tKichess of Grafton stands foremost. The last Ijook is inscribed “To the memory of Amasia,” whom he addresses throughout these volumes in the character of Sylvius. There is a vein of seriousness, if not of poetry, runs through the whole performance. Many of Ovid’s stories are very decently imitated “most of them,” he says, “have been very well performed by my brother, and published some years since mine were written in another kingdom before I knew of his.” In one of his dedications he tells the lady Olympia Robartes, “Your ladyship’s father, the late earl of Radnor, when governor of Ireland, was the kind patron to mine: he raised him to the first steps by which v he afterwards ascended to the dignities he bore; to those, which rendered his labours more conspicuous, and set in a more advantageous light those living merits, which now make his memory beloved. These, and yet greater temporal honours, your family heaped on him, by making even me in some sort related and allied to you, by his inter-marriage with your sister the lady Araminta. How imprudent a vanity is it in me to boast a father so meritorious! how may 1 be ashamed to prove myself his son, by poetry, the only qualification he so much excelled in, but yet esteemed no excellence. I bring but a bad proof of birth, laying my claim in that only thing he would not own. These are, however, madam, but the products of immature years; and riper age, may, I hope, bring forth more solid works.” We have never seen any other of his writings: nor hare been able to collect any farther particulars of his life: but there is a portrait of him, under his poetical name of Sylvius.

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Evesham, in Worcestershire, in August 1647, and was the son of the rev. George Hopkins, whom Hickes terms a pious and learned divine, and who was ejected for non- conformity. At school his son was so great a proficient, that at twelve years of age he translated an English poem into Latin verse, which was printed some time before the restoration. At thirteen he was admitted commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford, under the learned Mr. Stratford, afterwards bishop of Chester. He proceeded M. A. in 1668, sometime before which he removed from Trinity-college to St. Mary-hall. He was much noticed by Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, who, it is supposed, recommended him to the Hon. Henry Coventry, as his chaplain and companion in his embassy to Sweden; on which he set out in Sept. 1671. While in Sweden, Mr. Hopkins applied himself to the study of northern antiquities, having previously studied the Saxon. After his return in 1675, by Mr. Coventry’s recommendation, he was preferred to a prebend in Worcester cathedral; and from his installation, began to collect materials for a history of this church, some of which fell afterwards into the hands of Wharton and other antiquaries. In June 1678 he was made curate of Mortlake in Surrey, and about 1680 was chosen Sunday lecturer of the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, and in 1686 was preferred to the vicarage of Lindridge in Worcestershire. In 1697 he was chosen master of St. Oswald’s hospital in “Worcester, of the profits of which he made a fund for the use of the hospital, and the benefit of his poor brethren there. He had proceeded D. D. at Oxford in 1692. He died of a violent fever May 18, 1700, and was interred in Worcester cathedral. Hickes, who prefixed his Life to a volume of his Sermons, published in 1708, 8vo, gives him a high character for piety, learning, and benevolence. He was a great benefactor to the library of Worcester cathedral. Although a man of extensive reading and study, he published only, 1.” Bertram or Ratram, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, &c. wherein M. Boileau’s version and notes upon Bertram are considered, and his unfair dealings in both detected.“Of this a second edition appeared in 1688. 2.” Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian, in three letters to a country friend;“and a Latin translation, with notes, of a small tract, written in the Saxon tongue, on the burialplaces of the Saxon saints, which Dr. Hickes published in his” Septentrional Grammar,“Oxford, 1705. Dr. Hopkins also assisted Gibson in correcting his Latin version of the Saxon Chronicle; and made a new translation, with notes and additions, of the article” Worcestershire" in Camden’s Britannia, published by Gibson.

, an Arian writer, although belonging to the Church of England, was born at Monmouth in 1706. He received the elements of a learned education at his native town, whence he was sent to All-Souls, Oxford, in 1724. He was admitted to deacon’s orders in 1728, and in the following year undertook the curacy of Waldron, in Sussex. In 1731 he was presented to the vicarage of Bolney, in the same county. In 1753 he published anonymously, “An Appeal to the common sense of all Christian people, more particularly the members of the Church of England, with regard to an important point of faith and practice, imposed upon their consciences.” This excited a controversy which was carried on many years. In 1756 he was elected master of the grammar school of Cuckfield; and in 1766, undertook the curacy of Slaugham, and continued to officiate there many years, and in his own parish of Bolney, making what alterations he pleased in the service, at which the churchwardens were pleased to connive. He supported the famous petition to parliament for relief, in the matter of subscription to the liturgy and thirty-nine articles of the church; and wrote some pamphlets on the subject, but all anonymously. His last work, in 1784, was “Exodus, a corrected translation, with notes critical and explanatory,” in which notes there is little that can gratify the taste of curious and critical readers, but so many severe reflections on the articles and liturgy of the Church of England, that the Monthly Reviewer took for granted he had quitted it, although in the title he called himself the vicar of Bolney. Immediately after this publication, his health began to decline; and his mental faculties were greatly impaired before his decease, which happened in 1786, when he had attained to his eightieth year.

, an English mathematician, was son of sir Arthur Hopton, and born in Somersetshire. He was educated at Lincoln college, Oxford, and after taking his degree of B. A. removed to the Temple, where he lived in habits of friendship with the learned Selden. He died in 1614, a very young man, not having attained to more than his twenty-sixth year. He wrote a treatise on the “Geodetical Staff;” “The Topographical Glass, containing the uses of that instrument, the theodolite, plane table, and circumferentor;” “A Concordance of Years, containing a new and a most exact computation of time, according to the English accompt;” “Prognostications for the years 1607 and 1614.”

, or Horus Apollo, was a grammarian, according to Suidas, of Panoplus in Egypt, who taught first at Alexandria, and then at Constantinople, under the reign of Theodosius, about the year 380. There are extant under his name two books “concerning the Hieroglyphics of the Egyptians,” which Aldus first published in Greek in 1505, folio. They have often been republished since, with a Latin version and notes; but the best edition is that by Cornelius de Pauw at Utrecht, in 1727, 4to. Meanwhile there are many Rorapollos of antiquity; and it is not certain, that the grammarian of Alexandria was the author of these books. Suidas does not ascribe them to him; and Fabricius is of opinion, that they belong rather to another Horus Apollo of more ancient standing, who flourished about 1500 B. C. and wrote upon Hieroglyphics in the Egyptian language, and from whose work an extract rather than a version has been made of these two books in Greek.

, an ancient Roman poet, and the. most popular of all the classical writers, flourished in the age of Augustus, and was born at Venusium, a town of Apulia, or of Lucania, Dec. 8, U. C; 68y, i.e. 65 B. C. His father, the son of a freedman, and a tax-gatherer, being a man of good sense, knew the necessity of instructing his son by setting before him the examples of all sorts of persons, and shewing him what behaviour. he should imitate, and what he should avoid spur? ring him on all the while to this imitation, by pointing out the good effects ofvirtue, and the ill effects of vice. With this view he removed him to Rome when about ten years of age, where he had the advantage of an education under the best masters and when, he was about eighteen, was sent to Athens, where he acquired all the accomplishments that polite learning and education could bestow.

Bmtus about this time going to Macedonia, as he passed through Athens, took several young gentlemen to the army with him; and Horace, now grown up, and qualified to set out into the world, among the rest. Brutus made hima tribune, but he did not distinguish himselffor courage, as at the battle of Philippi he left the field and fled, after he had shamefully flung away his shield. This memorable circumstance of his life he mentions himself, in an Ode to his friend Pompeius Varus, who was with him in the same battle of Philippi, and accompanied him in his flight: but though running away might possibly save his life, it could not secure his fortune, which he forfeited; and being thus reduced to want, he applied himself to poetry, in which he succeeded so well, that he soon made himself known to some of the greatest men in Rome. Virgil, as hei has told us, was the first that recommended him to Macenas and this celebrated patron of learning and learned men grew so fond of him, that he became a suitor for him to Augustus, and succeeded in getting his estate restored. Augustus; highly pleased with his merit and address, admitted him to a close familiarity with him in his private hours, and afterwards made him no small offers of preferment, all which the poet had the greatness of mind to refuse and the prince generosity enough not to be offended at his freedom. It is a sufficient proof of his indifference to the pride of a court, that he refused a place so honourable and advantageous as that of secretary to Augustus. But he had a strong partiality to- retirement and study, free from the noise of hurry and ambition, although his life does not appear to have been untainted by the follies of his youth and nation.

When Horace was about twenty-six years of age, Augustus found it necessary to make peace with Antony, that theypmight unite against Pompey, their common enemy; and for this end persons were sent to Brundusium as deputies, to conclude the treaty between them. Maecenas going on Caesar’s part, Horace, Virgil, and some others, accompanied him thither: and Horace has given a very entertaining description of the journey in the fifth Satire of his first book. This happened in Poilio’s consulship, who was about that time writing a history of the civil wars for the last twenty years; which occasioned Horace to address the first Ode of the second book to him, and to represent the many inconveniences to which such a work must necessafrily expose him, if impartial enough to assign the true causes of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, and their motives for beginning it. From the notes of Dacier and Bentley, who have successfully fixed the time of his writing some Odes and Epistles, it appears, that before he was thirty years of age, he had introduced himself to the acquaintance of the most considerable persons in Rome; of which this Ode to Pollio may furnish a proof: for his merit must have been well known, and his reputation wellestablished, before he could so familiarly address one of Pollio’s high character: and he was too great a master in the science of men and manners, to have taken such a liberty if it had been inconsistent with propriety.

His love for retirement seems to have increased with his age, and for some years he was only at Rome in the spring, passing the summer in the country, and the winter at Tarentum. He never could be prevailed on to undertake any great work, though he was strongly solicited to it; yet his gratitude to Augustus called upon him sometimes to sing his triumphs over Pompey and Antony, or the victorious exploits of Tiberius and Drusus. His “Carmen saeculare” be composed at the express command of Augustus; and to oblige him, wrote also the first epistle of the second book. That prince had kindly reproached him with having said so little of him in his writings; and asked him in a letter written on this occasion, “whether he thought it would disgrace him with posterity, if he should seem to have been intimate with him r” upon which he addressed the epistle just mentioned to him.

Horace, although not a philosopher in the strictest sense, discovered an inclination for the Epicurean philosophy during the greatest part of his life; but at the latter end of it, seems to have leaned a little towards the Stoic. He was of a cheerful temper, fond of ease and liberty, and went pretty far into the gallantries of his times, until he advanced in years. Dacier has very justly said that he was a poet in his philosophy, and a philosopher in his poetry. He met with his greatest misfortune, when his beloved friend and patron Maecenas died; and this event is supposed to have touched him so sensibly, that he did not survive it long enough to lament him in an elegy. He died not many days after, aged fifty-seven, Nov. 17, in the year of Rome 746, about eight years B. C. He was buried near Maecenas’s tomb, and declared in his last words Augustus his heir; the violence of his distemper being such, that be was not able to sign his will. In his person he was very short and corpulent, as we learn from a fragment of a letter of Augustus to him, preserved in his life by Suetonius; where the emperor compares him to the book he sent him, which was a little short thick volume. He was grey-haired about forty; subject to sore eyes, which made him use but little exercise; and of a constitution probably not the best, by its being unable to support him to a more advanced age, though he seems to have managed it with very great care. Confident of immortal fame from his works, as all allow he very justly might be, he expressed his indifference to any magnificent funeral rites, or fruitless sorrows for his death.

, a learned English divine, was born at Haxay in Lincolnshire, in 1707. His father was vicar of Haxay, but both he and his wife died when their son was very young. The provision made for him was 400l. which barely defrayed the expence of his education, first at Epworth, and then at Gainsborough. He was then entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he obtained a small exhibition, but afterwards was elected to a fellowship of Magdalen, which extricated him from many difficulties, his poor inheritance having been long before expended. He took his master’s degree at Lincoln previous to this, in 1733, and when admitted into orders preached before the university with great approbation; and becoming known as a young man of much learning and personal merit, Dr. Smallbroke, bishop of Lichfield, who had appointed him his chaplain, collated him successively to the vicarage of Eccleshall, and the curacy of Gnosall, to which were afterwards added a canonry of Lichfield and the vicarage of Hanbury, on which last promotion he resigned Gnosall. The whole, however, of these preferments, even with the addition of his fellowship, were scarcely equal to his expences, for he had very little notion of accounts, or care about worldly things. He was afterwards promoted by his college to the rectory of Stanlake, and then quitted Eccleshall, preferring Stanlake from its retired situation, where he might indulge his favourite propensity to reading and meditation, and have easy access to his beloved Oxford. He took his degree of B. D. in 1743, and that of D. D. in 1745, and died at Stanlake, Jan. 22, 1773.

In early life he was a coadjutor of Dr. Waterland in his celebrated controversy on the Trinity; and wrote, in 1735, “Animadversions upon a late Pamphlet, entitled ‘ Christian Liberty asserted,’ &c.” The author of this pamphlet was John Jackson, whom he charges with having misrepresented bishops Pearson and Bull, and particularly Dr. Wateiiand, with whom he had then no personal acquaintance. About this time bishop Hoadly made some advances to him, to which he paid no attention, as he greatly disapproved his notions. By desire he published occasional sermons, but his principal work was his treatise on the “Eternity of Hell Torments,” which appeared in 1744, and was written at the solicitation of bishop Smallbroke. After his death a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his wife’s nephew.

