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

Soon after this, he made a purchase of the barony of Rians, which he completed in 1607; and in the same year, at the solicitation of his uncle, having approved himself before that assembly, he was received a senator on the 1st' of July. In the following year his uncle died. In 1616, he attended Du Vair to Paris; where, in 1618, he procured a faithful copy, and published a second edition of “The -Acts of the Monastery of Maren in Switzerland.” This was in defence of the royal line of France against the title of the Austrian family to the French crown by right of succession; and, upon this, he was nominated the same year, by Louis XIII. abbot of Guistres in Guienne. He remained in France till 1623, when, upon a message from his father, now grown old and sickly, he left Paris, and arrived at Aix in October. Not long after he presented to the court a patent from the king, permitting him to continue in the function of his ancient dignity, and to exercise the office of a secular or lay person, notwithstanding that, being an abbot, he had assumed the person of a churchman. The court of parliament, not assenting to this, decreed unanimously, that, being already admitted into the first rank, he should abide perpetually in it; not returning, as the custom of the court was, to the inferior auditory, in which trials are usually had of criminal cases. He obtained also, a rescript from the pope, to license him to be present at the judgment of capital causes, as even in the higher auditory some select cases of that nature wers customarily heard: but he never made use of this licence, always departing when they came to vote, without voting himself. In 1627, he prevailed with the archbishop of Aix, to establish a post thence to Lyons, and so to Paris and all Europe; by which the correspondence that ho constantly held with the literati every where, was much facilitated. Jn 1629, he began to be much tormented with complaints incident to a sedentary life; and, in 1631, having completed the marriage of his nephew Claude with Margaret D'Alries, a noble lady of the county of Avignon, he bestowed upon him the barony of Rians, together with a grant of his senatorial dignity, only reserving the function to himself for three years. The parliament not agreeing to this, he procured, in 1635, letters-patent from the king, to be restored, and to exercise the office for five years longer, which he did not outlive, for, being seized June 1637, with a fever, he died, on the 24th of that month, in his fifty-seventh year.

Here they were well received by John bishop of Jerusalem, the enemy of St. Jerom, and well looked on by the better sort of people. Count Marcellinus, being desirous to know in what their doctrine, which was much talked of, consisted, applied to St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo, for information; and Pelagius, fearing to engage with so formidable an antagonist, wrote the bishop a letter full of protestations of the purity of his faith, and St. Augustin seems always unwilling to believe that Pelagius had fallen into error until the year 414, when Pelagius resolved to undertake his treatise of the natural strength of man, in. support of his doctrine of free-will; which, however, he still expressed in ambiguous terms, but not so as to deceive either Augustine or Jerome, who wrote against him. In Palestine, his doctrine was approved in a council held at Diospolis in the year 415, consisting of fourteen bishops. Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of Pelagius’ s most powerful friends in the east, a man of profound erudition and great reputation; who, though he wrote zealously against all heresies, fell into that of Pelagius, as also of Nestorius. On the other hand, the African bishops held a council, according to custom, in the year 416, at Carthage, and decided that Pelagius and Celestius ought to be anathematized, and communicated their judgment to the pope Innocent I. in order to join the authority of the see of Rome to their own, and, prompted by St. Augustine, refute in a summary way the chief errors imputed to Pelagius, and conclude thus: “Though Pelagius and Celestius disown this doctrine, and the writings produced against them, without its being possible to convict them of falsehood; nevertheless, we must anathematize in general whoever teacheth that human nature is capable of avoiding sin, and of fulfilling the commands of God; as he shews himself an enemy to his grace.” About the same time a council was held at Milevtim, composed of sixtyone bishops; who, after the example of that of Carthage, wrote to pope Innocent, desiring him to condemn this heresy, which took away the benefit of prayer from adults, and baptism from infants. Besides these two synodicai letters, another was written by St. Augustin, ju the name of himself and four more bishops; in which he explained the whole matter more at large, and desired the pope to order Pelagius to Rome, to examine him more minutely, and know what kind of grace it was that he acknowledged; or else to treat with him on that subject by letters, to the end that, if he acknowledged the grace which the church teachetb, he might be absolved without difficulty.

Celestius, upon his condemnation at Cartilage in the year 412, had indeed appealed to this pope but, instead of pursuing his appeal, he retired into Palestine. Pek gius, however, who had more art, did not despair of bringing Rome over to his interest, by flattering the bishop of that city, and accordingly drew up a confession of faith, and sent it to pope Innocent with a letter, which is now lost. Innocent was dead; and Zosimus had succeeded him, when this apology of Pelagius was brought to Rome. On the first notice of ttiis change, Celestius, who had been driven from Constantinople, hastened to the west, in hopes of securing the new pope’s favour, by making him his judge, and Zosimus, pleased to be appealed to in a cause that had been adjudged elsewhere, readily admitted Celestius to justify himself at Rome. He assembled his clergy in St. Clement’s church, where Celestius presented him a confession of faith; in which, having gone through all the articles of the Creed, from the Trinity to the resurfection of the dead, he said, “If any dispute has arisen on questions that do not concern the faith, I have not pretended to decide them, as the author of a new doctrine; but I offer to your examination, what I have from the source of the prophets and apostles; to the end that, if I have mistaken through ignorance, your judgment may correct and set me right.” On the subject of original sin, he continued, “We acknowledge that children ougtr to be baptized for the remission of sins, agreeably to the rule of the universal church, and the authority of the gospel; because the Lord hath declared, that the kingdom of heaven can be given to those only who have been baptized. But we do not pretend thence to establish the transmission of sin from parents to their children: that opinion is widely different from the catholic doctrines. For sin is not born with man; it is man who commits it after he is born: it does not proceed from nature, but from will. We therefore acknowledge the first, in order not to admit of several baptisms; and take this precaution, that we may not derogate from the Creator.” Celestius having confirmed by word of mouth, and several repeated declarations, what was contained in this writing, the pope asked him, whether he condemned all the errors that had been published under his name? Celestius answered, that he did condemn them in conformity with the sentence of pope Innocent, and promised to condemn whatever should be condemned by the holy see. On this Zosimus did not hesitate to condemn Heros and Lazarus, who had taken upon them, to be the chief prosecutors of the Pelagian doctrine. He deposed them from the episcopal office, and excommunicated them; after which he wrote to Aurelius, and the other bishops of Africa, acquainting them with what he had done, and at the same time sending them the acts of his synod.

Soon after this, Zosimus received a letter from Praylus, bishop of Jerusalem, successor to John, recommending to him Pelagius’s affair in affectionate terms. This letter was accompanied by another from Pelagius himself, together with the confession of faith before mentioned. In this letter Pelagius said, that his enemies wanted to asperse his character in two points: first, that he refused to baptize infants, and promised them the kingdom of heaven, without the redemption of Jesus Christ; secondly, that he reposed so much confidence in free-will, as to refuse the assistance of grace. He rejected the first of these errors, as manifestly contrary to the gospel; and upon the article of grace he said, “We have our free-will either to sin or not to sin, and in all good works it is ever aided by the divine assistance. We say, that all men have free-will, as well Christians as Jews and Gentiles: all of them have it by nature, but it is assisted by grace in none but Christians. In others this blessing of the creation is naked and unassisted. They shall be judged and condemned; because having free-will, by which they might arrive at faith, and merit the grace of God, they make an ill use of this liberty. The Christians will be rewarded; because they, by making a good use of their free-will, merit the grace of the Lord, and observe his commandments.” His confession of faith was like that of Celestius, On baptism he said, “We hold one single baptism, and we assert that it ought to be administered to children in the same form of words as to adults,” Touching grace he said, “We confess a freewill: at the same time holding, that we stand continually in need of God’s assistance; and that those are as well mistaken, who say with the Manichees, that man cannot avoid sinning, as those who say with Jovinian, that man cannot sin.” He concluded with these words: “Such, blessed pope, is the faith which we have learned in the catholic church, the faith which we have always held, and still continue in. If any thing contained therein shall not Jiave been explained clearly enough, or not with sufficient caution, we desire that you would correct it; you who )iold the faith, and the see of Peter. If you approve of my confession of faith, whoever pretends to attack it, will shew either his ignorance or his malice, or that he is not orthodox; but he will not prove me an heretic.”