Dr. Horbery bore the character of an amiable and excellent man, as well as of an able and sound divine, who walked, as his biographer says, steadily through those profound depths of theology, in which men of inferior powers and attainments are lost: but such was his uncommon modesty and invincible diffidence, that nothing could draw him out into public life. On the death of Dr. Jenner, president of Magdalen college, he resisted the solicitation of a majority of the fellows to become a candidate, and Dr. Home, who was elected, paid him the compliment to say that he would never have presented himself if Dr. Horbery would have come forward. His library, consisting of 2000 volumes, in the best preservation, was sold for the small sunn of 120l.; but such was his reputation as a preacher, that two hundred of his ms sermons, in the rough state in which he first composed them, were disposed of for six hundred guineas.

, the late amiable and exemplary bishop of Norwich, was born Nov. 1, 1730, at Otham, near Maidstone, in Kent, where his father, the rev. Samuel Home, was rector. Of four sons and three daughters he was the second son; and his education was commenced at home under the instruction of his father. At thirteen, having made a good proficiency, he was sent to school at Maidstone, under the rev. Deodatus Bye, a man of good principles; and at little more than fifteen, being elected to a Maidstone scholarship at University college, Oxford, he went there to reside. He was so much approved at his college, that about the time when he took his bachelor’s degree, which was Oct. 27, 1749, in consequence of a strong recommendation from that place, he was elected to" a Kentish fellowship at Magdalen. On June 1, 1752, he took his master’s degree, and on Trinity Sunday, in the year following, he was ordained by the bishop of Oxford, and soon after preached his first sermon for his friend and biographer, Mr. Jones, at Finedon, in Northamptonshire. A short time after he preached in London with such success, that a person, eminent himself for the same talent, pronounced him, without exception, the best preacher in England.

At the early age of nineteen, Mr. Home had imbibed a very favourable opinion of the sentiments of Mr. Hutchinson; which he afterwards adopted and disseminated without disguise. Supported by the learning and zeal of his friends, Mr. Watson of University college, Dr. Hodges, provost of Oriel, and Dr. Patten, of Corpus, he ably vindicated his principles against the intemperate invectives to which their novelty exposed them. That part indeed of the Hutchinsonian controversy which relates to Hebrew etymology was discountenanced by Mr. Home as, in a great measure, fanciful and arbitrary. He considered it of infinitely more importance to be employed in investigating facts than to be disputing about verbal criticisms. The principles of Mr. Hutchinson beginning to extend their influence in the university, in 1756 a bold attack was made upon them in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “A Word to the Hutchinsonians.” Mr. Home, considering himself more particularly called upon for a defence, as being personally aimed at in the animadversions, produced an Apology, which has been universally admired for in temper, learning, and good sense. The question agitated seems rather to involve the very essense of religion, than to concern Mr. Hutchinson or his principles. The pamphlet was attributed by the public in general, and Mr. Home in particular, to Mr. Kennicott, of Exeter college; a man who had distinguished himself by an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew, and two masterly dissertations, one on the Tree of Life, the other on the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

After his Apology, Mr. Home took an active part in the controversy with Mr. Kennicott on the propriety of collating the text of the Hebrew Bible with such manuscripts as could then be procured, in order to reform the text, and prepare it for a new translation into the English language. Mr. Home strongly objected to the proposal, from a persuasion, among other serious reasons, that the wide principle upon which it was to be conducted might endanger the interest of genuine Christianity, He conceived that the unsound criticism to which the text would be liable by this measure, might afford some additional pretexts for the sceptical cavils of those, who, with affectation of superior learning, had already shewn themselves active in discovering imaginary corruptions. Whatever, in these speculative points, the opinions of Mr. Home might be, he was esteemed both now and throughout his life, a good and valuable -man, a sincere Christian in thought and in action, and in all respects worthy of the preferment he obtained. About 1756, he had planned and begun to execute his “Commentary on the Psalms,” which he did not complete and publish till twenty years after. It was a work in which he always proceeded with pleasure, and on which he delighted to dwell and meditate. Soon after the publication of this valuable work, Dr. Home, feeling much concern at the progress of infidelity, to which the writings of Mr. Hume seemed in no small degree to contribute, endeavoured to undeceive the world with respect to the pretended cheerfulness and tranquillity of the last moments of this unbelieving philosopher. He addressed an anonymous “Letter to Dr. Adam Smith,” in which, with clear and sound argument, and the most perfect natural good humour, he overthrows the artificial account givefn in Mr. Hume’s life, by allusions to certain well-founded anecdotes concerning him, which are totally inconsistent with it.

In 1784 this Letter was followed by his “Letters on Infidelity;” which abound with instruction and entertainment, and are exceedingly well adapted both to arm the minds of youth against the dangerous tendency of philosophizing infidelity, and to counteract any impression, which its specious garb and licentious easy temper may have already made. The unsoundness of Mr. Hume’s opinions, and the futility of his arguments, are displayed in so happy a strain of ridicule, that none, says one of his biographers, “but an unbeliever can be angry, or even feel displeased.” The latter part of these Letters is employed in attempting to shew the fallacy of some miscellaneous objections against Christianity, brought forward by a more modern advocate for infidelity.

The character and conduct of Mr. Home were so much approved in the college to which he belonged, that on a vacancy happening in 1768, he was elected to the high office of president of that society. Nearly at the same time he married the daughter, of Philip Burton, esq. of Eltham, in Kent, by whom he had three. daughters. The public situation ‘of Mr. Home now made it proper for hint to proceed to the degree of doctor in divinity; and he was also appointed one of the chapla-ins to the king. In 1776 Dr. Home was elected vice chancellor of the university of Oxford, which office he held for the customary period of four years. In this situation he became known to lord North, the chancellor, and this, it is probable, prepared the way to his subsequent elevation. In 1781, the very year after the expiration of his office of vice-chancellor, he was made dean of Canterbury, and’ would williogly have relinquished his cares at Oxford, to reside altogether in. his native county of Kent; but he yielded to the judgment of a prudent friend who advised him. to retain his situation at Magdalen. In 1789, on the translation of bishop Bagot to St. Asaph, Dr. Home was advanced to the episcopal dignity, and succeeded him in the see of Norwich. Unhappily, though he was no more than fifty-nine, he had already begun to suffer much from infirmities. “Alas!” said he, observing the large flight of steps which lead into the palace of Norwich, “I am come to these steps at a time of life when I can neither go up them nor down them with safety.” It happened consequently, that the church could not long be benefited by his piety and zeal. Even the charge which he composed for his primary visitation at Norwich, he was unable to deliver, and it was printed “as intended to have been delivered.” From two visits to Bath he had received sensible benefit, and was meditating a third in the autumn of 179 I, which he had been requested not to delay too long. He did, however, delay it too long, and was visited by a paralytic stroke on the road to that place. He completed his journey, though very ill; and for a short time was so far recovered as to walk daily to the pump-room; but the hopes of his friends and family were of short duration, for, on the 17th of January, 1792, in the sixty-second year of his age, his death afforded an edifying example of Christian resignation and hope; and he was buried at Eltham in Kent, with a commendatory but very just epitaph, which is also put up in the cathedral at Norwich.

It cannot often fall to the lot of the biographer to record a man so blameless in character and conduct as bishop Home. Whatever might be his peculiar opinions on some points, he was undoubtedly a sincere and exemplary Christian; and as a scholar, a writer, and a preacher, a man of no ordinary qualifications. The cheerfulness of his disposition is often marked by the vivacity of his writings, and the sincerity of his heart is every where conspicuous in them. So far was he from any tincture of covetousness, that he laid up nothing from his preferments in the church. If he was no loser at the year’s end he was perfectly satisfied. What he gave away was bestowed with so much secrecy, that it was supposed by some persons to be little; but, after his death, when the pensioners, to whom he had been a constant benefactor, rose up to look about them for some other support, it began to be known who, and how many they were.

The works of bishop Home amount to a good many articles, which we shall notice in chronological order: 1. <( The Theology and Philosophy in Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis explained; or a brief attempt to demonstrate that the Newtonian system is perfectly agreeable to the notions of the wisest antients, and that mathematical principles are the only sure ones,“Lond. 1751, 8vo. 2.” A fair, candid, and impartial state of the Case between sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson,“&c. Oxford, 1753, 8vo. 3.” Spicilegium Shuckfordianum or a nosegay for the critics,“&c. Lond. 1754, 12mo. 4.” Christ and the Holy Ghost the supporters of the Spiritual Life,“&c. two sermons preached before the university of Oxford, 1755, 8vo. 5.” The Almighty justified in Judgment,“a sermon, 1756. 6.” An Apology for certain gentlemen in the university of Oxford, aspersed in a late anonymous Pamphlet,“1756, 8vo. 7.” A view of Mr. Kennicott’s method of correcting the Hebrew Text,“&c. Oxford, 1760, 8vo. 8.” Considerations on the Life and Death of St. John the Baptist,“Oxford, 1772, 8vo. This pleasing tract contained the substance of several sermons preached annually at Magdalen-college, in Oxford, the course of which had commenced in 1755. A second edition in 12mo, was published at Oxford in 1777. 9.” Considerations on the projected Reformation of the Church of England. In a letter to the right hon. lord North. By a clergyman,“London, 1772, 4to. 10.” A Commentary on the Book of Psalms,“&c. &c. Oxford, 1776, 2 vols, 4to. Reprinted in 8vo, in 1778, and three times since. With what satisfaction this good man composed this pious work, may best be judged frora, the following passage in his preface. * Could the author flatter himself that any one would have half the pleasure in reading the following exposition, which he hath had in writing it, he would not fear the loss of his labour. The employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, the din of politics, and the noise of folly. Vanity and vexation fiew away for a season, care and disquietude came not near his dwelling. He arose fresh as the morning to his task; the silence of the night invited him to pursue it; and he can truly say that food and rest were not preferred before it. Every psalm improved infinitely on his acquaintance with it, and no one gave him uneasiness but the last; for then he grieved that his work was done. Happier hours than those which have been spent in these meditations on the songs of Sion he never expects to see in this world. Very pleasantly did they pass, and move smoothly and swiftly along foi; when thus engaged he counted no time. They are gone, but have left a relish and a fragrance on the mind, and the remembrance of them is sweet.” 11. “A Letter to Adam Smith, LL. D. on the Life, Death, and Philosophy of David Hume, esq. By one” of the people called Christians,“Oxford, 1777, 12mo, 12.” Discourses on several subjects and occasions,“Oxford, 1779, 2 vols. 8vo. These sermons have gone through five editions. 13.” Letters on Infidelity,“Oxford, 1784, 12mo. 14” The Duty of contending for the Faith,“Jude, Ver. 3. preached at the primary visitation of the most reverend John lord archbishop of Canterbury, July 1, 1786. To which is subjoined, a” Discourse on the Trinity in Unity, Matth. xxviii. 19.“1786, 4to. These sermons, with fourteen others preached on particular occasions, and all published separately, were collected into one volume, 8vo, at Oxford, in 17y5. The two have also been published in 12mo, by the society for promoting Christian knowledge, and are among the books distributed by that society. 15.” A letter to the rev. Dr. Priestley, by an Undergraduate,“Oxford, 1787. 16.” Observations on the Case of the Protestant Dissenters, with reference to the Corporation and Test Acts,“Oxford, 1790, 8vo. 17.” Charge intended to have been delivered to the Clergy of Norwich, at the primary visitation,“1791, 4to. l. * Discourses on several subjects and occasions,” Oxford, 1794, 8vo, vols. 3 and 4; a posthumous publication. Ttyc four volumes have since been reprinted in an uniform edition; and lately an uniform edition of these and his other works, with his life, by Mr. Jones, has been printed in 6 vols. 8vo. Besides these, might be enumerated several occasional papers in different periodical publications, but particularly the papers signed Z. in the " Olla Podrida,‘-’ a periodical work, conducted by Mr. T. Monro, then bachelor of arts, and a demy of Magdalen college, Oxford.

, an English divine, was born at Baccharack, a town in the Lower Palatinate, in 1641. His father was recorder or secretary of that town, a strict protestant; and the doctor was brought up in the same manner, though some, we find, asserted that he was originally a papist. He was designed for the sacred ministry from his birth, and first sent to Heidelberg, where he studied divinity under Spanheim, afterwards professor at Leyden. When he was nineteen he came over to England, and was entered of Queen’s college, in Oxford, Dec. 1663; of which, by the interest of Barlow, the provost of that college, and afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was made chaplain soon after his admission. He was incorporated M. A. from the university of Wittemberg, Dec. 1663; and not long after made vicar of All Saints, in Oxford, a living in the gift of Lincoln-college. Here he < ontinued two years, and was then taken into the family of the duke of Albemarle, in quality of tutor to his son lord Torrington. The duke presented him to the rectory of Doulton, in Devonshire, aud procured him also a prebend in the church of Exeter. In 1669, before he married, he went over into Germany to see his friends, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was entertained with great respect at the court of the elector Palatine. At his return in 1671, he was chosen preacher in the Savoyj where he continued to officiate till he died . This, however, was but poor maintenance, the salary being small as well as precarious, and be continued in mean circumstances for some years, after the revolution; till, as his. biographer, bishop Kidder, says, it pleased God to raise up a friend who concerned himself on his behalf, namely, the lord admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. Before he went to sea, lord Russel waited on the queen to take leave and when he was with her, begged of her that she “would be pleased to bestow some preferment on Dr. Horneck.” The queen told him, that she “could not at present think of any way of preferring the doctor” and with this answer the admiral was dismissed. Some time after, the queen related what had passed to archbishop Tillotson; and added, that she “was anxious lest the ad-, miral should think her too unconcerned on the doctor’s behalf.” Consulting with him therefore what was to be done, Tillotson advised her to promise him the next prebend of Westminster that should happen to become void. This the queen did, and lived to make good her word in 1693. In 1681 he had commenced D. D. at Cambridge, and was afterwards made chaplain to king William and queen Mary. His prebend at Exeter lying at a great distance from him, he resigned it; and in Sept. 1694 was admitted to a prebend in the church of Wells, to which he was presented by his friend Dr. Kidder, bishop of Bath and Wells. It was no very profitable thing; and if it had been, he would have enjoyed but little of it, since he died so soon after as Jan. 1696, in his fifty-sixth year. His body being opened, it appeared that both his ureters were stopped; the one by a stone that entered the top of the ureter with a sharp end; the upper part of which was thick, and much too large to enter any farther; the other by stones of much less firmness and consistence. He was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument, with an handsome inscription upon it, was erected to his memory. He was, says Kidder, a man of very good learning, and had goou skill in the languages. He had applied himself to the Arabic from his youth, and retained it to his death. He had great skill in the Hebrew likewise nor was his skilllimited to the Biblical Hebrew only, but he was also a great master in the Rabbinical. He was a most diligent and indefatigable reader of the Scriptures in the original languages: “Sacras literas tractavit indefesso studio,” says his tutor Spanheiui of him: and adds, that he was then of an elevated wit, of which he gave a specimen in 1655, by publicly defending “A Dissertation upon the Vow of Jephthah concerning the sacrifice of his daughter.” He had great skill in ecclesiastical history, in controversial and casuistical divinity; and it is said, that few men were so frequently consulted in cases of conscience as Dr. Horneck. As to his pastoral care in all its branches, he is set forth as one of the greatest examples that ever lived. “He had the zeal, the spirit, the courage, of John the Baptist,” says Kidder, “and durst reprove a great man; and perhaps that man lived not, that was more conscientious in this matter. I very well knew a great man,” says the bishop, “and peer of the realm, from whom ne had just expectations of preferment; but this was so far from stopping his mouth, that he reproved him to his face, upon a very critical affair. He missed of his preferment, indeed, but saved his own soul. This freedom,” continues the bishop, “made his acquaintance and friendship very desirable by every good man, that would be better. He would in him be very sure of a friend, that would not suffer sin upon him. I may say of him what Pliny says of Corellius Rufus, whose death he laments, “amisi meæ vitæ testem,' &c. ‘I have lost a faithful witness of my life;’ and may add what he said upon that occasion to his friend Calvisius, ‘vereor ne negligentius vivam,’ ‘I am afraid lest for the time to come I should live more carelessly.’” His original works are, 1.” The great Law of Consideration: or, a discourse wherein the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life, are laid open,“London, 1676, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted with additions and corrections. 2.” A letter to a lady revolted to the Romish church,“London, 1678, 12mo. 3.” The happy Ascetick: or the best Exercise,“London, 1681, 8vo. To this is subjoined,” A letter to a person of quality concerning the holy lives of the primitive Christians.“4.” Delight and Judgment: or a prospect of the great day of Judgment, and its power to damp and imbitter sensual delights, sports, and recreations,“London, 1683, 12mo. 5.” The Fire of the Altar: or certain directions how to raise the soul into holy flames, before, at, and after the receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with suitable prayers and devotions,“London, 1683, 12mo. To this is prefixed,” A Dialogue between a Christian and his own Conscience, touching the true nature of the Christian Religion.“6.” The Exercise of Prayer; or a help to devotion; being a supplement to the Happy Ascetick, or best exercise, containing prayers and devotions suitable to the respective exercises, with additional prayers for several occasions,“London, 1685, 8vo. 7.” The first fruits of Reason: or, a discouse shewing the necessity of applying ourselves betimes to the serious practice of Religion,“London, 1685, 8vo. 8.” The Crucified Jesus: or a full account of the nature, end, design, and benefit of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with necessary dU rections, prayers, praises, and meditations, to be used by persons who come to the holy communion,“London, 1686, 8vo. 9.” Questions and Answers concerning the two Religions; viz. that of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome.“10.” An Answer to the Soldier’s Question: What shall we do?“11, Several single Sermons. 12.” Fifteen Sermons upon the fifth chapter of St. Matthew," London, 1698, 8vo.

Besides these he translated out of German into English, “A wonderful story or narrative of certain Swedish writers,” printed in Glanvil’s “Sadducismus Triumphatus” in the second edition of which book is a “Preface to the wonderful story,” with an addition of a “new relation from Sweden,” translated by him out of German. He translated likewise from Frepch into English, “An Antidote against a careless indifferency in matters of Religion in. opposition to those who believe that all religions are alike, and that it imports not what men profess,” London, 1693, with an introduction written by himself. He collected and published “Some discourses, sermons, and remains of Mr. Joseph Glanvil,” in 1681. He wrote likewise, in conjunction with Dr. Gilbert Burnet, “The last Confession, Prayers, and Meditations, of Lieutenant John Stern, delivered by him on the cart, immediately before his execution, to Dr. Burnet: together with the last Confession of George Borosky, signed by him in the prison, and sealed up in the lieutenant’s pacquet. With which an account is given of their deportment, both in the prison, and at the place of their execution, which was in the Pall-mall, on. the 10th of March, in the same place in which they had murdered Thomas Thynne, esq. on the 12th of February before, in 1681.” This was published at London, in folio, 1682.

, an historian in the 17th century, was born in the Palatinate. He visited most of the countries in Europe; was tutor to Thomas Morgan, a young English gentleman who lived at the Hague; and appointed professor of history, politics, and geography, at Harderwick; afterwards professor of history at Leyden, where, having sustained a great loss by confiding in an alchemical impostor, he became deranged, and died in 1670. His principal works are, “An Ecclesiastical History,” with an introduction to the universal political history; a curious and instructive work, which has been translated into French, and continued to 1704. “The History of England, during the year 1645, and 1646,” Leyden, 1648, 8vo. “History of the Origin of the Americans,” Hague, 1652, 8vo. “History of Philosophy,” in seven books, 1655, 4to. An edition of “Sulpitius Severus,” with notes, 8vo. “Noah’s Ark,” or, A History of Monarchies. This work is full of curious inquiries into the origin of each monarchy, &c. The above are all in Latin.

, a celebrated Danish astronomer, and professor of that science at Copenhagen, was born at Laegsted, in Jutland, in 1679. He studied at Aalburg under very unfavourable circumstances, beingobliged, at the same period, to submit to various kinds of labour. In 1714, he was appointed professor of mathematics at Copenhagen, and in 1725 he was elected a member of the Danish academy of sciences. He died in 1764. He was author of many works connected with his favourite pursuits, among which were “Copernicus Trinmphans, sive de Parallaxi Orbis Annui;” in which he shews himself an enthusiast for the system of Copernicus; the “Elements of Astronomy;” and “the Elements of Mathematics;” but he is best known in this country by his “Natural History of Iceland,” fol. 1758. His mathematical works were published in four vols, 4to, Copenhagen, 1735, &c.

, an English astronomer, and memorable for being the first who had observed the passage of Venus over the sun’s disk, was born at Toxteth in Lancashire, about 1619. From a school in the country, where he acquired grammar-learning, he was sent to Emanuel-college in Cambridge, and there spent some time in academical studies. About 1633, he began with real earnestness to study astronomy: but living at that time with his father at Toxteth, in very moderate circumstances, and being destitute of' books and other assistances for the prosecution of this study, he could not make any considerable progress. He spent some of his first years in studying the writings of Lansbergius, of which he repented and complained afterwards; neglecting in the mean time the more valuable and profitable works of Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and other excellent astronomers. In 16^6, he contracted an acquaintance with Mr. William Crabtree of Broughton near Manchester, and was engaged in the same studies; but living at a considerable distance from each other, they could have little correspondence except by letters. These, however, they frequently exchanged, communicating their observations to one another; and they sometimes consulted Mr. Samuel Foster, professor of astronomy at Gresham-college in London. Horrox having now obtained a companion in his studies, assumed new spirits. Procuring astronomical instruments and books, he applied himself to make observations; and by Crabtree’s advice, laid aside Lansbergius, whose tables he found erroneous, and his hypotheses inconsistent. He was pursuing his studies with great vigour and success, when he was cut off by a sudden death, Jan. 3, 1640-1.

What we have of his writings is sufficient to shew, that his death was a loss to science. A little before that time he had finished his “Venus in Sole visa.” He made his observations upon this new and extraordinary phenomenon at Hool near Liverpool; but they did not appear till 1662, when Hevelius published them at Dantzick, with some works of his own, under this title, “Mercurius in Sole visus Gedani anno 1661, Maij 3, cum aliis quibusdam rerum ccelestium observationibus rarisque phienomenis. Cui annexa est Venus in Sole pariter visa anno 1639, Nov. 24, &c.” Besides this work he had begun another, in which he proposed, first, to refute Lansbergius’s hypotheses, and to shew, how inconsistent they were with each other and the heavens; and, secondly, to draw up a new system of astronomy, agreeably to the heavens, from his own observations and those of others; retaining for the most part the Keplerian hypotheses, but changing the numbers as, observations required. Wallis, from whose “Epistola Nuncupatoria” we have extracted these memoirs of Horrox, published some of his papers in 1673, under the title of “Opera Poathuma:” others were carried into Ireland by his brother Jonas Horrox, who had pursued the same studies, and died there, by which means they were lost: and others came into the hands of Mr. Jeremiah Shakerly, who, by the assistance of them, formed his “British Tables,” published at London in 1653: which last papers, after Shakerly’s voyage to the East-Indies, where he died, are said to have remained in the possession of a bookseller, till they were destroyed by the great fire at London in 1666.

, author of a very learned and excellent work, entitled, “Britannia Romana,” by which only he is known, is supposed to have been a native of Northumberland, where, at a village called Long-Horsley, near Morpeth, the family, in all probability, originated. This parent stock, if such it was, is now lost in the Witheringtons, by the marriage of the heiress of Long-Horsley, about the middle of this century, with a person of that name. We know only of two other branches; one settled in Yorkshire, the other in the West, from which latter, we understand the late learned bishop of St. Asaph to have sprung: but the branches have been so long separated, that they cannot trace their relationship to each other. John Horsley was educated in the public grammar-school at Newcastle, and afterwards in Scotland, where he took a degree; he was finally settled at Morpeth, and is said, in Hutchinson’s View of Northumberland, to have been pastor to a dissenting congregation in that place. The same author adds, from Randall’s manuscripts, that he died in 1732,­which was the same year in which his great work appeared; but the truth is, as we learn from the journals of the time, that he died Dec. 12, 1731, a short time before the publication of his book. He was a fellow of the royal society. A few letters from him to Roger Gale, esq. on antiquarian subjects, are inserted in Hutchinson’s book; they are all dated in 1729. His “Britannia Romana” gives a full and learned account of the remains and vestiges of the Romans in Britain. It is divided into three books; the first containing “the History of all the Roman Transactions in Britain, with an account of their legionary and auxiliary forces employed here, and a determination of the stations per lineam valli; also a large description of the Roman walls, with maps of the same, laid down from a geometrical survey.” The second book contains, “a complete collection of the Roman inscriptions and sculptures, which have hitherto been discovered in Britain, with the letters engraved in their proper shape, and proportionate size, and the reading placed under each; as also an historical account of them, with explanatory and critical observations.” The third book contains, “the Roman Geography of Britain, in which are given the originals of Ptolemy, Antonini Itinerarium, the Notitia, the anonymous Ravennas, and Peutinger’s Table, so far as they relate to this island, with particular essays on each of those ancient authors, and the several places in Britain mentioned by them,” with tables, indexes, &c. Such is the author’s own account in his title-page; and the learned of all countries have testified that the accuracy of the execution has equalled the excellence of the plan. The plates of this work were purchased of one of his descendants for twenty guineas by Dr. Giftbrd, for the British Museum, where is a copy of the work, with considerable additions by Dr. Ward.

, a very learned and highly distinguished prelate, was the son of the rev. John Horsley, M. A. who was many years clerk in orders a$ St. Martin’s in the Fields. His grandfather is said to have been at first a dissenter, but afterwards conformed, and had the living of St. Martin’s in the Fields. This last circumstance, however, must be erroneous, as no such name occurs in the list of the vicars of that church. His father was in 1745 presented to the rectory of Thorley in Hertfordshire, where he resided constantly, and was a considerable benefactor to the parsonage. He also held the rectory of Newington Butts, in Surrey, a peculiar belonging to the bishop of Worcester By his first wife, Anne, daughter of Dr. Hamilton, principal of the college of Edinburgh, he had only one son, the subject of the present article, who was born in his father’s residence in St. Martin’s church-yard, in Oct. 1733. By his second wife, Mary, daughter of George Leslie, esq. of Kimragie in Scotland, he had three sons and four daughters, who were all born at Thorley. He died in 1777, aged seventy-eight; and his widow in 1787, at Nasing in Essex.