For some time this defence answered its purpose, and Zosimus wrote a second letter to Aurelius, and to all the bishops of Africa, informing them that he was now satisfied with Pelagius and Celestius’ s confession of faith, and persuaded of their sincerity. Aurelius, however, and his brethren, were more surprised than daunted at this letter, and firmly maintained the judgment they had given, and which had been confirmed by Innocent I. At the head of their decrees they addressed a second letter to pope Zosimus, in these terms: “We have ordained, that the sentence given by the venerable bishop Innocent shall subsist, until they shall confess without equivocation, that the grace of Jesus Christ does assist us, not only to know, but also to do justice in every action; insomuch, that without it we can neither think, say, or do any thing whatever, that belongs to true piety.” They added, “That Celestius’ s having said in general terms, that he agreed with Innocent’s letters, was not satisfactory in regard to persons of inferior understandings; but that he ought to anathematize in clear terms all that was bad in his writings, lest many should believe that the apostolical see had approved his errors, rather than be persuaded that he had reformed them.” The bishop of Africa likewise reminded pope Zosimus oi his predecessor’s decision, relating to the council of Diospolis; shewed him the artifice made use of in the confession of faith which Pelagius had sent to Rome; and refuted after their manner the cavils of the heretics: and, as Zosimus had reprimanded them for having too easily given credit to the accusers of Celestius, they justified themselves at his expenee; by shewing, that he himself had been too precipitate io this affair. They also declared plainly, that this cause arising in Africa, and having been judged there, Celestius could have no right to appeal from thence, nor the pope to take cognizance of it: to which they added a protest, to prevent Zosimus from attempting to pronounce any sentence by default, in favour of Celestius and Pelagius.

Zosimus, either through a persuasion that these heretics had dealt insincerely with him, or finding it prudent to yield to the necessity of the occasion, upon the receipt of this letter, issued out a formal condemnation of the Pelagians, and applied also to Honorius, requesting him to cause all heretics to be driven out of Rome; in compliance with which, the emperor gave a rescript at Ravenna, April 418, directd to the pretorian prefect of Italy, who, in consequence, issued his ordinance jointly with the pretorian prefect of the east, and the prefect of Gaul, purporting, that all such as should be convicted of this error should suffer perpetual banishment, and that all their possessions should be confiscated. The pope also vigorously prosecuting hs design to extirpate the friends 01 Pelagius, caused all the bishops to be deposed who would not subscribe the condemnation of the new heresy, and drove them out of Italy by virtue of the laws of the empire. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, likewise rejected their deputies. They were driven from Ephesus and Theodotus bishop of Antioch condemned them, and drove Pelagius thence, who was lately returned from Palestine, where he had taken refuge from the emperor’s rescript. We have no certain account of him after this; but there is reason to believe, that he returned to England, and spread his doctrine there; which induced the bishop of Gaul to send thither St. Germain of Auxerre, in order to refute it. However that be, it is certain that Pelagian heresy, as it is called, spread itself both in the east and west, and took so deep root, that it subsists to this day in different sects, who all go by the general name of Pelagians, except a more moderate part who are called Semi-Pelagians.

, a learned prelate of the fifteenth century, was born at Sasso Ferrato, of an illustrious but reduced family. Being obliged to maintain, himself by teaching Latin, he brought the rudiments of that language into better order, and a shorter compass for the use of his scholars; and going afterwards to Rome, was much esteemed by cardinal Bessarion, who chose him for his conclavist or attendant in the conclave, on the death of Paul II. It was at this juncture that he is said to have deprived Bessarion of the papacy by his imprudence; for the cardinals being agreed in their choice, three of them went to disclose it, and to salute him pope; but Perot would not suffer them to enter, alledging that they might interrupt him in his studies. When the cardinal was informed of this blunder, he gave himself no farther trouble, and only said to his conclavist in a mild, tranquil tone, “Your ill-timed care has deprived me of the tiara, and you. of the hat.” Perot was esteemed by several popes, appointed governor of Perugia, and afterwards of Ombria, and was made archbishop of Siponto, 1458. He died 1480, at Fugicura, a country house so called, which he had built near Sasso Ferrato. He translated the first five books of “Polybius,” from Greek into Latin, wrote a treatise “De generibus metrorum,” 1497, 4to also “Rudimenta Grammatices,” Rome, 1473, fol. a very rare and valuable edition, as indeed all the subsequent ones are; but his most celebrated work is a long commentary on Martial, entitled “Cornucopia, seu Latinae Linguae Commentarius,” the best edition of which is that of 1513, fol. This last is a very learned work, and has been of great use to Calepin in his Dictionary.

, or Duperier, a French poet, was born' at Aix in Provence. He first devoted himself to Latin versification, in which he succeeded greatly; and he boasted of having formed the celebrated Santeuil. They quarrelled afterwards from poetic jealousy, and made Menage the arbitrator of their differences; who, however, decided in favour of Perrier, and did not scruple to call him “The prince of Lyric poets.” They afterwards became reconciled, and there are in Perrier’s works several translations of pieces from Santeuil. Perrier afterwards applied himself to French poetry, in which he was not so successful, though he took Malherbe for his model. His obtrusive vanity, which led him to repeat his verses to all who came near him, made him at last insupportable. Finding Boileau one day at church, he insisted upon repeating to him an ode during the elevation of the host, and desired his opinion, whether or no it was in the manner of Malherbe. Pope’s lines, “No place so sacred from such fops is barr'd,” &c. are literally a translation of Boileau’s on Perrier, “Gardez-vous d'imiter ce rimeur furieux,” &c. Indifferent, however, as his French poetry was, he obtained the academy-prize two years together, namely, in 1681 and 1682. He died March 28, 1692. His Latin poems are to he found in various collections, but have never been published in a separate volume, although they amply deserve that distinction.

After this, he was sent with M. d'Ossat to Rome, to negotiate Henry’s reconciliation to the holy see; which at length*he effected more to the satisfaction of the king, than of his subjects; that part of them at least, who were zealous for Gallican liberties, and thought the dignity of their king prostituted upon this occasion. After a year’s residence at Rome, he returned to France; where, by such services as have already been mentioned, he obtained promotion to the highest dignities. He wrote, and preached, and disputed against the reformed; particularly against Du Plessis Mornay, with whom he had a public conference, in the presence of the king, at Fontainbleau. The king resolved to make him grand almoner of France, to give him the archbishopric of Sens, and wrote to Clement VIII. to obtain for him the dignity of a cardinal; which that pope conferred on him, in 1604, with singular marks of esteem. The indisposition of Clement soon after made the king resolve to send the French cardinals to Rome; where Du Perron was no sooner arrived, than he was employed by the pope in the congregations. He had a great share in the elections of Leo X. and Paul V. He assisted afterwards in the congregations upon the subject of Grace, and in the disputes which were agitated between the Jesuits and the Dominicans: and it was principally owing to his advice, that the pope resolved to leave these questions undecided. He was sent a third time to Rome, to accommodate the differences between Paul V. and the republic of Venice. This pope had such an opinion of the power of his eloquence and address, that he said to those about him, “Let us beseech God to inspire cardinal Du Perron, for he will persuade us to do whatever he pleases.”

After the murder of Henry IV. in 1610, Du Perron devoted himself entirely to the court and see of Rome, and prevented every measure in France which might displease that power, or hurt its interests. He rendered useless the arret of the parliament of Paris, against the book of cardinal Bellarmine and favoured the infallibility of the pope, and his superiority over a council, in a thesis maintained in 1611, before the nuncio. He afterwards held a provincial assembly, in which he condemned Richer' s book, “concerning ecclesiastical and civil authority” and, being at the assembly of Blois, he made an harangue to prove, that they ought not to decide some questions, ou account of their being points of faith. He was one of the presidents of the assembly of the clergy, which was held at Rouen in 1615; and made harangues to the king at the opening and shutting of that assembly, which were much applauded. This was the last of his public services; for after this he retired to his house at Bagnolet, and employed himself wholly in revising and completing his works. This was with him a matter of great importance, for he not only had a private press in his house, that he might have them published correctly, and revised every sheet himself, but is said also to have printed a few copies of every work that he wished to appear to advantage, for the revisal of his friends before publication. He died at Paris, Sept. 5, L618, aged sixty-three. He was a man of great abilities; had a lively and penetrating wit, and a particular talent at making his views appear reasonable. He delivered himself upon all occasions with great clearness, dignity, and eloquence. He had a prodigious memory, and had studied much. He was very well versed in antiquity, both ecclesiastical and profane; and had read much in the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical historians, of which he knew how to make the best use to perplex, if not to convince his adversaries. He was warmly attached to the see of Rome, and strenuous in defending its rights and prerogatives; and therefore it cannot be wondered, that his name has never been held in high honour among those of his countrymen who have been accustomed to stand up for the Galilean liberties. They consider indeed that ambition was his ruling passion, and that it extended even to literature, in which he thought he ought to hold the first rank. In his youth he had translated into French verse a part of the Æneid and the praises which Desportes and Bertaut bestowed on this performance made him fancy that his style was superior to that of Virgil. He was in his own opinion, says the abb Longuerue, the commander-in-chief of literature; and authors found that his opinion was to be secured before that of the public. His favourite authors were Montaigne, whose essays he called the breviary of all good men, and Rabelais, whom, by way of distinction, he called “The author.”

, a painter of history and architecture, was born in 1481, at Accajano, in the diocese of Volterra, but in the territory and a citizen of Siena. He commenced his studies as a painter at Siena; and when he had gained a competent degree of knowledge, he copied the works of the best masters, with a diligence and success that were equally extraordinary. From Siena he went to Rome, where he was employed by the pope Alexander VI. Julius II. and Leo X. in their palaces, and in several chapels and convents. He was particularly successful in painting architecture; and so completely understood the principles of chiaro-oscuro, and of perspective, that even Titian is said to have seen the effects with surprize, being hardly able to believe that what he saw was the work of the pencil, and not real architecture. His usual subjects were streets, palaces, corridors, porticoes, and the insides of magnificent apartments, which he represented with a truth that produced an absolute deception*. He received some instructions from Bramante, the architect of St. Peter’s,

, or Peter the Venerable, a native of Auvergne, descended from the family of the counts Maurice, or de Montbois.vier, took the monk’s habit at Clugny, was made prior of Vezelay, afterwards abbot, and general of his order in 1121, at the age of twentyeight. He revived monastic discipline in the abbey of Clugny, and received pope Innocent II. there in 1130. He opposed the errors of Peter de firuys and Henry, and died in his abbey, December 24, 1156. We have six books of his letters, with several other works of very little consequence, in the “Library of Clugny,” and some homilies in Martenne’s “Thes. Anecd.” That so ignorant and trifling a writer shoaid have been honoured with the title of Venerable, is a strong mark of the low state of religious knowledge at that time. In these his works he takes great pains to vindicate the manners and customs of his monastery, and appears to place the essence of Christianity in frivolous punctilios and insignificant ceremonies. It was he, however, who received the celebrated Abelard in his afflictions with great humanity, and who consoled Eloisa after his death, by sending to her, at her request, the form, of Abelard’s absolution, which she inscribed on his sepulchre.

These, and many more, were particular institutions and establishments: but the czar made general reformations, to which indeed the other were only subservient. He changed the architecture of his country, which was ugly and deformed; or, more properly, he first introduced that science into his dominions. He sent for a great number of pictures from Italy and France; and thus instructed in the art of painting a people, who knew no more of it, than what they could collect from the wretched daubing of men who painted the imaginary heads of saints. He sent ships laden with merchandize to Genoa and Leghorn, which returned freighted with marble and statues: and pope Clement XI. pleased with his taste, presented him with a fine antique, which the czar, not caring to trust by sea, ordered to be brought to Petersburgh by land. Religion was not neglected in this general reform ignorance and superstition had over-run it so much, that it scarcely merited the name of Christian. The czar introduced knowledge, where it was miserably wanted; and this knowledge enabled him to abolish, at least in a considerable degree, fasts, miracles, and saint-worship. He ventured further than to the correction of rites: he abolished the patriarchate, though much independent of him; and thus got rid of a power, which was always interrupting and disconcerting his measures. He took away part of the revenues of those churches and monasteries which he thought too wealthy; and, leaving only what was necessary for their subsistence, added the overplus to his own demesnes. He made many judicious ecclesiastical canons, and ordered preaching in the Russian language. Lastly, he established a general liberty of conscience throughout his dominions. There is one more reformation, and perhaps as necessary and useful as any of the former, which he made even in his last illness, though it was exceedingly painful. When the senators and great personages, then about him, mentioned the various obligations which Russia lay under to him, for abolishing ignorance and barbarism, and introducing arts and sciences, he told them, that he had forgot to reform one of the most important points of all, namely, the mal-administration of justice, occasioned by the tedious and litigious chicanery of the lawyers; and signed an order from his bed, limiting the determination of all causes to eleven days, which was immediately sent to all the courts of his empire.

, a celebrated Benedictine, of the congregation of St. Vannes, was born December 18, 1659, at St. Nicholas in Lorrain. He taught philosophy and theology in the abbey de St. Michael; was made abbot of Senones 1715, and bishop of Macra 1726. He died June 14, 1728, aged 69. The principal among his numerous works are, 3 vols. 8vo, of “Remarks on M. Dupin’s Ecclesiastical Library;” and “An Apology for M. Pascal’s Provincial Letters,” in seventeen letters. This work he afterwards disavowed in a letter to cardinal Corradini, dated September 30, 1726, where he declares that these seventeen letters have been rashly and falsely attributed to him; but l'Avocat says, that it is nevertheless certain that he wrote them. He wrote also a treatise “On the Pope’s Infallibility,” in favour of the Holy See, and against the liberties of the Gallican church, Luxemburg, 1724, 12mo; and a “Dissertation on the Council of Constance,” 1725, 12mo. He not only accepted the constitution “Unigenitus,” but wrote in its defence, and by that means gained the abbey of Senones, which the person to whom it bad lapsed disputed with him.

The pope’s court being then at Avignon, Petrarch, who had while at college contracted a strict intimacy with the bishop of Lombes, of the illustrious family of Colonna, and had passed a summer with him at his bishopric in Gascony, was afterwards kindly solicited to reside with him in the house of his brother, the cardinal Colonna, then at Avignon. This invitation he accepted. His shining talents, says his late apologist, joined to the most amiable manners, procured him the favour and esteem of many persons in power and eminent stations: and he found in the house of the cardinal an agreeable home, where he enjoyed the sweets of an affectionate society, with every convenience he could desire for the indulgence of his favourite studies.

From Rome Petrarch went to Parma, where he passed some time with his protectors, the lords of Corregio, and employed himself in finishing his “Africa.” It was probably from that family that he obtained the dignity of archdeacon in the church of Parma; and in 1342, when he wai sent to compliment Clement VI. on his accession, in the name of the senate and people of Rome, a priory in the diocese of Pisa was given him by this pope. In the following year he composed his curious “Dialogue with St. Augustine,” in which he confesses the passion for Laura, which still held dominion over his soul. In 1348 he had the misfortune to lose this object of his affections, who died of the universal pestilence which ravaged all Europe. The same pestilence deprived him of his great friend and patron, cardinal Colonna. From Padua, where he appears to have been when these misfortunes befell him, he travelled, for a year or two, to Parma, Carpi, and Mantua; and in 1350 he again visited Padua, where he obtained a canonry, and wrote a very eloquent letter to the emperor Charles IV. exhorting him to come into Italy for the purpose of remedying the many evils with which that country was oppressed. After various other removals, he went to Milan, where the kindness and pressing solicitation of John Visconti, its archbishop and sovereign, induced him to settle for some time. Here he vvas admitted into the council of state; and in 1354 was sent to Wnice, to make another effort for pacifying the two hostile republics, but his eloquence proved fruitless. In the same year he went to Mantua to meet the emperor, who having at length come to Italy, gave him a most gracious reception; and although no advantages resulted to his country from this interview, the emperor afterwards sent him a diploma, conferring the title of count palatine. In 1360 Petrarch was sent to Paris, to congratulate king John on his liberation from English captivity; and his reception in that capital was answerable to the celebrity of his name.

By pope Innocent VI. Petrarch was treated at first with much neglect, or even contempt; but, in 1361, he had so far overcome his prejudices, as to offer the poet the place of apostolical secretary, which he declined, as he did also a very pressing invitation from John, king of France, to reside at his court. When pope Urban V. had succeeded to the pontifical chair, he gave him a canonry of Carpentras, and was very desirous of a personal interview with him; and, notwithstanding his age and infirmities, Petrarch set out for this purpose in 1370; but being unable to sustain the fatigue, he returned to his villa of Arqua, near Padua. His last journey was to Venice, in 1373, where he harangued the Venetian senate in favour of his patron, Francis de Carrara. On his return to Arqua, he fell into a state of languor, which terminated in a fit of some kind, in the night of July 18, 1374. He was found dead next morning in his library, with his head resting on a book. He survived his Laura many years, if the date of her death, April 6, 1348, be correct.