Samuel was educated in his early years chiefly by his father, and we are assured, never was at Westminster school, as has been asserted; but of this and the other transactions of his youth, his studies, and early character, we have very few particulars that can be depended on, and have failed in obtaining information on these subjects from the only quarter whence it could have been expected. It is certain, however, that he was entered of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where it is easy to conceive that he was an industrious student, applying himself much to the study of mathematics, and storing his mind with the writings of the ancient and modern divines and logicians. Why with such qualifications he took no degree in arts, cannot now be ascertained. We find only that he took that of LL. B. in 1758, and became his father’s curate at Newington, to which living he succeeded, on the resignation of his father, in the following year, and held it till his translation to the see of Rochester in 1793.

In April 1767, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, of which he continued for many years an active member; and in the same year he published a pamphlet, entitled “The power of God, deduced from the computable instantaneous productions of it in the Solar System,” 8vo. This he allows to be a “very singular, and perhaps a whimsical speculation,” and says, in language not uncharacteristic of his future style, that in all probability this production would “roll down the gutter of time, forgotten and neglected.” His object was undoubtedly to display the wonderful power of God; but it was thought that he magnified omnipotent power at the expence of omniscient wisdom, and instead of supposing that the planets continue for ever to perform their courses, in consequence of the almighty ^/zfl, and original impulse impressed upon them, when first they were drawn out of chaos, he maintains the necessity of a new force every instant to preserve the system in motion.

In 1768 he went to Christ church, Oxford, as private tutor to Heneage earl of Aylesbury, then lord Guernsey. To this university he appears to have become attached; and his first mathematical publication was elegantly printed at the Clarendon press, “Apollonii Pergaci inclinationum libri duo. Resthuebat S. Horsley,” 1770. This work was criticised with some severity at the time, but does not appear to have injured his rising reputation, especially wnh the members of the royal society, who chose him to the office of secretary in November 1773. In 1774 he was incorporated B.C. L. at Oxford, and immediately proceeded to the degree of D. C. L. and was presented by his patron, the earl of Aylesbury, to the rectory of Aldbiiry in. Surrey, with which he obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of Newington. In the same year he published “Remarks on the Observations made in the late Voyage towards the North Pole, for determining the acceleration, of the Pendulum, in latitude 79 51'. In a letter to the hon. Constantinefohn Phipps,” 4to. His intention in this pamphlet, which ought ever to be bound up with “Phipps’s Voyage,” is to correct two or three important errors and inaccuracies that had been introduced, by Israel Lyons, the mathematician employed on the voyage, in the numerous mathematical calculations which appear in that valuable work; and this it was acknowledged, was performed by our learned author with equal skill, delicacy, and candour. I>r. Horsley had long meditated a complete edition of the works of sir Isaac Newton, and in 1776 issued proposals for printing it, by subscription, in 5 vote. 4to, having obtained the royal permission to dedicate it to his majesty; but the commencement of it was for a considerable time delayed by severe domestic affliction, arising from the illness of his wife, for whom he had the tenderest regard. She died in the following year, and some time after, the works of Newton were put to press, but were not finally completed until 1785. In the mean time his great diligence and proficiency in various sciences attracted the notice of an excellent judge of literary merit, the late Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, who on his promotion to that see in 1777, appointed Dr. Horsley his domestic chaplain; and collated him to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral. He also, by the same interest, succeeded his father as clerk in orders at St. Martin’s in the Fields.

In 1778, during the controversy between Priestley, Price, and others, respecting materialism, and philosophical necessity, Dr. Horsley preached a sermon, on Good Friday, April 17, en-titled “Providence and free Agency,” 4to, in which he drew a very acute distinction between the philosophical necessity of our subtle moderns, and the predestination of their ancestors. It was evident he had an eye to the writings of Dr. Priestley in this discourse, but that polemic did not take any immediate notice of it. In 1779, Dr. Horsley resigned Aldbury, and in* 1780, bishop Lowth presented him to the living of Thorley, which he held, by dispensation, with Newington, but resigned the former on being appointed archdeacon of Essex, and, in 1782, vicar of South Weald in that county, both which he owed* to the same patron. In 1783, we find him deeply involved in a dispute with some of the members of the royal society, not worth reviving in a regular narrative; it is only to be regretted that it ended in his withdrawing himself from the society.

Dr. Horsley was now about to enter on that controversy with Dr. Priestley, in which he displayed his greatest learning and abilities, and on which his fame is irremoveably founded. In the year 1782 (we use Dr. Horsley’s words), an open and vehement attack was made by Dr. Priestley upon the creeds and established discipline of every church in Christendom, in a work in 2 vols. 8vo, entitled a “History of the Corruptions of Christianity.” At the head of these Dr. Priestley placed both the catholic doctrine of our Lord’s divinity, and the Arian notion of his pre-existence in a nature far superior to the human, representing the Socinian doctrine of his mere humanity, as the unanimous faith of the first Christians. It seemed to Dr. Horsley that the most effectual preservative against the intended mischief would be to destroy the writer’s credit, and the authority of his name, which the fame of certain lucky discoveries in the prosecution of physical experiments had set high in popular esteem, by a proof of his incompetency in every branch of literature connected with his present subject, of which the work itself afforded evident specimens in great abundance. For this declared purpose, a review of the imperfections of his work in the first part, relating to our Lord’s divinity, was made the subject of Dr. Horsley’s Charge, delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St. Alban’s at a visitation held May 22, 1783, the spring next following Dr. Priestley’s publication. The specimens alledged by Dr. Horsley of the imperfections of the work, and the incompetency of the author, may be reduced to six general classes. 1. Instances of reasoning in a circle. 2, Instances of quotations misapplied through ignorance of the writer’s subject. 3. Instances of testimonies perverted by artful and forced constructions. 4. Instances of passages in the Greek Fathers misinterpreted through ignorance of the Greek language. 5. Instances of passages misinterpreted through the same ignorance, driven further out of the way by an ignorance of the Platonic philosophy; and 6. Instances of ignorance of the phraseology of the earliest ecclesiastical writers. Dr. Horsley concludes this masterly and argumentative Charge, by saying, “I feel no satisfaction in detecting the weaknesses of this learned writer’s argument, but what arises from a consciousness, that it is the discharge of some part of the duty which I owe to the church of God.” The whole of this charge affords a characteristic specimen of Dr. Horsley’s controversial style, with a mixture of temper leading him, perhaps, somewhat nearer the bounds of irony then became the solemnity of an address of this kind. After speaking of many things that may be perfectly obvious to the penetration of such a mind as Dr. Priestley’s, how absurd and contradictory and improbable soever they may appear to persons of plain sense and common understandings, unsubtilized by sophistry and metaphysics, and not stimulated by the love of paradox, he observes, that, to those who want the doctor’s sagacity, the “true meaning of an inspired writer” will not very readily be deemed “to be toe reverse of the natural and obvious sense of the expressions which he employs.”

Dr. Priestley, however, felt none of the alarm with which his admirers were affected. He promised an early and satisfactory answer. He predicted that he should rise more illustrious from his supposed defeat; he promised to strengthen the evidence of his favourite opinion by the very objections that had been raised against it; he seemed to flatter himself that he should find a new convert in his antagonist himself, and even hinted in print somewhat concerning the shame and remorse with which he was confident his adversary must be penetrated. From all this it soon became evident that Dr. Priestley, who could not but feel personally what every unprejudiced man felt argumentatively, that Dr. Horsley was an antagonist of no mean stamp, did not profit by this conviction so far as to take sufficient leisure to revise his own writings, but immediately repeated his former assertions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity not having been maintained by the Christian church in the first three centuries, in a publication entitled “Letters to Dr. Horsley, in answer to his animadversions on the ‘ History of the Corruptions of Christianity:’ with an additional evidence that the primitive Christian church was Unitarian,” 1783, 8vo. Irt this there are more of the weaknesses of argument, and the errors of haste, than could have been expected from one who had so much at stake, and it was therefore no very difficult task for Dr. Horsley to continue the contest, in the same epistolary form which his antagonist had adopted, by “Letters from the archdeacon of St. Alban’s in Reply to Dr. Priestley, with an Appendix, containing short strictures on Dr. Priestley’s Letters, by an unknown hand,” 1784, 8vo. These letters are seventeen in number, and their object is to prove that if Dr. Priestley’s mistakes which he pointed out, are few in number, tliey are too considerable in size to be incident to a well-informed writer; that they betray a want of such a general comprehension of the subject as might have enabled Dr. P. to draw the trne conclusions from the passages he cited; that they prove him incompetent in the very language of the writers from whom his proofs should be drawn, and unskilled in the philosophy whose doctrines he pretended to compare with the opinions of the church. These are serious charges, but our author did not confine himself merely to substantiate them, but followed up his numerous proofs by others in behalf 6f the doctrine of the Trinity, drawn from the early fathers of the church, and the best ecclesiastical historians. The display of reading and research in these letters is wonderful. The style also is admirable, and while it assumes the lofty and somewhat dictatorial manner peculiar to Dr. Horsley, and which indeed the high ground on which he stood in this case, seemed to justify, the reader of taste finds himself often charmed with the elegance of the language, and always with the closeness of the reasoning.

Dr. Priestley, in his letters, had expressed a great desire to draw Dr. Horsley into a tedious controversy on the main question, the article of our Lord’s divinity, but our author, knowing that question to have been long since exhausted, and that nothing new was to be said on either side, chose, in his “Letters in Reply,” to adhere closely to his own main question. He, therefore, as we have mentioned, defended his own argument, and collected new specimens from Dr. Priestley’s new publication, of his utter inability to throw light upon the subject. Thus a useless and endless contention on the main question was avoided but many discussions necessarily arose upon secondary points, which perhaps the learned reader will es- 1 teem the most interesting parts of the controversy, such as, the authority of the writings that go under the name of the apostolical Fathers the rise of the two sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites; the difference between the two and the difference of both from the orthodox Hebrew Christians; and particularly an article on the accusation of Tritheism, which Dr. Priestley had brought against the Trinitarians of the seventeenth century. The “Short Strictures on Dr. Priestley” in the appendix to these Letters, it is now known, were written by Dr. Townson.

Dr. Priestley (we still use his antagonist’s words), mortified to find that his letters had failed of the expected success; that Dr. Horsley, touched with no shame, with no remorse, remained unshaken in his opinion; and that the authority of his own opinion was still set at nought, his learning disallowed, his ingenuity in argument impeached; and what was least to be borne finding that a haughty churchman ventured incidentally to avow his sentiments of the divine commission of the episcopal ministry, and presumed to question the authority of those teachers who usurp the preacher’s office without any better warrant than their own opinion of their own sufficiency, lost all temper. A second set of “Letters to the archdeacon of St. Alban’s” appeared in the autumn of 1784, in which all profession of personal regard and civility was laid aside. The charge of insufficiency in the subject was warmly retorted, and “the incorrigible dignitary” was taxed with manifest misrepresentation of his adversary’s argument; with injustice to the character of Origen, whose veracity he had called in question; and with the grossest falsification of ancient history. He was stigmatized in short as a “falsifier of history, and a defamer of the character of the dead.”

Regardless of this reproach, Dr. Horsley remained silent for eighteen months. A sermon “On the Incarnation,” preached in his parish church of St. Mary Newington, upon ttie feast of the Nativity in 1785, was the prelude to a renewal of the contest on his side, and was followed early in the ensuing spring, by his “Remarks on Dr. Priestley’s second Letters to the archdeacon of Saint Alban’s, with proofs of certain facts asserted by the archdeacon.” This tract consists of two parts; the first is a collection of new specimens of Dr. Priestley’s temerity in assertion; the second defends the attack upon the character of Origen, and proves the existence of a body of Hebrew Christians at JEYia. after the time of Adrian the fact upon which the author’s good faith had been so loudly arraigned by Dr. Priestley. With this publication Dr. Horsley promised himself that the controversy on his part would be closed. But at last he yielded, as he says, with some reluctance, to collect and republish what he had written in an octavo volume (printed in 1789) and took that opportunity to give Dr. Priestley’s Letters a second perusal, which produced not only many important notes, but some disquisitions of considerable length; and the remarks on Dr. Priestley’s second letters having produced a third set of “Letters” from him, upon the two questions of Origen’s veracity, and the orthodox Hebrews of the church of >Elia these two are partly answered in notes, and partly in two of the disquisitions. Towards the conclusion of Dr. Horsley' s “Remarks,” after exhibiting specimens of Drr Priestley’s incompetency to write on such subjects as fell within their controversy, he says, “These and many other glaring instances of unfinished criticism, weak argument, and unjustifiable art, to cover the weakness and supply the want of argument, which must strike every one who takes the trouble to look through those second letters, put me quite at ease with respect to the judgment which the public would be apt to form between my antagonist and me, and confirmed me in the resolution of making no reply to him, and of troubling the public no more upon the subject, except so far as might be necessary to establish some facts, which he hath- somewhat too peremptorily denied, and to vindicate my character from aspersions which he hath too inconsiderately thrown out.” It ought not to be forgot, that in this controversy Dr. Horsley derived not a little support from the Rev. Mr. Badcock, whose criticisms on Dr. Priestley’s works in the MonthJy Review left scarcely any thing unfinished that was necessary to prove his errors as a divine, and his incompetency as a historian.