In king Henry’s will, dated Dec. 30, 1546, Sir William Petre was nominated one of the assistant counsellors to Edward VI. and was not only continued in the privycouncil and in his office of secretary of state, but was also, in I 549, made treasurer of the court of first fruits for life; and, the year following, one of the commissioners to treat of peace with the French at Guisnes. He was also in several commissions for ecclesiastical affairs, the purpose of which was the establishment of the refo‘rmed religion; and, in the course of these, was one of the persons before whom both Bonner and Gardiner were cited to ’answer for their conduct; two men of such vindictive tempers, that it might have been expected they would have taken the first opportunity of revenge that presented itself. Owing, however, to some reasons with which we are unacquainted, queen Mary, when she came to the throne, not -only overlooked sir William’s zeal for the reformed religion, but continued him in his office of secretary of state, and made him chancellor of the garter, in the first year of her reign. Nor was this the most remarkable instance of her favour. The dissolution of the monasteries was a measure which had given great offence to the adherents of popery; and the grant of abbey-lands to laymen appeared the vilest sacrilege. It was natural to think, therefore, that popery being now established, some steps would be taken to resume those lands, and reinstate the original possessors. Sir William Petre seems to have entertained th is apprehension; and therefore determined to secure what Henry VIII. had given him, by a dispensation from pope Paul IV. whom he informed that he was ready to employ them to spiritual uses; and by this and other arguments, he actually obtained from the pontiff (doubtless also by the consent of queen Mary), a grant by which the whole of his possessions was secured to him and his heirs; and thus he was enabled to leave estates in seven counties to his son, the first lord Petre.

Mary had, in fact, such confidence in sir William Petre, that she employed him in negotiating her marriage with Philip; and applied to him for relief when her mind was perplexed on the subject of the church -lands, the alienation of which could not easily be reconciled to her principles. He was her private adviser also in other matters; and when pope Paul III. was about to send another legate instead of cardinal Pole, whom she had desired, he advised her to forbid his setting foot in England, which she very resolutely did. In all this there must have appeared nothing very obnoxious in the eyes of queen Elizabeth: for she continued him in the office of secretary of state until 1560, if not longer; and he was of her privy-council till his death, and was at various times employed by her in public affairs. He died Jan. 13, 1572, and was buried in a new aile in* the church at Ingatestone, where he had built almshouses for 20 poor people. He also left various considerable legacies to the poor in the several parishes where he had estates, as well as to the poor of the metropolis. To Exeter college he procured a new body of statutes and a regular deed of incorporation, and founded at the same time eight fellowships. To All Souls he gave a piece of ground adjoining to the college, and the rectories of Barking and StantonHarcourt, and founded exhibitions for three scholars. He was married twice. One of his daughters, by his first wife, became afterwards the wife of Nicholas Wadham, and with him joint founder of Wadham college. His son John, by his second lady, was the first lord Petre,

, a French protestant, horn at Bourdeaux in 1592, entered into the service of the prince of Cond6, whom he pleased by the singularity of his humour. Peyrera believed himself to have discovered from St. Paul, that Adam was not the first man; and to prove this, he published in Holland, 1655, a book in 4to and 8vo with this title: “Praeadamitae; sive exercitatio super versibus 12, 13, 14, capitis xv. Epistoloe Pauli ad Romanes.” This work was condemned to the flames, and the author imprisoned at Brussels; but, getting his liberty through the interest of the prince of Conde“, he went to Rome in 1656, and abjured Calvinism and Praeadamitism before Alexander VII. He was not, however, thought sincere, for, returning to Paris, in spite of all the means this pope used to detain him at Rome, he became librarian to the prince of Conde 1 and some time after retired to the seminary des Vertus, where he died in 1676, aged 84. He submitted to receive the sacraments, yet was not believed to be attached to any religion. Besides the piece above mentioned, he wrote” Une Relation du Greenland,“in 8vo; and” Une Relation d'Islande,“in 8vo; both reckoned curious and interesting: and a very singular tract entitled” Rappel des Juifs," in which his object was to prove that two Messiahs were intended; the first Jesus Christ, who, according to his notion, came only for the Christians; and the second, he whom the Jews have so long expected, and who is to be a great temporal prince and render them lords of the earth. This was printed in 1643, 8vo, a circumstance which the translator of his life in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LXXXII. p. 431.) positively denies, yet we find mention of this edition in every French biography. It probably, however, attracted no great degree of attention, and Brunei places it among rare books; but being known to some of the adherents of Buonaparte it was reprinted, when it became his pleasure to assemble a Jewish Sanhedrim in Paris in 1806. It was then supposed that the Jews might be made to believe that the great temporal prince that was to restore them, was no other than the ruler of the French nation. In the authority just quoted are many curious particulars of Peyreyra, from father Simon.

, or as some say is the proper form, Favorinus (Varinus), who flourished in the 16th century, was born at Favera, near Camerino, a ducal town of Umbria, from which he is said to have taken his name. His real name was Guarino, which he changed to Varinus. He was a favourite disciple of the celebrated Angelo Politian, and John Lascaris, at Florence, and was patronized by Lorenzo the Magnificent. Having determined on an ecclesiastical life, he undertook the care of a congregation, and was appointed preceptor to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Favorinus was appointed keeper of the Medicean library in the year 1512, and in 1514 bishop of Nocera. He died in 1537. It was in 1523 that he published his Greek lexicon at Rome, one of the earliest modern lexicons of that language, and compiled, from Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, Phrynicus, Hesychius, Harpocration, and other ancient lexicons, published and unpublished and from the notes of Eustathius, and the scholiasts. It is written entirely in Greek, and is now superseded by other works of more popular use; though it may still be serviceable, in supplying various readings of Suidas and others, of which Favorinus probably consulted very ancient manuscripts. The best edition is that of Bartoli, Venice, 1712, folio.

, an English poet, was descended from an ancient family in Leicestershire, and educated at St. John’s-college, in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A.B. in 1696, and A.M. in 1700, at which time he obtained a fellowship. ' While at college also he is supposed to have written his “Pastorals,” which involved him so seriously with the wits and critics of the age. When he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, he became, as Jacob expresses himself, “one of the wits at Button’s; n and there contracted an acquaintance with the gentlemen of the belles lettres, who frequented it. Sir Richard Steele was his particular friend, and inserted in his Tatler, N. 12, a little poem of his, called” A Winter Piece,“dated from Copenhagen, the 9th of May, 1709, and addressed to the earl of Dorset. Sir Richard thus mentions it with honour:” This is as fine a piece as we ever had from any of the schools of the most learned painters. Such images as these give us a new pleasure in our sight, and fix upon our minds traces of reflection, which accompany us wherever the like objects occur.“Pope, too, who had a confirmed aversion to Philips, while he affected to despise his other works, always excepted this out of the number, and mentioned it as the production of a man” who could write very nobly."

Steele was also an admirer of Philips’s “Pastorals,” which had then obtained a great number of readers; and was about to form a critical comparison of Pope’s Pastorals with those of Philips, with a view of giving the preference to the latter. Pope, apprized of Steele’s design, and always jealous of his own reputation, contrived the most artful method to defeat it; vvhiqh was, by writing a paper for the Guardian, No. 40, after several others had been employed there on pastoral poetry, upon the merits. of Philips and himself; and so ordering it, as that himself was found the better versifier, while Philips was preferred as the best Arcadian. Upon the publication of this paper, the enemies of Pope exulted to see him placed below Philips in a species of poetry upon which he was supposed to value himself; but were extremely mortified soon after to find that Pope himself was the real author of the paper, and that the whole criticism was an irony. The next work Philips published, according to the common account, was “The Life of John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Bishop of Lincoln, and Archbishop of York, in the reigns of James and Charles I.” He is supposed to have undertaken this, for the sake of making known his political principles, which were those of the Whigs. But we doubt whether this, which was published in 1700, was not prior to the publication of his pastorals.

In the mean time, he fell under the severe displeasure of Pope, who satirized him with his usual keenness. It was said he used to mention Pope as an enemy to the government; and it is certain that the revenge which Pope took upon him for this abuse, greatly ruffled his temper. Philips was not Pope’s match in satirical attack, and therefore had recourse to another weapon, for he stuck up a rod at Button’s coffee house, with which he threatened to chastise his antagonist whenever he should meet him. But Pope prudently declined going to a place where he must have felt the resentment of an enraged author, as much superior to him in bodily strength, as inferior in genius and skill in versifying.

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

When Ignatius was expelled and deposed from the see of Constantinople, Photius was nominated by the court to succeed him; and although at this time only a layman, in the space of six days he accumulated the degrees of monk, reader, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest, and in this rapid manner rose to the patriarchate on Christmas- day 858. The metropolitans, subject to the see of Constantinople, acknowledged Photius; but great opposition was made to this uncanonical ordination from other quarters, and he was actually degraded at Rome. Photius, however, ordered a council to be called at Constantinople, and got himself confirmed in 'his patriarchal dignity; in which, by various arts not very worthy of his high and sacred office, he continued during the life of his friend the emperor Michael. But Michael being murdered by the order of Basilius, who succeeded him in the year 867, the affairs of Photius were ruined, and Basilius banished him to a monastery, and reinstated Ignatius in his see. In this degraded state Photius remained for more than ten years, until a division between the pope and Ignatius afforded him an opportunity to attempt his own restoration; and, having obtained the emperor’s favour, he returned to Constantinople while Ignatius was yet alive. It is said Ignatius would have proposed conditions, but Photius, determined upon full restoration to the patriarchate, would be satisfied with nothing less. Ignatius however died Oct. 23, 878; and Photius immediately went into St. Sophia’s church with armed men; forced a great many bishops, clerks, and monks, to communicate with him; deposed and persecuted all that refused; and to prevent all opposition from the papal side, prevailed by threats and presents on two of the pope’s legates who were there, to declare publicly to the clergy and people, that they had come to depose Ignatius, and to declare Photius their patriarch. He kept his seat, thus forcibly obtained, till the year 886, and then was turned out, and banished by the emperor Leo into a monastery in Armenia, where he is supposed to have died soon after. He was, as we have observed, a man of great talents, great learning, and every way accomplished; but his ardent love of glory, and unbounded ambition, prompted him to such excesses, as made 'him rather a scourge than a blessing to those about him. He was the author of many intestine tumults and civil commotions; and not only divided the Greek church, but laid the foundation of a division between the Greek and Latin churches.

The love of fame (says his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow in this sketch,) and a too ardent thirst for praise, have perhaps justly been imputed to Picus, as constituting his ruling passion (notwithstanding the modesty and diffidence with which he frequently speaks of his own talents and productions), especially if the charge be restricted to that period of his life, when ma^turer experience and those religious impressions by which his latter years were more especially influenced, had not yet combined to rectify the errors of youth. Caressed, flattered, courted, extolled as a prodigy of erudition by the most distinguished scholars of his age, he was at the same time conscious of his own qualifications and powers, and began to think that they ought to be exhibited on the most extensive stage which the world then afforded. With this view he resolved on a journey to Rome; and immediately on his arrival, in November 1486, he published a most remarkable challenge to the learned of Europe, under the title of- “Conclusiones,” consisting of 900 propositions, or subjects of discussion, in almost every science that could exercise the speculation or ingenuity of man; and which, extraordinary and superfluous as many of them appear to a reader of the present times, certainly furnish a more adequate idea of the boundless extent of his erudition and research, than any words can describe. These he promised publicly to maintain against all opponents whatsoever: and that time might be allowed for the circulation of his “Conclusiones” through the various universities of Italy, in- all of which he caused them to be published, notice was giv^n, that the public discussion of them was not intended to take place till after the feast of the Epiphany next ensuing. A further object of this delay was, to afford to all scholars, even from the remotest of those seats of learning, who were desirous to be present and to assist at his disputations, an opportunity of repairing to Rome for such a purpose. So desirous was Picus of attracting thither, on this occasion, all the united wit, ingenuity, and erudition, that Italy could boast, that he engaged to defray, out of his own purse, the charges of all scholars, from whatever part, who should undertake the journey to Rome, for the purpose of disputing publicly with him on the subjects proposed. He had previously obtained the express permission of pope Innocent VIII. and professed all possible deference to the authority of the church, in the support of his theses. The boldness of this challenge could not fail to astonish the learned in general; but astonishment soon gave place to envy: and the Roman scholars and divines in particular, whose credit was more immediately implicated, endeavoured to render his design abortive, first, by lampoons and witticisms; and, when these proved insufficient, by the more alarming expedient of presenting thirteen of Picus’s theses, as containing matter of an heretical tendency. This answered their purpose; and although Picus continued at Rome a whole year, in expectation of reaping the harvest of praise which his juvenile vanity had led him to desire, he at last found himself not only debarred from all opportunity of signalizing himself publicly, as a disputant, but involved in a charge of heterodoxy, and therefore thought it expedient to leave Rome, and seek a temporary asylum at Florence, in the friendship of Lorenzo de Medici. Here he immediately set about the composition of his “Apologia,' 1 a work which not only served to refute the calumnies of his enemies, but convinced the world that his pretensions to very extraordinary powers were not spurious or empirical. On its completion, he sent it to the pope, who, although he fully acquitted the author of all bad intention, thought proper to suppress the circulation of it; and Picus, on further reflection, not only acquiesced in this, but in his disappointment, acknowledging with thankfulness that divine Providence, which often educes good out of evil, had rendered the malevolence of his enemies a most salutary check to the career of vain glory, in which he had been led so far astray. But Picus had not yet seen all the disagreeable consequences of this affair: his enemies began to cavil at the” Apologia" itself, which appears to have had considerable weight with pope Innocent; and it was not until 1493 that he was acquitted from the charge, and from all prosecutions, pains, and penalties, by a bull of pope Alexander VI.

, was the son of Galeoti Picus, the eldest brother of John Picus, just recorded, and born fcbout 1409. He cultivated learning and the sciences, after the example of his uncle; but he had dominions and a principality to superintend, which involved him in great troubles, and at last cost him his life. Upon the death of his father, in 1499, he succeeded, as eldest son, to his estates; but was scarcely in possession, when his brothers Louis and Frederic combined against him; and, by the assistance of the emperor Maximilian I. and Hercules I. duke of Ferrara, succeeded. John Francis, driven from his principality in 1502, was forced to seek refuge in different countries for nine years; till at length pope Julius II. becoming master of Mirandula, put to flight Frances Trivulce, the widow of Louis, and re-established John Francis in 1511. But he could not long maintain his post; for the pope’s troops being beaten by the French at Ravenna, April 11, 1512, John James Trivulce, general of the French army, forced away John Francis again, and set up Frances Trivulce, who was his natural daughter. John. JFrancis now became a refugee a second time, and so continued for two years; when, the French being driven out of Italy, he was restored again in 1515. He lived from that time in the quiet possession of his dominions, till October 1533; and then Galeoti Picus, the son of his brother Louis, entered his castle by night with forty armed men, and assassinated him, with his eldest son Albert Picus. He died embracing the crucifix, and imploring pardon of God for his sins,

, another learned Italian, was born at Padua Oct. 12, 1571, and after being educated among the Jesuits, became confessor to a nunnery, and parish priest of St. Lawrence, to which a canonry of Treviso was added by cardinal Barberini. He was in habits of intimacy with many of the most illustrious men of his time, and collected a valuable library and cabinet of antiquities. He died of the plague in 1631. He distinguished himself by deep researches into antiquity, and published the “Mensa Isiaca,” and some other pieces, which illustrate the antiquities and hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and gained him the reputation of a man accurately as well as profoundly learned. He was also skilled in writing verses, consisting of panegyrics, epitaphs, and a long poem inscribed to pope Urbao VIII. It must be remembered to the honour of Pignorius, that the great Galileo procured an offer to be made to him, of the professorship of polite literature and eloquence in the university of Pisa; which his love of studious retirement and his country made him decline. He wrote much, in Italian, as well as in Latin. G. Vossius has left a short but honourable testimony of him and says, that he was “ob eximiam eruditionem atque humanitatem mini charissimus vir.”

, an English wit and poetess, of no very eminent rank, was the daughter of Dr. Van Lewen, a gentleman of Dutch extraction, who settled in Dublin, by a lady of good family; and born there in 1712. She had early a strong inclination and taste for letters, especially for poetry; and her performances were considered as extraordinary for her years. This, with a lively manner, drew many admirers; and at length she became the wife of the rev. Matthew Pilkington, a gentleman once known in the poetical world by his volume of Miscellanies, revised by dean Swift, who had reason afterwards to be ashamed of the connection. In a short time Mr. Pilkington grew jealous, as she relates, not of her person, but of her understanding; and her poetry, which when a lover he admired with raptures, was changed now he was become her husband, into an object of envy. During these jealousies, Mr. Pilkington, in 1732, went into England, in order to serve as chaplain to Mr. Barber, lord mayor of London; and absence having brought him into better humour with his wife, he wrote her a very kind letter, in which he informed her that her verses were full of elegance and beauty; that Pope, to whom he had shewn them, longed to see the writer; and that he himself wished her heartily in London. She accepted the invitation, went, and returned with her husband to Ireland, where they were soon after separated, in consequence of a gentleman being found in her bed-chamber at two o'clock in the morning. Her apology is rather curious: “Lovers of learning, I am sure, will pardon me, as I solemnly declare it was the attractive charms of a new book, which the gentleman would not lend me, but consented to stay till I read it through, that was the sole motive of my detaining him.” Of her guilt, however, no doubts were entertained. “Dr. Delany,” says dean Swift, in a letter to alderman Barber, “is a very unlucky recommender, for he forced me to countenance Pilkington; introduced him to me, and praised the wit, virtue, and humour of him and his wife; whereas he proved the falsest rogue, and she the most profligate w e in either kingdom. She was taken in the fact by her own husband; he is now suing for a divorce, and will not compass it; she is suing for a maintenance, and he has none to give her.”