The reputation Dr. Horsley had now acquired, recommended him to the patronage of the lord chancellor Thurlow, who presented him to a prebendal stall in the church of Gloucester; and in 1788, by the same interest, he was made bishop of St. David’s, and in this character answered the high expectations of eminent usefulness which his elevation, to the mitre so generally excited. As a bishop his conduct was exemplary and very praiseworthy. In this diocese, which was said to exhibit more of ignorance and poverty than that of any other in the kingdom, he carried through a regular system of reform. He regulated the ccndition of the clergy, and proceeded to a stricter course with respect to the candidates for holy orders, admitting none without personally examining them himself, and looking very narrowly into the titles which they produced. With all this vigilance, his lordship acted to them as a tender father, encouraging them to visit him during his stay in the country, which was usually for several months in the year, assisting them with advice, and ministering to their temporal necessities with a liberal hand. In his progress through the diocese, he frequently preached in the parish churches, and bestowed considerable largesses on the poor. He was, in short, a blessing to his people, and they followed him with grateful hearts, and parted from him with infinite reluctance; and this diocese may be congratulated in being again placed under a prelate whose zeal for the promotion of its best interests has seldom been equalled, and cannot easily be exceeded. Bishop Horsley’s first Charge to the clergy of St. David’s, delivered in 1790, was deservedly admired, as was his animated speech in the house of lords on the Catholic bill, May 31, 1791. These occasioned his subsequent promotion to the see of Rochester in 1793, and to the deanery of Westminster, on which he resigned the living of Newington. As dean of Westminster he effected some salutary changes. Finding the salaries of the minor- canons and officers extremely low, he liberally obtained an advance, and at the same time introduced some regulations in the discharge of their office, which were readily adopted.

During the turbulent period of 1793-4-5, &c. when the religion, government, and morals of the country were in imminent danger from the prevalence of democratic principles, the warmth and zeal of his endeavours in parliament to oppose the enemies of the constitution, procured him a considerable share of illiberal censure, which, however, was more than balanced by the general applause which followed the steady uniformity, consistency, and manly decision of his conduct. As a senator he was deservedly considered in the first class; and there were few important discussions, not only Oh ecclesiastical topics, but on those which concerned the civil interests of the country, in which he did not take an active part. He was not, however, an every-day speaker, nor desirous of adding to the dehates unless he had something original to produce, and he was on that account listened to with eagerness even, by those with whom he could not act, and who found it easier to arraign his manner than his matter. In 1802 he was translated to the bishopric of St. Asaph, and resigned the deanery of Westminster. During all this period his publications were frequent, as we shall notice in a list of them; and his vigour of body and mind was happily preserved until the year 1806, which proved his last. In July of that year he went to his diocese, a part of which he had visited and confirmed, and after two months’ residence intended to visit his patron lord Thurlow at Brighton, where he arrived Sept. 20, after hearing on the road that his noble friend was dead. On the 30th, a slight complaint in his bowels affected him, and very soon brought on a mortification, which proved fatal Oct. 4, in his 73d year. His remains were interred in the parish church of St. Mary Newington, where a monument has since been erected to his memory, with an inscription written by himself.

He was twice married: 6rst to Mary, one of the daughters of the Rev. John Botham, his predecessor at Aldbury, by whom he had one daughter, who died young, and a son, now the rev. Heneage Horsley, rector of Gresford in Denbighshire, prebendary of St. Asaph, and chaplain to the Scotch episcopalian church at Dundee. By his second wife, who died the year before him, he had no children. She is commemorated in the above inscription by the name of Sarah only.

Bishop Horsley’s works not yet mentioned, were, besides various occasional Sermons and Charges, 1. “On the properties of the Greek and Latin languages,” 1796, 8vo, without his name. 2. “On the acronychal rising of the Pleiades,” a dissertation appended to his friend Dr. Vincent’s “Voyage of Nearchus,” 1797. 3. “A circular Letter to the diocese of Rochester, on the Scarcity of Corn,” 1796. 4. Another circular Letter to that diocese, on “the Defence of the Kingdom,” 1798. 5. Critical Disquisitions on the 18th chapter of Isaiah: in a letter to Edward King, esq. F. R. S. &c.“1799, 4to. Towards the close of this discussion, in which he applies the words of Isaiah to the aspect of the times, he says, with almost a prophetic spirit,” I see nothing in the progress of the French arms which any nation fearing God, and worshipping the Son, should fear to resist: I see every thing that should rouse all Christendom to a vigorous confederate resistance. I see every thing that should excite this country in particular to resist, and to take the lead in a confederacy of resistance, by all measures which policy can suggest, and the valour and opulence of a great nation can supply.“6.” Hosea, translated from the Hebrew; with notes explanatory and critical,“1801, 4to. Archbishop Newcome, in his” Improved Version of the Minor Prophets,“had preceded bishop Horsley in translating Hosea; but our prelate has thought proper in so many instances to reject his emendations, that bishop Horsley’s labours will probably be thought indispensable to a just illustration of the sacred text. This was reprinted with large additions in 1804. 7.” Elementary treatises on the fundamental principles of practical Mathematics; for the use of students,“1801, 8vo. These tracts were at first composed, without any design of publication, for the use of his son, then a student of Christ-church; and the work was to be considered, although then first published, as the third and last in the order of the subject, of three volumes of elementary geometry, to be issued one after another from the university press of Oxford, The first accordingly appeared in 1802, under the title of” Euclidig Elementorum Libri priores XII. ex Commandini et Gregorii versionibus Latinis,“Oxon, 8vo; and the second in J 804,” Euclidis datorum liber, cum additamento, necnon tractatus alii ad geometriam pertinentes," ibid. 8vo.

Dr. Horsley was throughout life an indefatigable student; he indulged no indolence in youth, and amidst an accumulation of preferments, contemplated no time when he might rest from his labours. His mind was constantly intent on some literary pursuit or discovery, and setting a high value on the fame he had acquired, his ambition was to justify the esteem of the public, and the liberality of his patrons. Knowing likewise, how much his fame was indebted to his theological contest, he endeavoured by laborious researches, to acquire that degree of accuracy which renders a controversialist invulnerable. It is evident that in the study of ecclesiastical history, particularly that of the early ages, on which his controversy with Priestley hinged, his range was most extensive, and it is no breach of charity to suppose that he vexed as well as surprized his antagonist, by proving himself more intimate with the minutiae of remote antiquity than himself, who, from a wish to become the re-founder of a sect, had made the subject the study of his whole life. Dr. Horsley, on the contrary, appears to have prepared himself as the exigencies of the times in which he lived demanded, and whether the subject was theological or political, he quickly accumulated a mass of knowledge which his genius enabled him to illustrate with all the charms of novelty. While the ablest champion of orthodoxy which the church has seen for many years, he was so much of an original thinker, and so independent of his predecessors or contemporaries, that his mode of defence was entirely his own, and his style and authoritative manner, like Warburton’s and Johnson’s, however dangerous to imitate, were yet, perhaps, the best that could be devised in the conflict of opinions with which he was surrounded. His writings possessed some of the most prominent features of his personal character, in which there was nothing lukewarm, nothing compromising. He disdained liberality itself, if it prescribed courtesy to men whose arrogance in matters of faith led by easy steps to more violent measures, and who, while they affected only a calm and impartial inquiry into the doctrines of the church, had nothing less in view than the destruction of her whole fabrick. Such men might expect to encounter with a roughness of temper which was natural to him on more common occasions, although in the latter qualified by much kindness of heart, benevolence, and charity. When he had once detected the ignorance of his opponents, and their misrepresentation of the ancient records to which they appealed,' when he found that they had no scruple to bend authorities to pre-conceived theory, and that their only way of prolonging a contest was by repeating the same assertions without additional proofs, he frequently assumed that high tone of contempt or irony which would have been out of place with opponents who had no other object in view than the establishment of truth.

As a preacher, or rather as a writer of sermons, Dr. Horsley might be allowed to stand in the first class, if we knew with whom of that class we can compare him. Some comparisons we have seen, the justice of which we do not think quite obvious. In force, profundity, and erudition, in precision and distinctness of ideas, in“aptitude and felicity of expression, and above all, in selection of 'subjects and original powers of thinking, Dr. Horsley’s Sermons have been very justly termed” compositions sui generis" Upon most of these accounts, or ^rather upon all in the aggregate, they remove him from a comparison with those who may have acquired‘ very just fame as popular preachers. Bishop Horsley ’everywhere addresses himself to scholars, philosophers, and biblical' critics. By these he was heard with delight, and by these his works will continue to be appreciated as the component parts of every theological library, although they may not assent to all his doctrines.

, an eminent physician, was born at Torgau in 1537; and took the degree of M. D. in the university of Francfort on the Oder, in 1562. He was offered the place of public physician in several places; and he practised successively at Sagan and Suidnitz in Silesia, and at Iglaw in Moravia, till 1580, when he was made physician in ordinary to the archduke of Austria; and four years after, quitting that place, was promoted to the medical professorship in the university of Helmstadt. The oration he delivered at his installation, “Of the Difficulties which attend the Study of Physic, and the means to remove them,” a very good one, is printed with his “Epistolse Philosophic” & Medicinales,“Lips. 1596, 8vo. Upon entering on this post, he distinguished himself by what was thought a great singularity; he joined devotion to the practice of physic. He always prayed to God to bless his prescriptions; and he published a form of prayer upon this subject, which he presented to the university. He acquitted himself worthily in his functions, and published some books which kept up the reputation he had already acquired, but among them was one which produced a contrary effect, his” Dissertation upon the Golden Tooth of a child in Silesia;“concerning which he suffered himself to be egregiously imposed upon. Van Dale has related in what manner this imposture was discovered. Horstius, in the mean time, took it for a great prodigy, which ought to be a comfort to those Christians who were oppressed by the Turks; as certainly foreboding the downfall of the Ottoman empire. Horstius’s dissertation was published at Leipsic, in 1595, 8vo, with another piece of his writing,” De Noctambulis,“or” Concerning those who walk in their sleep." He died about 1600.

, also a learned physician, nephew of the preceding, was born at Torgau, where his father was one of the chief magistrates in 1578. After being educated in the schools of Torgau and Halberstadt, he went to the university of Wittemberg, and commenced the study of medicine; and received the degree of M. D. in March 1606, at Basil. On his return in the same year, to his native place, he was immediately appointed to a medical professorship in the university of Wittemburg, bj the elector of Saxony. Two years afterwards he was promoted by the landgrave of Hesse to a medical chair in tke college at Giessen, and in 1609 was honoured with the title of Archiater of Hesse. At this time his professional character had risen in the public estimation, and he numbered among his patients the principal nobility of the district. In 1622, he received a public invitation from the magistracy of Ulm to settle there as physician to that city, and as president of the college. He fulfilled his duties in both these offices with great reputation; and his integrity and humanity, not less than his extensive erudition, and his successful practice, endeared him to his fellow-citizens, and claimed the respect and admiration of the surrounding states. He died in August 1636, aged fifty-eight years. He left a considerable number of works, which were collected, and published under the title of “Opera Medica,” in 1660, 3 vols. folio, at Nuremberg, by his youngest son, Gregory, who, as well as his brother John Daniel, acquired eminence as physicians. They were also both professors of medicine; Gregory died at the age of thirty-five; but John Daniel lived to his sixty-fifth year, and was the author of several works, chiefly anatomical, and of little value at present. He was concerned with his brother Gregory in editing the collection of his father’s works, and likewise published an edition of the “Questiones Medico-legales” of Paul Zacchias, Francfort, 1666, in folio; and an edition of the “Opera Medica” of Riverius, at the same place, in 1674, folio.

, archbishop of Tuam, appears to have been of a dissenting family, as he was educated in a dissenting school, between 1690 and 1695, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe, and was a fellow-student with the celebrated Dr. Watts, who said of him, that he was “the first genius in that seminary.” After his academical studies were finished, he resided some time as chaplain with John Hampden, esq. M. P. for Bucks, and afterwards settled as a dissenting minister at Marshfield, in Gloucestershire. The time of his conformity is not ascertained, though it is evident that he was a clergyman of the church of England so early as 1708, for in that year he published a sermon preached at the archdeacon’s visitation at Aylesbury. In the preceding year he had printed a Thanksgiving Sermon on our national Successes, from Ps. cxlix. 6 8. There is a tradition in the family, that he had so greatly recommended himself to the court by his zeal and services in support of the Hanover succession, that, as he scrupled re-ordination, it was dispensed with, and the fivst preferment bescowed on him, was that of a bishopric in Ireland. It is certain that he went into that kingdom as chaplain to the lord lieutenant. He was consecrated bishop of Ferns and Leighlin, February 10, 1721, was translated to Kilinore and Ardagh, July 27, 1727, and preferred to the archiepiscopal see of Tuam, January 27, 1742, with the united bishopric of Enaghdoen, in the room of Dr. Synge, deceased, and likewise with liberty to retain his other bishopric of Ardagh. He died December 14, 1751, in a very advanced age. His publications were, 1. in 1738, at Dublin, a volume of Sermons, sixteen in number, in 8vo; they are judicious and impressive discourses. These were reprinted in London, in 1757, with the addition of the Visitation Sermon mentioned before. In this volume is a Sermon preached in the castle of Dublin, before the duke of Bolton the lord lieutenant of Ireland, after the suppression of the Preston rebellion. 2. A Charge entitled “Instructions to the Clergy of the Diocese of Tuam, at the primary visitation, July 8, 1742.” This, after the death of the author, was reprinted in London, with theapprobation and consent of the rev. Dr. Hort, canon of Windsor it is an excellent address. In the preface to the volume of sermons we learn, that for many years prer vious to its appearance from the press, the worthy author had been disabled from preaching by an over-strain of the voice in the pulpit, at a time when he had a cold with a hoarseness upon him. The providence of God, he says, having taken from him the power of discharging that part of his episcopal office which consisted in preaching, he, thought it incumbent on him to convey his thoughts and instructions from the press, that he might not be useless. The solemn promise that he made at his consecration, “to exercise himself in the Holy Scriptures, so as to be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine,” was no small motive to that undertaking, as being the only means left him for making good that promise. It appears, that he kept up an epistolary correspondence with his “old friend,” as he called him, and fellow-student, Dr. Watts, to the closing period of the life of each. In Swift’s works we find a humorous paper of Dr. Hort’s, entitled “A New Proposal for the better regulation and improvement of Quadrille,” and some letters respecting it.

, was a philologer, a writer of verses, and a historian. His real name is unknown; he took that of Hortensius, either because his father was a gardener, or because his family name signified gardener. He was born at Montfort, in the territory of Utrecht, in 1501, and studied at Louvain. Hortensius was for several years rector of the school at Naarden, and when that city was taken in 1572, he would have fallen a sacrifice to the military fury, had he not been preserved by the gratitude of' one who had been his pupil. His death happened at Naarden, in 1577. There are extant by him, besides satires, epithalamia, and other Latin poems, the following works: 1. Seven books, “De Bello Germanico,” under Charles V. 8vo. 2. “De Tumultu Anabaptistarum,” fol. 3. “De Secessionibus Ultrajectinis,” fol. 4. Commentaries on the six first books of the Æneid, and on Lucan. 5. Notes on four Comedies of Aristophanes.

, a Roman orator, was the contemporary and rival of Cicero, and so far his senior, that he was an established pleader some time before the appearance of the latter. He pleaded his first cause at the age of nineteen, in the consulship of L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Mutius Scevola, ninety-four years before the Christian aera, Cicero being then in his twelfth year. This early effort was crowned with great success, and he continued throughout his life a very favourite orator. His enemies, however, represented his action as extravagant, and gave him the name of Hortensia, from a celebrated dancer of that time. He proceeded also in the line of public honours, was military tribune, praetor, and in the year 68 B. C. consul, together with Q. Caecilius Metellus. He was an eminent member of the college of augurs, and was the person who elected Cicero into that body, being sworn to present a man of proper dignity. By him also Cicero was there inaugurated, for which reason, says that author, “it was my duty to regard him as a parent.” He died in the year 49 B. C.“; and Cicero, to whom the news of that event was brought when he was at Rhodes, in his return from Ciiicia, has left a most eloquent eulogy and lamentation upon him, in the opening of his celebrated treatise on orators entitled Brutus.” I considered him,“says that writer,” not, as many supposed, in the light of an adversary, or one who robbed me of any praise, but as a companion and sharer in my glorious labour. It was much more honourable to have such an opponent, than to stand unrivalled; more especially as neither his career was impeded by me, nor mine by him, but each, on the contrary, was always ready to assist the other by communication, advice, and kindness." If, however, Cicero was sincere in his attachment, it was surmised that Hortensius was not, and this is even insinuated in one of the epistles of Cicero. Hortensius amassed great wealth, but lived at the same time in a splendid and liberal manner; and it is said that at his death his cellars were found stocked with 10,000 hogsheads of wine. His orations have all perished; but it was the opinion of Quintillian, that they did not in perusal answer to the fame he obtained by speaking them. Hortensius must have been si^ty-four at the time of his death.

, a learned and pious English divine, the son of Laurence Horton, a merchant of London, was born in that city. In July 1623 he was admitted a pensioner of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1626, and that of master in 1630. He was also a fellow pf his college. In 1637 he took the degree of B. D. and was appointed one of the twelve university preachers. The following year he was chosen master of Queen’s-college, in that university, after the death of Mr. Herbert Palmer, and in July of the same year minister of St. Mary Colechurch, in London, a donative of the Mercers’ company, of which his father was a member.

In Oct. 1641, he was elected professor of divinity at Gresham-coliege, and in May 1647, was elected preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s-inn, of which he was also a member. In 1649 he was created D. D. and the ensuing year was chosen vice-chancellor of Cambridge. In 1651 he appears to have resigned the office of preacher of Gray’s-inn; and marrying about the same time, he procured an order from parliament that he should not be obliged by that step to vacate his professorship at Gresham college. The Gresham committee, however, referring to the founder’s will, came to a resolution that the place was vacant, but did not at this time proceed to an election. In August 1652, Dr. Horton was incorporated D. D. in the university of Oxford, and the year following was nominated one of the triers or commissioners for the approbation of young ministers. In 1656, the Gresham committee resumed the affair of his professorship, and proceeded to a new election, but Dr. Horton obtained a fresh dispensation from Cromwell by means of secretary Thurloe, and continued in quiet possession, holding with it his headship of Queen’s college, Cambridge. On the restoration he was obliged to resign the headship to Dr. Martin, who had been ejected by the parliamentary visitors; and although he had interest enough at court to retain his professorship for a little time, he was obliged in 1661 to resign it. When the Savoy conference was appointed, he was nominated as an assistant on the side of the presbyterians, but, according to Baxter, never sat among them; and although one of the number of the divines ejected by the Bartholomew act, he conformed afterwards,- and in June 1666, was admitted to the vicarage of Great St. Helen, in Bishopsgate-street, London, which he held till his death, in March 1673.

Dr. Wallis, who had been under his tuition at Cambridge, and after his decease published a volume of his sermons, with some account of his life, says he was “a pious and learned man, an hard student, a sound divine, a good textuary, very well skilled in the oriental languages, very well accomplished for the work of the ministry, and very conscientious in the discharge of it.” Nor did the close application to his province as a divine, occasion him wholly to neglect his juvenile studies. In the Cambridge verses, entitled “Sac-'ipa,” written upon the restoration of Charles II. there is a poem composed by Dr. Horton, while master of Queen’s. He printed but three sermons himself, but left many others prepared for the press; and after his death were published, 1. “Forty-six Sermons upon the whole eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans,” Lond. 1674, fol. 2. “A choice and practical Exposition, upon the 4, 47, 51, and 63 Psalms,” ibid. 1675, fol. 3. “One hundred select Sermons upon several texts,” with the author’s life by Dr. Wallis, ibid. 1679, fol. He left also some sacramental, funeral, and other sermons, prepared for the press, but which have not been printed.

, cardinal, was born at Cracow, in Poland, in 1503, of low parents, but being welleducated, bore such a character after taking his degrees, as to be admitted into the Polish se.nate. He was, here distinguished by the acuteness of his genius, the retentiveness of his memory, and other accomplishments mental and personal and was advanced successively to the places ofsecretary to the king, canon of Crac.ow, bishop of Culm, and bishop of Warmia. He was sentby the. pope Pius IV. to engage the emperor Ferdinand to continue the council of Trent; and the emperor was sq charmed with his eloquence and address, that he granted whatever he asked. Pius then made him a cardinal, and employed him as his legate, to open and preside at the council.Hosius was a zealous advocate for the Rpmish church, and de.? fended it ably, both in speeches and writings the latter of which amounted to two tolio, volumes, and were often printed during his life. He died in 1579, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried in the chmrch of St. Lawrence, from which he took hie title as cardinal. By his will he left his library to the university of Cracow, with an annual sum to provide for its support and increase. Am.ong his works, th^ chief are, 1. “Confessio Catholicae Fidei,” said to have been reprinted in various languages, thirty- four times. 2. “De Communione sub utraque specie.” 3. “De sacerdotum conjugio.” 4, " De Missa vulgari lingua celebrandaV' &c. His works were first collectively published, at Cologne, in 1584.

, an English lawyer and poet, was born in 1566, at Mownton, in the parish of Lanwarne, in Herefordshire, and was at first intended by his father for a trade, but his surprizing memory and capacity induced him to send him to Westminster, and afterwards to Winchester school, at both which he made great proficiency. From Winchester he was in 1584 elected probationer-felr low of New-college, Oxford, and two years afterwards admitted actual fellow. In 1591 he took his master’s degree; but being terra jiliu$ y in the act following, he was, says Wood, “so bitterly satirical,” as to be refused to complete his degree as regent master, and was also expelled the university. He then, for his maintenance, taught school for some time at Ilchester, in Somersetshire, where he compiled a Greek lexicon as far as the letter M. Marrying afterwards a lady of property, he entered himself as student in the Twiddle temple, and at the usual time was called to the bar. In 1614 he hid a seat in parliament, where some rash speeches occasioned his being imprisoned for a year. He was afterwards elected Lentreader of the Middle-temple, and four years after was made a serjeant at law, a justice itinerant for Wales, and one of the council of the Marches. He died at his house at Morehampton, in Herefordshire, Aug. 27, 1638.

He was much admired for his. talent in Latin and English poetry, and highly respected by the most eminent men of his time, Camclen, Selden, Daniel, Dr. Donne, sir Henry Wotton, sir Walter Raleigh, whose “History” he revised before it was sent to press; and others, particularly Ben Jonson, who used to say, “'t was he that polished me, I do acknowledge it.” Wood speaks of him, as the author of the Greek lexicon already mentioned, left in ms. and imperfeqj of several epigram-: and epitaphs, ill Latin and English, interspersed in various collections; “The Art of Memory,” in which he himself excelled and of some law treatises, in ms. which became the property of his grandson, sir John Hoskins, -knt. and bart. master in chancery, but better known to the world as a philosopher, and one of the first members of the royal society, of which he was president in 1682.

, a learned Swiss writer, who rendered important service to the Protestant cause, was born at Altdorf near Zurich, where his father was minister, in 1547. He began his studies with great diligence and success at Zurich, under the direction of Woltius, his uncle by his mother’s side; and losing his father in 1563, found an affectionate patron in his godfather Rodolphus Gualterus. He left Zurich in 1565, in order to visit the other universities and spent some time in Marpurg and Heidelberg. He was afterwardsrecalled, and received into the ministry in 1568; the year following he obtained the freedom of the city; and was made provisor of the abbey school in 1571. Though his school and his cure engrossed much of his time, he had the courage to undertake a noble work of vast extent, “An History of the Errors of Popery.” He considered, that the Papists, when defeated by the Holy Scriptures, had recourse to tradition; were for ever boasting of their antiquity, and despised the protestants for being modern. To deprive them of this plea, he determined to search into the rise and progress of the Popish rites and ceremonies; and to examine by what gradations the truth, taught by Christ and his apostles, had been corrupted by innovations. He could not, however, complete his work, agreeably to the plan he had drawn out; but he published some considerable parts of it, as, 1. “De Templis: hoc est, de origine, progressu, usu, & abusu Templorum, ac omnino rerum omnium ad Templa pertinentium,” 1587, folio. 2. “De Monachis: seu de origine & progressu monachatus & ordinum monasticorum,” 1588, folio. 3. “De Festis Judaeorum, et Ethnicorum: hoc est, de origine, progressu, ceremoiiiis, et ritibus festorum dierum Judaeorum, Graecorum, Romanorum, Turcarum, & Indianorum,” 1592, folio. 4. “Festa Christianorum,” &c. 1593, folio. 5. “Historia Sacramentaria hoc est, libri quinque Je Ccsnae Dominicae prima institutione, ejusque vero usu & abusu, in primaeva ecclesia necnon de origine, progressu, ceremoniis, & ritibus Missas, Transubstantiationis, & aliorum pene infinitorum errorum, quibus Ccenx prima institutio horribiliter in papatu polluta & profanata est,” 1598, folio. 6. “Pars altera: de origine et progressu controversies sacramentarias de Coena Domini inter Lutheranos, Ubiquistas, & Orthodoxos, quos Zuinglianos seu Calvinistas vocant, exortae ab anno 1517 usque ad 16,02 deducta, 1602,” folio. These are all of them parts of his great work, which he enlarged in succeeding editions, and added confutations of the arguments of Bellarmin, Baronius, and Gretser. What he published on the Eucharist, and another work entitled “Concordia Discors,” &c. printed in 1607, exasperated the Lutherans in a high degree; and they wrote against him with great animosity. He did not publish any answer, though he had almost finished one, but turned his arms against the Jesuits and published “Historia Jesuitica hoc est, de origine, regulis, constitutionibus, privileges, incrementis, progressu, & propagatione ordinis Jesuitarum. Item, de eorum dolis, fraudibus, imposturis, nefariis faci- ­noribus, cruentis consiliis, falsa quoque, seditiosa, & sanguinolenta doctrina,” 1619, folio.

These works justly gained him high reputation, and considerable preferment. He was appointed archdeacon of Caroline church in 1588; and, in 1594, minister of the abbey-church. He was deprived of his sight for near a year by a cataract, yet continued to preach as usual, and was happily couched in 1613. In 1623, being 76 years of age, his faculties became impaired, and so continued till his death in 1626. The public entertained so high an opinion of his learning from his writings, that he was exhorted from all quarters to refute Baronius’s “Annals;” and no one was thought to have greater abilities for the task. A new edition of his works was published at Geneva, 1681, in seven thin volumes, folio.