, a celebrated artist, was born at Perugia in 1454, and was a disciple of Pietro Perugino, who often employed him as his assistant. He painted history; but in portraits was in so much esteem, that he was employed to paint those of pope Pius II. and of Innocent VIII; of Giulia Farnese, Caesar Borgia, and queen Isabella of Spain. His style, nevertheless, was extremely dry and Gothic, as he introduced gilding in the architectural and other parts of his pictures, blended with ornaments in relievo, and other artifices quite unsuitable to the genius of the art. The most memorable performance of Pinturicchio is the History of Pius II. painted in ten compartments, in the library at Sienna, in which he is said to have been assisted by Raphael, then a very young man, and pupil of Perugino, who made some cartoons of the most material incidents, and sketched many parts of the compositions.

Sebastian continued to exercise his talents, particularly in portraiture, with great industry and success, till he obtained the office of Frate del Piombo, when he ceased to paint for profit, and was henceforward known by the name of Sebastian del Piombo. He lived in great esteem with pope Clement VII. whose portrait he painted with great power and fidelity, as well as that of the infamous satirist Aretine, and those of many persons of rank and renown. He obtained great praise for having discovered a mode of preventing oil-colours, employed on plaster, from becoming dark; which he did, by applying, in the first instance, a mixture of mastic and Grecian pitch. Having passed through a life of great honour and emolument to the age of 62, he died in 1547.

, a celebrated Dominican of the seventeenth century, was a native of Calabria. Having acquired a knowledge of the Eastern languages, he was employed in the missions to the East, resided for a considerable time in Armenia, where he gained several converts, particularly the patriarch, by whom he had at first been opposed. He went also into Georgia, and Persia, and afterwards into Poland, as nuncio from pope Urban VIIL to appease the troubles which the Armenians, who were very numerous there, occasioned by their disputes. Having re-united all parties, and embarked for Italy, he was taken in his voyage by some corsairs, and carried to Tunis; but his ransom being paid, he went to Home, and having given an account of his mission, received the most public marks of esteem from the pope, who sent him back to the East, where, in 1655, he was made bishop of Nacksivan, in Armenia. After governing this church nine years, he returned to his native country, was entrusted with the church of Bisignano, in Calabria, where he died three years after, in 1667. Rewrote several controversial and theological works; two dictionaries, one, “Latin and Persian;” the other, “Armenian and Latin;” “An Armenian Grammar” and “A Directory” all of which have been esteemed of great utility.

, an English poet, was born in 1699 at Blandford, the son of a physician much esteemed. He was, in 1714, received as a scholar into Winchester college, where he was distinguished by exercises of uncommon elegance; and, at his removal to New college in 1719, presented to the electors, as the product of his private and voluntary studies, a complete version of Lucan’s poem, which he did not then know to have been translated by Rowe. This is an instance of early diligence which well deserves to be recorded. The suppression of such a work, recommended by such uncommon circumstances, is to be regretted. It is indeed culpable, to load libraries with superfluous books; but incitements to early excellence are never superfluous, and from this example the danger is not great of many imitations. When he had resided at his college three years, he was presented to the rectory of Pimpern in Dorsetshire, 1722, by his relation, Mr. Pitt of Stratfeildsea in Hampshire; and, resigning his fellowship, continued at Oxford two years longer, till he became M. A. 1724. He probably about this time translated “Vida’s Art of Poetry,” which Tristram’s elegant edition had then made popular. In this translation he distinguished himself, both by the general elegance of his style, and by the skilful adaptation of his numbers to the images expressed; a beauty which Vida has with great ardour enforced and exemplified. He then retired to his living, a place very pleasing by its situation, and therefore likely to excite the imagination of a poet; where he parsed the rest of his life, reverenced for his virtue, and beloved for the softness of his temper, and the easiness of his manners. Before strangers he had something of the scholar’s timidity and diffidence; but, when he became familiar, he was in a very high degree cheerful and entertaining. His general benevolence procured general respect; and he passed a life placid and honourable, neither too great for the kindness of the low, nor too low for the notice of the great. At what time he composed his “Miscellany,” published in 1727, it is not easy nor necessary to know: those poems which have dates appear to have been very early productions. The success of his “Vida” animated him to a higher undertaking; and in his thirtieth year he published a version of the first book of the Jfeneid. This being commended by his friends, he some time afterwards added three or four more; with an advertisement in which he represents himself as translating with great indifference, and with a progress of which himself was hardly conscious. At last, without any further contention with his modesty, or any awe of the name of Dryden, he gave a complete English “Æneid,” which we advise our readers to peruse with that of Dryden. It will be pleasing to have an opportunity of comparing the two best translations that perhaps were ever produced by one nation of the same author. Pitt, engaging as a rival with Dryden, naturally observed his failures and avoided them; and, as he Wrote after Pope’s Iliad, he had an example of an exact, equable, and splendid versification. With these advantages, seconded by great diligence, he might successfully labour particular passages, and escape many errors. If the two versions are compared, perhaps the result will be, that Dryden leads the reader forward by his general vigour and sprightliness, and Pitt often stops him to contemplate the excellence of a single couplet; that Dryden’s faults are forgotten in the hurry of delight, and that Pitt’s beauties are neglected in the languor of a cold and listless perusal; that Pitt pleases the critics, and Dryden the people; that Pitt is quoted, and Dryden read. He did not long enjoy the reputation which this great work deservedly conferred; for he died April 15, 174S, and lies buried under a stone at Blandford, with an inscription, which celebrates his candour, and primitive si nplicity of manners; and says that he lived innocent, and died beloved; an encomium neither slight nor common, though modestly expressed.

, whose name was Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, was born in 1405, at Corsignano in Sienna, where his father lived in exile. He was educated at the grammar-school of that place; but his parents being in low circumstances, he was obliged, in his early years, to submit to many servile employments. In 1423, by the assistance of his friends, he was enabled to go to the university of Sienna, where he applied himself to his studies with great success, and in a short time published several pieces in the Latin and Tuscan languages. In 1431 he attended cardinal Dominic Capranica to the council of Basil as his secretary. He was likewise in the same capacity with cardinal Albergoti, who sent him to Scotland to mediate a peace betwixt the English and Scots; and he was in that country when king James I. was murdered. Upon his return from Scotland, he was made secretary to the council of Basil, which he defended against the authority of the popes, both by his speeches and writings, particularly in a dialogue and epistles which he wrote to the rector and university of Cologn. He was likewise made by that council clerk of the ceremonies, abbreviator, and one of the duodecemviri, or twelve men, an office of great importance. He was employed in several embassies; once to Trent, another time to Frankfort, twice to Constance, and as often to Savoy, and thrice to Strasburg, where he had an intrigue with a lady, by whom he had a son: he has given an account of this affair in a letter to his father, in which he endeavours to vindicate himself with much indecent buffoonery. In 1439 he was employed in the service of pope Felix; and being soon after sent ambassador to the emperor Frederic, he was crowned by him with the poetic laurel, and ranked amongst his friends. In 1442 he was sent for from Basil by the emperor, who appointed him secretary to the empire, and raised him to the senatorial order. He could not at first be prevailed on to condemn the council of Basil, nor to go over absolutely to Eugenius’s party, but remained neuter. However, when the emperor Frederic began to favour Eugenius, Æneas likewise changed his opinion gradually. He afterwards represented the emperor in the diet of Nuremberg, when they were consulting about methods to put an end to the schism, and was sent ambassador to Eugenius: at the persuasion of Thomas Sarzanus, the apostolical legate in Germany, he submitted to Eugenius entirely, and made the following speech to his holiness, as related by John Gobelin, in his Commentaries of the life of Pius II. “Most holy father (said he), before I declare the emperor’s commission, give me leave to say one word concerning myself. I do not question but you have heard a great many things which are not to my advantage. They ought not to have been mentioned to you; but I must confess, that my accusers have reported nothing but what is true. I own I have said, and done, and written, at Basil, many things against your interests; it is impossible to deny it: yet all this has been done not with a design to injure you, but to serve the church. I have been in an error, without question; but I have been in just the same circumstances with many great men, as particularly with Julian cardinal of St. Angelo, with Nicholas archbishop of Palermo, with Lewis du Pont (Pontanus) the secretary of the holy see; men who are esteemed the greatest luminaries in the law, and doctors of the truth; to omit mentioning the universities and colleges which are generally against you. Who would not have erred with persons of their character and merit? It is true, that when I discovered the error of those at Basil, I did not at first go over to you, as the greatest part did; but being afraid of falling from one error to another, and by avoiding Charybdis, as the proverb expresses it, to run upon Scylla, I joined myself, after a long deliberation and conflict within myself, to those who thought proper to continue in a state of neutrality. I lived three years in the emperor’s court in this situation of mind, where having an opportunity of hearing constantly the disputes between those of Basil and your legates, I was convinced that the truth was on your side: it was upon this motive that, when the emperor thought fit to send me to your clemency, I accepted the opportunity with the utmost satisfaction, in hopes that I should be so happy as to gain your favour again: I throw myself therefore at your feet; and since I sinned out of ignorance, I entreat you to grant me your pardon. After which I shall open to you the emperor’s intentions.” This was the prelude to the famous retraction which Æneas Sylvius made afterwards. The pope pardoned every thing that was past; and in a short time made him his secretary, without obliging him to quit the post which he had with the emperor.