, chancellor of France, and one of the most liberal-minded men of his time, was the son of a physician, and born at Aigneperse in Auvergne, in 1505. His father sent him to study in the most celebrated universities of France and Italy, where he distinguished himself at once by his genius for literature, and for business. Having diligently studied jurisprudence, he was quickly advanced to very honourable posts; being successively auditor of the congregation called the congregation of Rota at Rome, and counsellor in the parliament of Paris, which he held during twelve years. He has described in one of his poems his habits of life during this time. He rose at a very early hour, and in the autumnal, winter, and spring sessions, was often in the court of justice before day-break, and reluctantly rose from his seat, when the beadle, at ten o'clock (the hour of dinner) announced the breaking up of the court. He says, that he made it a rule to listen to all with patience, to interrupt no one, to express himself as concisely as possible, and to oppose unnecessary delays. He mentions, with evident satisfaction, the joy which he felt when the vacations allowed him to quit Paris, and breathe in the country. The cares of magistracy he then banished wholly from his thoughts, and endeavoured, by harmless relaxation, to enable himself, on his return to the discharge of his functions, to resume them with fresh vigour. “But,” says he, “there is nothing frivolous in my amusements; sometimes Xenophon is the companion of my walks; sometimes the divine Plato regales me with the discourses of Socrates. History and poetry have their turns; but my chief delight is in the sacred writings: what comfort, what holy calm, does the meditation of them confer!” L‘Hospital was then appointed by Henry II. to be his ambassador at the council of Trent, which was sitting at Bologna, By his own desire, he was soon recalled from that honourable employment, and on his return experienced, at first, some coldness from the court, but was soon restored to the royal favour, and appointed master of the requests. In the beginning of If 54- he was made superintendent of the royal finances in France. His merits in this post were of the most singular and exalted kind. By a severe ceconomy, he laboured to restore the royal treasure, exhausted by the prodigality of the king, Henry II. and the dishonest avarice of his favourites; he defied the enmity of those whose profits he destroyed, and was himself so rigidly disinterested, that after five or six years’ continuance in this place, he was unable to give a portion to his^daughter, and the deficiency was supplied by the liberality of the sovereign. On the death of Henry, in 1549, the cardinal of Lorraine,then at the head of affairs, introduced l’Hospital into the council of state. Hence he was removed by Margaret of Valois, who took him into Savoy, as her chancellor. But the confusions of France soon made it necessaryto recal a man of such firmness and undaunted integrity. In the midst of faction and fury, he was advanced to the high office of chancellor of that kingdom, where he maintained his, post, like a philosopher who was superior.‘to fear, or any species of weakness. At the breaking out of the conspiracy of Amboice, in 1560, and on all other occasions, he was the advocate for mercy and reconciliation; and by the edict of Romorantin, prevented the establishment of the inquisition in France. It was perhaps for reasons of this kind, and his general aversion to persecution for religion’s sake, that the violent Romanists ac>­cused him of being a concealed Protestant; forgetting that by such suspicions they paid the highest compliment to the spirit of Protestantism. The queen, Catherine of Medicis, who had contributed to the elevation of l’Hospital, being too violent to approve his pacific measures, ex-, eluded him from the council of war; on which he retired to his country- house at Vignay near Estampes. Some days after, when the seals were demanded of him, he resigned them without regret, saying, that “the affairs of the world were too corrupt for him to meddle with them.” In lettered ease, amusing himself with Latin poetry, and a select society of friends“, he truly enjoyed his retreat, till his happiness was interrupted by the atrocious day of St. Bartholomew, in 1572. Of this disgraceful massacre,- he thought as posterity has thought but, though his friends conceived it probable that he might be included in the proscription, ha disdained to seek his safety by flight. So firm was he, that when a party of horsemen actually advanced to his house, though without orders, for the horrid purpose of murdering him, he refused to close his gates” If the small one,“said he,” will not admit them, throw open the large“and he was preserved only by the arrival of another party, with express orders from the king to declare that he was not among the proscribed. The persons who made the lists, it was added, pardoned him the opposition he had always made to their projects.” I did not know,“said he coldly, without any change of countenance,” that I had done any thing to deserve either death or pardon." His motto is said to have been,

and certainly no person ever had a better right to assume that sublime device. This excellent magistrate, and truly, great man, died March 13, 1573, at the age of 68 years. “L' Hospital,” says Brantome, “was the greatest, worthiest, and most learned chancellor, that was ever known in France. His large white beard, pale countenance, austere manner, made all who saw him think they beheld a true portrait of St. Jerome, and he was called St. Jerome by the courtiers. All orders of men feared him; particularly the members of the courts of justice; and, when he examined them on their lives, their discharge of their duties, their capacities, or their knowledge, and particularly when he examined candidates for offices, and found them deficient, he made them feel it. He was profoundly vesrsed in polite learning, very eloquent, and an excellent pbdt^ His severity was never ill-naturec! he made due allowance” for the imperfections of human nature was always equtil ' and always firm. After his death his Vety enemies acknowledged that he was the greatest magistrate whom France had known, and that they did not “expect to see such another.” There are extant by him, 1. “Latin Poems,” Their unpretending simplicity is their greatest merit; but they shew such real dignity of character, they breathe so pure a spirit of virtue, and are full of such excellent sentiments of public and private worth, that they will always be read with pleasure. 2. “Speeches delivered in the meeting of the States at Orleans.” As an orator he shines much less than as a poet. 3. “Memoirs, containing Treaties of Peace,” &c. &c. It is said that he had also projected a history of his own time in Latin, but this he did not execute. The best edition of his poems is that of Amsterdam, 1732, 8vo. He left only one child, a daughter, married to Robert Hurault, whose children added the name of l‘Hospital to that of their father; hut the male line of this family also was extinct in 1706. Nevertheless, the memory of the chancellor has received the highest honours within a few years of the present time. In 1777, Louis XVI. erected a statue of white marble to him, and in the same year he was proposed by the French academy for the subject of an eloge. M. Guibert and the abbe Remi contended for the prize. It was adjudged to the latter, who did not, however, print his work; M. Guibert was less prudent, but his eloge gave little satisfaction. The celebrated Condorcet afterwards entered the lists, but with equal want of success. Such fastidiousness of public opinion showed the high veneration entertained for the character of L’ Hospital. In 1807, M. Bernardi published his “Essai sur la Vie, les Ecrits, et les Loix de Michel de L'Hospital,” in one vol. 8vo, a work written with taste and judgment; from these and other documents, Charles Butler, esq. has lately published an elegant “Essay on the Life” of L'Hospital, principally with a view to exhibit him as a friend to toleration.

, a great mathematician of France, was born of a branch of the preceding family, in 1661. He was a geometrician almost from his infancy; for one day being at the duke de Rohan’s, where some able mathematicians were speaking of a problem of PaschaPs, which appeared to them extremely difficult, he ventured to say, that he, believed he could solve it. They were amazed at what appeared such unpardonable presumption in a boy of fifteen, for he was then no more, yet it a few days be sent them the solution. He entered early into the army, but always preserved his love for the mathematics, and studied them even in his tent; whither he used to retire, it is said, not only to study, but also to conceal his application to study: for in those days, to be knowing in the sciences was thought to derogate from nobility; and a soldier of quality, to preserve his dignity, was in some measure obliged to hide his literary attainments. De l'Hospital was a captain of horse; but, being extremely short-sighted, and exposed on that account to perpetual inconveniences and errors, he at length quitted the army, and applied himself entirely to his favourite amusement. He contracted a friendship with Malbranche, judging by his “Recherche de la Verite*,” that he must be an excellent guide in the sciences; and he took his opinion upon all occasions. His abilities and knowledge were no longer a secret: and at the age of thirty-two he gave a public solution of problems, drawn from the deepest geometry, which had been proposed to mathematicians in the acts of Leipsic. In 1693 he was received an honorary member of the academy of sciences at Paris; and published a work upon sir Isaac Newton’s calculations, entitled “L'Analyse des iniinimens petits.” He was the first in France who wrote on this subject: and on this account was regarded almost as a prodigy. He engaged afterwards in another work of the mathematical kind, in which he included “Les Sectiones coniques, les Lieux georoetriques, la Construction des Equations,” and “Une Theorie des Courbes mechaniques:” but a little before he had finished it, he was seized with a fever, of which he died Feb. 2, 1704, aged 49. It was published after his death, viz. in 1707. There are also six of his pieces inserted in different volumes of the memoirs of the academy of sciences.

, or L'Hoste (John), a learned mathematician of Nancy, towards the end of the sixteenth century, taught law and mathematics with uncommon reputation at Pont-a-Mousson, and was appointed superintendant of fortifications, and counsellor of war by Henry duke of Lorrain. His genius was extensive, penetrating, and formed for the sciences. He died in 1631, leaving several valuable works the principal ones are, “Le sommaire et l'usage de la Sphere Artificielle,” 4to “La Pratique de Géométrie,” 4to “Description et usage des principaux instrumens de Géométrie,” 4to “Du Quadran et quarré; Rayon astronomique Bâton de Jacob; interpretation du grand art de Raymond Lulle,” &c.

, born May 19, 1652, at Pont-de-Vesle, entered among the Jesuits in 1669, and acquired great skill in mathematics; accompanied the marechals d'Estrées and de Tourville, during twelve years, in all their naval expeditions, and gained their esteem. He was appointed king’s professor of mathematics at Toulon, and died there February 23, 1700, leaving, “Recueil des Traités de Mathematiques les plus necessaires a, un officier,” 3 volsi 12mo; “L'Art des armies navtrles, ou Traite” des evolutions navales,“Lyons, 1697, and more completely in 1727, folio. This work is not less historical than scientific, and contains an account of the most considerable naval events of the fifty preceding years. He presented it to Louis XIV. who received it graciously, and rewarded the author with 100 pistoles, and a pension of 600 livres a treatise on the construction of ships, which he wrote in consequence of some conversation with marechal de Tourville, is printed at the end of the preceding. In 1762, lieutenant O'Bryen published in 4to,” Naval Evolutions, or a System of Sea-discipline,“extracted from father L'Hoste’s” L'Art des armees navales."

, in Latin Hototnanus, a learned French civilian, was born in 1524, at Paris, where his family, originally of Breslau in Silesia, had flourished for some time. He made so; rapid a progress in the belles lettres, that at the age of fifteen, he was sent to Orleans to study the civil law, and in three years was received doctor to that faculty. His father, a counsellor in parliament, had already designed him for that employment; and therer fore sent for him home, and placed him at the bar. But Hotman was soon displeased with the chicanery of the court, and applied himself vigorously to the study of the Roman law and polite literature. At the age of twentythree, he was chosen to read public lectures in the schools pf Paris: but, relishing the opinions of Luther, on account of which many persons were put to death in France, and finding that he could not profess them at Paris, he Went to Lyons in 1548. Having now nothing to expect“from his father, who was greatly irritated at the change of his religion, he left France, and retired to Geneva; where he lived some time in Calvin’s house. From hence he went to Lausanne,' where the magistrates of Bern gave him the place of professor of polite literature. He published there some books, which, however, young as he was, were not his first publications; and married a French gentlewoman, who had also retired thither on account of religion. His merit was so universally known, that the magistrates of Strasburg offered him a professorship of civil law; which he accepted, and held till 1561, and during this period, received invitations from the duke of Prussia, the landgrave of Hesse, the dukes of Saxony, and even from queen Elizabeth of England; but did not accept them. He did not refuse, however, to go to the court of the king of Navarre, at the begining of the troubles; and he went twice into Germany, to desire assistance of Ferdinand, in the name of the princes of the blood, and even in the name of the queen-mother. The speech he made at the diet of Francfort is published. Upon his return to Strasburg, he was prevailed upon to teach civil law at Valence; which he did with such success, that he raised the reputation of that university. Three years after, he went to be professor at Bourges, by the invitation of Margaret of France, sister of Henry II. but left that city in about five months, and retired to Orleans to the heads of the party, who made great use of his advice. The peace which was made a month after, did not prevent him from apprehending the return of the storm: upon which account he retired to Sancerre, and there wrote an excellent book,” De Consolatione,“which his son published after his death. He returned afterwards to his professorship at Bourges, where he very narrowly escaped the massacre of 1572: which induced him to leave France, with a full resolution never to return. He then went to Geneva, where he read lectures upon the civil law. Some time after, he went to Basil, and taught civil law, and was so pleased with this situation, that he refused great offers from the prince of Orange and the States-general, who would have draxvn him to Leyden. The plague having obliged him to leave Basil, he retired to Montbeliard, where he lost his wife; and went afterwards to live with her sisters at Geneva. He returned once more to Basil, and there died in 1590, of a dropsy, which had kept him constantly in a state of indisposition for six years before. During this, he revised and digested his works for a new edition, which appeared at Geneva in 1599, in 3 vols. folio, with his life prefixed by Neveletus Doschius> The first two contain treatises upon the civil law; the third, pieces relating to the government of France, and the right of succession; five books of Roman antiquities; commentaries upon Tally’s” Orations and Epistles;“notes upon Caesar’s” Commentaries,“&c. His” Franco-Gallia,“or,” Account of the free state of France,“has been translated into English by lord Molesworth, author of” The Account of Denmark." He published also several other articles without his name; but, being of the controversial kind, they were probably not thought of consequence enough to be revived in the collection of his works.

He was one of those who would never consent to be painted; but we are told, that his picture was taken while he was in his last agony. His integrity, firmness, and piety, are highly extolled by the author of his life; yet, if Baudouin may be believed (whom, however, it is more reasonable not to believe, as he was his antagonist in religious opinions), he was suspected of being avaricious: but it must be remembered, that he lost his all when he changed his religion, and had no supplies but what arose from reading lectures; for it does not appear that his wife brought him a fortune. It is very probable, however, that his lectures would have been sufficient for his subsistence; had he not been deluded by schemes of finding out the philosopher’s stone; and we find him lamenting to a friend in his last illness, that he had squandered away his substance upon this hopeful project. With all these weaknesses, he xvas esteemed one of the greatest civilians France ever produced.

, a very learned writer, and famous for his skill in the oriental languages, was born at Zurich in Switzerland, in 1620. He had a particular talent for learning languages; and the progress he made in his first studies gave such promising hopes, that it was resolved he should be sent to study in foreign countries, at the public expence. He began his travels in 1638, and went to Geneva, where he studied two months under Fr. Spanheim. Then he went into France, and thence into Holland; and fixed at Groningen, where he studied divinity under Gomarus and Alting, and Arabic under Pasor. Here he intended to have remained; but being very desirous of improving himself in the oriental languages, he went in 1639 to Leyden, to be tutor to the children of Golius, who was the best skilled in those languages of any man of that age. By the instructions of Golius, he improved greatly in the knowledge of Arabic, and also by the assistance of a Turk, who happened to be at Leyden. Besides these advantages, Golius had a fine collection of Arabic books and Mss. from which Hottinger was suffered to copy what he pleased, during the fourteen months he staid at Leyden. In 1641, he was offered, at the recommendation of Golius, the place of chaplain to the ambassador of the States-general to Constantinople; and he would gladly have attended him, as such a journey would have co-operated wonderfully with his grand design of perfecting himself in the eastern languages: but the magistrates of Zurich did not consent to it: they chose rather to recall him, in order to employ him for the advantage of their public schools. They permitted him first, however, to visit England; and the instant he returned from that country, they appointed him professor of ecclesiastical history; and a year after, in 1643, gave him two professorships, that of catechetical divinity, and that of the oriental tongues.

He married at twenty-two, and began to publish books at twenty -four. New professorships were bestowed upon him in 1653, and he was admitted into the college of canons. In 1655, the elector Palatine, desirous to restore the credit of his university of Heidelberg, obtained leave of the senate of Zurich for Hottinger to go there, on condition that he should return at the end of three years: but before he set out for that city, he went to Basil, and took the degree of D. D. He arrived at Heidelberg the same year, and was graciously received in that city. Besides the professorship of divinity and the oriental tongues, he was appointed principal of. the Collegium Sapientia?. He was rector of the university the year following, and wrote a book concerning the re-union of the Lutherans and Calvinists; which he did to please the elector, who was zealous in that affair: but party-animosities rendered his performance ineffectual. Hottinger accompanied this prince to the electoral diet of Francfort in 1658, and there had a conference with Job Ludolf. Ludolf had acquired a vast knowledge of Ethiopia; and, in conjunction with Hottinger, concerted measures for sending into Africa some persons skilled in the oriental tongues, who might make exact inquiries concerning the state of the Christian religion in that part of the world. Hotiinger was not recalled to Zurich till 1661, his superiors, at the elector’s earnest request, having prolonged the term of years for which they lent him: and he then returned, honoured by the elector with the title of Ecclesiastical-counsellor.

Many employments were immediately conferred on him: among the rest, he was elected president of the commissioners who were to revise the German translation of the Bible. A civil war breaking out in Switzerland in 1664, he was sent into Holland on state affairs. Many universities would willingly have drawn Hottinger to them, but were not able. That of Ley den offered him a professorship of divinity in 1667; but, not obtaining leave of his superiors, he refused it, until the magistrates of Zurich consented, in complaisance to the States of Holland, who had interested themselves in this affair. As he was preparing for this journey, he unfortunately lost his life, June 5, 1667, in the river which passes through Zurich. He went into a boat, with his wife, three children, his brotherin-law, a friend, and a maid-servant, in order to go and let out upon lease an estate which he had two leagues from Zurich. The boat striking against a pier, which lay under water, overset: upon which Hottinger, his brother-in-law, and friend, escaped by swimming. But when they looked upon the women and children, and saw the danger they were in, they jumped back into the water: the consequence of which was, that Hottinger, his friend, and three children, lost their lives, while his wife, his brother-in-law, and servant-maid, were saved. His wife was the only daughter of Huldric, minister of Zurich, a man of very great learning, and brought him several children: for besides the three who were drowned with him, and those who died before, he left four sons and two daughters.

As an author, he was very prolific, and it is surprising, that a man, who had possessed so many academical employments, was interrupted with so many visits (for everybody came to see him, and consulted him as an oracle), and was engaged in a correspondence with all the literati of Europe, should have found time to write more than forty volumes, especially when it is considered, that he did not reach fifty years of age. The most considerable of his works are: 1. “Exercitationes Anti-Morinianse, de Pentateucho Samaritano, &c.” 1644, quarto. Moriti had asserted, in the strongest manner, the authenticity of the Samaritan Pentateuch; which he preferred to the Hebrew text, upon a pretence that this had been corrupted by the Jews and it was to combat this opinion, that Hottinger wrote these Exercitations. This work, though the first, is, in the judgment of father Simon, one of the best he wrote; and if he had never written any thing more, it is probable that he would have left higher notions of his abiJities for certainly it was no small enterprise for him, so early in life, to attack, on a very delicate and knotty subject, and with supposed success too, one of the most learned men in Europe at that time. 2. “Thesaurus Philologicus, seu clavis scripturic,” 1649, 4to. There was a second edition in 1649, in 4to, with additions. 3. “Historia Orientalis, ex variis Orientaliuin monumentis collecta,” 1651,4to. No man was better qualified to write on oriental affairs than Hottinger, as he was skilled in most of the languages which were anciently, as well as at present, spoken in the East: namely, the Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Coptic. 4. “Promptuarium, sive Bibliotheca. Orientalis, exhibens catalogum sive centurias aliquot tarn auctorum, quam librorum Hebraicorum, Syriacorum, Arabicorum, vEgyptiacorum: addita mantissa Bibliotheeurum aliquot Europaearum,” 16.58, 4to. Baillet does not speak very advantageously of this work of Hottinger, whom he accuses of not being very accurate in any of his compositions: and indeed his want of accuracy is a point agreed on by both papists and protestants. 5. “Etymologicon Orientale, sive Lexicon Harmonicum Heptaglotton,” &c. 1661, 4to. The seven languages contained in this Lexicon are, the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, Ethiopic, and Rabbinical.

These works are valuable for containing materials of a curious nature, and which were before only accessible to persons skilled in oriental languages. A catalogue of his other works may be seen in the “Bibliotheca Tigurina;” or the Latin life of Hottinger, published by Heidegger at Zurich, 1667: in either of which they are all drawn up and digested into regular order. — John James Hottinger his son, was also a learned protestant divine, succeeded Heidegger in the divinity chair at Zurich, and died Dec. 18, 1735, leaving a great number of works, chiefly “Theological Dissertations,” on important subjects.

, a pious and learned translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, and commentator on them, was born at Paris in 168t>. In 1702 he became a priest of the congregation named the Oratory; and being-, by deafness, deprived of the chief comforts of society, addicted himself the more earnestly to books, in which he found his constant consolation. Of a disposition naturally benevolent, with great firmness of soul, goodness of temper, and politeness of manners, he was held in very general estimation, and received honours and rewards from the pope (Bened. XIV.) and from his countrymen, which he had never thought of soliciting. Though his income was’ but small, he dedicated a part of it to found a school near Chantilly; and the purity of his judgment, joined to the strength of his memory, enabled him to carry on his literary labours to a very advanced age. Even when his faculties had declined, and were further injured by the accident of a fall, the very sight of a book, that well-known gonsoler of all his cares, restored him to peace and rationality. He died Oct. 3 I, 1783, at the advanced age of ninetyeight. His works, for which he was no less esteemed in foreign countries than in his own, were chiefly these: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a Latin version and notes, published at Paris in 1733, in 4 vols. folio. This is the most valuable and important work of the author, and contains the Hebrew text corrected by the soundest rules of criticism, a Latin version, and useful notes: and prefixed to each book is a very learned preface. Benedict XIV. who justly appreciated the value and difficulty of the work, honoured the author with a medal, and some other marks of approbation; and the clergy of his own country, unsolicited, conferred a pension on him. 2. A Latin translation of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, 1746, 12mo. 3. Another of the Old Testament at large, in 1753, in 8 vols. 8vo. 4. “Racines Hebraiques,” 1732, 8vo, against the points. 5. “Examen du Psautier des Capuchins,” 12mo, the mode of interpretation used in which, he thought too arbitrary. 6. A French translation of an English work by Forbes, entitled “Thoughts on Natural Religion.” 7. Most of the works of Charles Leslie translated, Paris, 1770, 8vo. Father Houhigant is said also to have left several works in manuscript, which, from the excellence of those he published, may be conjectured to be well deserving of the press. Among these are a “Traite des Etudes;” a translation of “Origen against Celsus;” a “Life of Cardinal Berulle;” and a complete translation of the Bible, according to his own corrections. The first of these was to have been published by father Dotteville, and the rest by Lalande, but we do not find that any of them have appeared.

, an eminent engraver, was the son of Arnold Houbraken, a native of Holland, and a painter, but of no very superior merit. He is known, however, to the literary world, as the author of a work in Dutch, entitled “The Great Theatre of the Dutch and Flemish Painters,” in 3 vols. folio, with their portraits. He came over into England, to make drawings of the pictures of Vandyke, which were afterwards engraved by Peter Van Gunst. He died at Amsterdam in the fifty-ninth year of his age, 1719.

His son Jacob was born December 25, 1698. By what master he was instructed in the art of engraving, we are not informed, but he was probably initiated in the art by his father; and Mr. Strutt supposes that he studied the neatest portraits of Edelink very attentively, especially that of Le Brun, which is usually prefixed to the engravings of Girard Audran, from his battles of Alexander. He worked, however, for some time with little profit, and with less celebrity; and he had arrived at the meridian of life before he engaged in that work by which he is best known; a work, which, notwithstanding some well-founded objections, will reflect honour on the several persons engaged in it. It seems to have been a plan of the accurate and industrious George Vertue, who proposed to give sets or classes of eminent men; but his design was adopted by others, and at length taken out of his hands, who, as lord Or ford observes, was best furnished with materials for such a work.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

, a Jesuit, was born Jan. 22, 1631, at Tours, and taught ethics, rhetoric, and philosophy among the Jesuits, and devoted himself afterwards to preaching twenty-four years; the rest of his life was spent in composing useful books. He died at Paris, in the college of Louis le Grand, March 29, 1729. His works are, “La Bibliotheque des Predicateurs,” Lyons, 1733, 22 vols. 4to. “Morality,” 8 vols. the supplement 2 vols. “Panegyrics,” 4 vols. and the supplement 1 vol. The “Mysteries,” 3 vols. and the supplement 1 vol. “The Tables,” 1 vol. *' The Ceremonies of the Church,“1 vol.” Christian Eloquence,“1 vol.” Traité de la maniere d'imiter le bons Predicateurs,“12mo.” Ars Typographica, carmen,“4to; and twenty volumes of” Sermons," all which shew more industry than genius, but some of them are consulted as repositories of facts and opinions.

, an English prelate, memorable for the firm and patriotic stand which he made against the tyranny and bigotry of James II. was the son of John Hough, a citizen of London, descended from the Houghs of Leighton in Cheshire, and iof Margaret, the daughter of John Byrche of Leacroft in the county of Stafford, esq. He was born in Middlesex, April 12, 1651; and, after having received his education either at Birmingham or Walsall in Staffordshire, was entered of Magdalen college, Oxford, Nov. 12, 1669, and in a few years was elected a fellow. He took orders in 1675, and in 1678 was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Ormond, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland, and went over with him to that country; but he returned soon after, and in 1685 was made a prebendary of Worcester. He was also presented to the rectory of Tempsford in Bedfordshire, in the gift of the crown. From these circumstances, it should seem that he must have been considered as a man of talents and merit, before he acted the conspicuous part he did in October 1687.

In March of that year, the presidentship of Magdalen college being vacant by the death of Dr. Henry Clarke, the usual notice was given that the election of a president would take place on the 13th of April; but the fellows being afterwards informed, that his majesty James II. had granted letters mandatory, requiring them to elect Mr. Anthony Farmer, who had not been fellow either of this or New college, as indispensably required by the statutes, who had also given strong proofs of indifference to all religions, and whom they thought unfit in other respects to be their president, petitioned the king, either to leave them to the discharge of their duty and conscience, and to their founder’s statutes, or to recommend such a person as might be more serviceable to his majesty and to the college. No answer being given to this petition, they met on the 13th of April, but adjourned first to the 14th, and then to the 15th, the last day limited by the statutes for the election of a president, and having still received no answer (except a verbal one by the rev. Thomas Smith, one of the fellows, from lord Sunderland, president of the council, which was, “that his majesty expected to be obeyed”) they proceeded to the election, according to the usual forms, and the Rev. Mr. Hough was chosen, who is stated in the college register to be “a gentleman of liberality and firmness, who, by the simplicity and purity of his moral character, by the mildness of his disposition, and the happy temperament of his virtues, and many good qualities, had given everyone reason to expect that he would be a distinguished ornament to the college, and to the whole university.”