He was sent a second time by the emperor on an embassy to Eugenius, on the following occasion: the pope having deposed Thierry and James, archbishops and electors of Cologn and Treves, because they had openly declared for Felix and the council of Basil, the electors of the empire were highly offended at this proceeding; and at their desire the emperor sent Æneas Sylvius to prevail on the pope to revoke the sentence of deposition.

Upon the decease of pope Eugenius, Æneas was chosen by the cardinals to preside in the conclave till another pope should be elected. He was made bishop of Trieste by pope Nicholas, and went again into Germany, where he was appointed counsellor to the emperor, and had the direction of all the important affairs of the empire. Four years after he was made archbishop of Sienna; and in 1452 he attended Frederic to Rome, when he went to receive the imperial crown. Æneas, upon his return, was named legate of Bohemia and Austria. About 1456, being sent by the emperor into Italy, to treat with pope Callixtus III. about a war with the Turks, he was made a cardinal. Upon the decease of Callixtus, in 1458 he was elected pope by the name of Pius II. After his promotion to the papal chair he published a bull, retracting all he had written in defence of the council of Basil, with an apology which shows how little he was influenced by principle: “We are men (says he), and we have erred as men; we do not deny, but that many things which we have said or written, may justly be condemned: we have been seduced, like Paul, and have persecuted the church of God through ignorance; we now follow St. Austin’s example, who, having suffered several erroneous sentiments to escape him in his writings, retracted them; we do just the same thing: we ingenuously confess our ignorance, being apprehensive lest what we have written in our youth should occasion some error, which may prejudice the holy see. For if it is suitable to any person’s character to maintain the eminence and glory of the first throne of the church, it is certainly so to ours, whom the merciful God, out of pure goodness, has raised to the dignity of vicegerent of Christ, without any merit on our part. For all these reasons, we exhort you and advise you in the Lord, not to pay any regard to those writings, which injure in any manner the authority of the apostolic see, and assert opinions which the holy Roman church does not receive. If you find any thing contrary to this in our dialogues and letters, or in any other of our works, despise such notions, reject them, follow what we maintain now; believe what I assert now I am in years, rather than what I said when I was young: regard a pope rather than a private man; in short, reject Æneas Sylvius, and receive Pius II.”

Pius behaved in his high office with considerable spirit and activity; but more as a temporal prince, than the head of the church. During his pontificate he received ambassadors from the patriarchs of the east: the chief of the embassy was one Moses, archdeacon of Austria, a man well versed in the Greek and Syriac languages, and of a distinguished character. He appeared before his holiness in the name of the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; he told his holiness, that the enemy who sows tares having prevented them till then from receiving the decree of the council of Florence, concerning the union of the Greek and Latin churches, God had at last inspired them with a resolution of submitting to it; that it had been solemnly agreed to, in an assembly called together for that purpose; and that for the future they would unanimously submit to the pope as vicegerent of Jesus Christ. Pius commended the patriarchs for their obedience, and ordered Moses’s speech to be translated into Latin, and laid up amongst the archives of the Roman church. A few days after the arrival of these ambassadors from the east, there came others also from Peloponnesus, who offered obedience to the pope, and he received them in the name of the church of Rome, and sent them a governor.

Pius, in the latter part of his pontificate, made great preparations against the Turks, for which purpose he summoned the assistance of the several princes in Europe; and having raised a considerable number of troops, he went to Ancona to see them embarked; where he was seized with a fever, and died the 14th of August, 1464, in the fifty-­ninth year of his age, and the seventh of his pontificate. His body was carried to Rome, and interred in the Vatican. The Roman catholic writers are profuse in their praises of this pope, whose character, however, whether private or public, will not bear the strictest scrutiny. His secretary, John Gobelin, published a history of his life, which is supposed to have been written by this pope himself: it was printed at Rome in quarto in 1584 and 1589 and at Francfort in folio in 1614. We have an edition of Æneas Sylvius’s works, printed at Basil, in folio, in 1551. They consist of Memoirs of the Council of Bâle; The History of the Bohemians from their origin till A. D. 1458; Cosmography, in two books; the History of Frederick III. whose vice-chancellor he was; a Treatise on the education of children; a Poem on the Passion of Jesus Christ; a collection of 482 Letters; Historia rerum ubicunque gestarum; the first part only of which was published at Venice in 1477, fol. Euryalus and Lucretia, a romance. A collection of all these, with his life, was also published at Helmstadt in 1700, fol. He was, notwithstanding the applauses of the catholics, a man of great ambition, and great duplicity. He has been praised for his wise and witty sayings, but he was also famous for sayings of a very different description. He indulged himself, respecting the reformers, in a rancour of language which must be offensive to every sober Christian; and his letters show that he indulged great licence in point of morals. Mr. Gilpin, after selecting some striking proofs of this, says, “Such is the testimony which Æneas Sylvius hath given us of himself. It may serve to invalidate what he hath said of others; as it seems entirely to show that his censures are founded upon a mere difference of opinion, without any regard to practice, which is one of the characteristics of bigotry. They who are not acquainted with the history of this writer will be surprised to hear that the man of whom we have this authentic character, was not only a pope, but is acknowledged by the generality of popish writers, as one of the most respectable of all the Roman pontiffs.”

, so called, a learned Italian, and author of a “History of the Popes,” was born in 1421 at Piadena, in Latin Platina, a village between Cremona and Mantua; whence he took the name by which he is generally known. He first embraced a military life, which he followed for a considerable time but afterwards devoted himself to literature, and made a considerable progress in it. He went to Rome under Calixtus III. who was made pope in 1455 and procuring an introduction to cardinal Bessarion, he obtained some small benefices of pope Pius II. who succeeded Calixtus in 1458, and afterwards was appointed to an office which Pius II. created, called the college of apostolical abbreviators. But when Paul II. sue-‘ ceeded Pius in 1464, Platina’ s affairs took a very unfavourable turn. Paul hated him because he was the favourite of fris predecessor Pius, and removed all the abbreviators from their employments, by abolishing their places, notwithstanding some had purchased them with great sums of money. On this Platina ventured to complain to the pope, and most humbly besought him to order their cause to be judged by the auditors of the Rota. The pope was offended at the liberty, and gave him a very haughty repulse “Is it thus,” said he, looking at him sternly, “is it thus, that you summon us before your judges, as if you knew riot that all laws were centered in our breast Such is our decree they shall all go hence, whithersoever they please I am pope, and have a right to ratify or cancel the acts of others at pleasure.” These abbreviators, thus divested of their employments, used their utmost endeavours, for some days, to obtain audience of the pope, but were repulsed with contempt. Upon this, Platina wrote to him in bolder language “If you had a right to dispossess us, without a hearing, of the employments we lawfully purchased; we, on the other side, may surely be permitted to complain of the injustice we suffer, and the ignominy with which we are branded. As you have repulsed us so contumeliousjy, we will go to all the courts of princes, and intreat them to call a council; whose principal business shall be, to oblige you to shew cause, why you have divested us of our lawful possessions.” This letter being considered as an act of rebellion, the writer was imprisoned, and endured great hardships. At the end of four months he had his liberty, with orders not to leave Rome, and continued in quiet for some time; but afterwards, being suspected of a plot, was again imprisoned, and, with many others, put to the rack. The plot being found imaginary, the charge was turned to heresy, which also came to nothing; and Platina was set at liberty some time after. The pope then flattered him with a prospect of preferment, but died before he could perform his promises, if ever he meant to do so. On the accession, however, of Sixtus IV. to the pontificate, he recompensed Platina in some measure by appointing him in 1475, keeper of the Vatican library, which was established by this pope. It was a place of moderate income then, but was highly acceptable to Platina, who enjoyed it with great contentment until 1481, when he was snatched away by the plague. He bequeathed to Pomponius Laetus the house which he built on the Mons Quirinalis, with the laurel grove, out of which the poetical crowns were taken. He was the author of several works, the most considerable of which is, “De Vitis ac Gestis Summorum Pontificum” or, History of the Popes from St. Peter to Sixtus IV. to whom he dedicated it. This work is written with an elegance of style, and discovers powers of research and discrimination which were then unknown in biographical works. He seems always desirous of stating the truth, and does this with as much boldness as could be expected in that age. The best proof of this, perhaps, is that all the editions after 1500 were mutilated by the licensers of the press. The Account he gives of his sufferings under Paul II. has been objected to him as a breach of the impartiality to be observed by a historian but it was at the same time no inconsiderable proof of his courage. This work was first printed at Venice in 1479, folio, and reprinted once or twice before 1500. Platina wrote also, 2. “A History of Mantua,” in Latin, which was first published by Lambecius, with notes, at Vienna, 1675, in 4to. 3. “De Naturis rerum.” 4. “Epistolae ad diversos.” 5. “De honesta voluptate et valetutiine.” 6. “De falso et vero bono.” 7. “Contra amores.” 8. “De vera nobilitate.” 9. “De optimo cive.” 10.“Panegyricus in Bessarionem.” 11. “Oratio ad Paulum II.” 12. “De pace Italiae componenda et bello Turcico indicendo.” 13. “De flosculis lingua? Latin.” Sannazarius wrote an humorous epigram on the treatise “de honesta voluptate,” including directions for the kitchen, de Obsoniis, which Mr. Gresswell has. thus translated:

, one of the. revivers of literature, was the son of Guccio Bracciolini, and was born in 1380, at Terranuova, a small town situated in the territory of the republic of Florence, not far from Arezzo. He inherited from his father who had been a notary, but had lost his property, no advantages of rank or fortune, yet in a literary point of view, some circumstances of his birth were singularly propitious. At the close of the fourteenth century, the dawn of literature was appearing, and the city of Florence was distinguished by the zeal with which its principal inhabitants cultivated and patronized the liberal arts. It was consequently the favourite resort of the ablest scholars of the time; some of whom were induced by the offer of considerable salaries, to undertake the task of public instruction. In this celebrated school, Poggio applied himself to the study of the Latin tongue, under the direction of John of Ravenna; and of Greek, under Manuel Chrysoloras. When he had acquired a competent knowledge of these languages, he quitted Florence, and went to Rome, where his literary reputation introduced him to the notice of pope Boniface IX. who took him into his service, and promoted him to the office of writer of the apostolic letters, probably about 1402. At this time Italy was convulsed by war and faction, and in that celebrated ecclesiastical feud, which is commonly distinguished by the name of the “schism of the West,” no fewer than six of Poggio’s patrons, the popes, were implicated in its progress and consequences. In 1414 we find Poggio attending the infamous pope John to Constance, in quality of secretary; but as this pontiff fled from the council, his household was dispersed, and Poggio remained some time at Constance. Having a good deal of leisure, he employed his vacant hours in studying the Hebrew language, under the direction of a Jew who had been converted to the Christian faith. The first act of the council of Constance was the trial of pope John, who was convicted of the most atrocious vices incident to the vilest corruption of human nature, for which they degraded him from his dignity, and deprived him of his liberty. It was also by this council that John Huss, the celebrated Bohemian reformer, was examined and condemned, and that Jerome of Prague, in 1416, was tried. Poggio, who was present at Jerome’s trial, gave that very eloquent account of the martyr’s behaviour which we have already noticed (See Jerome Of Prague), and which proves, in the opinion of Poggio’s biographer, that he possessed a heart “which daily intercourse with bjgoted believers and licentious hypocrites could not deaden to the impulses of humanity.”

After the ecclesiastical feud had been in some measure composed, Martin V. became the new pontiff, but Poggio did not at first hold any office under him, as he visited England in consequence of an invitation which he had received from Beaufort, bishop of Winchester. He is said to have observed with chagrin the uncultivated state of the public mind in Britain, when compared with the enthusiastic love of elegant literature, which polished and adorned his native country. During his residence here he received an invitation to take the office of secretary to Martin V. which was the more readily accepted by him, as he is said to have been disappointed in the expectations he had formed from the bishop of Winchester. The time of his arrival at Rome is not exactly ascertained but it appears that his first care afcer his re-establishment in the sacred chancery, was to renew with his friends the personal and epistolary communication which his long absence from Italy had interrupted. He now also resumed his private studies, and in 1429 published his “Dialogue on Avarice,” in which he satirized, with great severity, the friars who were a branch of the order of the Franciscans, and who, on account of the extraordinary strictness with which they professed to exercise their conventual discipline, were distinguished by the title of Fratres Observantly. He inveighs also against the monastic life with great freedom, but with a levity which renders it very questionable whether any kind of religious life was much to his taste. When Eugenius IV. was raised to the pontificate, his authority commenced with unhappy omens, being engaged in quarrels both in Italy and Germany and Poggio, foreseeing the disastrous event, wrote freely upon the subject to the cardinal Julian, the pope’s legate, that he might gain him over to his master’s interest. In this letter were some smart strokes of satiric wit, which the disappointed and irritated mind of Julian could not well bear. Poggio’s morals were not free from blame; and the cardinal in his answer reminds him of having children, which, he observes, “is inconsistent with the obligations of an ecclesiastic and by a mistress, which is discreditable to the character of a layman.” To these reproaches Poggio replied in a letter replete with the keenest sarcasm. He pleaded guilty to the charge which had been exhibited against him, and candidly confessed that he had deviated from the paths of virtue, but excused himself by the common-place argument that many ecclesiastics had done the same. In 1433, when the pope was obliged to fly from Rome, Poggio was taken prisoner, and obliged to ransom himself by a large sum of money. He then repaired to Florence, where he attached himself to the celebrated Cosmo de Medici, and in consequence became involved in a quarrel with Francis Philelphus (See Philelphus), which was conducted with mutual rancour. Poggio now purchased a villa at VaJdarno, which he decorated with ancient sculpture and monuments of art; and such was the esteem in which he was held by the republic of Florence, that he and his children were exempted from the payment of taxes. These children, all illegitimate, amounted to fourteen but in 1435, when he had attained his fifty-fifth year, he dismissed them and their mother without provision, and married a girl of eighteen years old. On this occasion he wrote a formal treatise on the propriety of an old man marrying a young girl the treatise is lost, and would be of little consequence if recovered, since the question was not whether an old man should marry a young girl, but whether an old man should discard his illegitimate offspring to indulge his sensuality under the form of marriage. As however, men in years who marry so disproportionately are generally very ardent lovers, he celebrates his young bride for her great beauty, modesty, sense, &c.

The affair of king Henry’s divorce drevr Pole from his retirement, and led to the singular vicissitudes of his life. This was a measure which he greatly disapproved, but he is said to have had some reasons for his disapprobation, different from what conscience, or his religious principles, might fairly have suggested. Notwithstanding his being an ecclesiastic, we are told that he had entertained hopes of espousing the princess Mary, and that this project was even favoured by queen Catherine, who had committed the care of the princess’s education to the countess of Salisbury, Pole’s mother. Whatever may be in this suspicion, which prevailed for many years, it appears that he wished to be out of the way while the matter was in agitation, and therefore obtained leave from the king to go to the university of Paris, under pretence of continuing his theological studies. Accordingly he spent a year at Paris, from Oct. 1529 to Oct. 1530, during which time the king having determined to consult the universities of Europe respecting the divorce, sent to Pole to solicit his cause at Paris. Pole, however, excused himself on account of his want of experience, and when Henry sent over Bellay, as joint commissioner, left the whole business to this coadjutor, and returning to England, went again to his. favourite retirement at Sheen, Here he drew up his reasons for disapproving of the divorce, which were shown to the king, who probably put them into Cranmer’s hands. Cranmer praised the wit and argument employed, and chiefly objected to committing the cause to the decision of the pope, which Pole had recommended. Pole’s consent to the measure, however, appears to have been a favourite object with the king; and therefore in 1531, the archbishopric of York was offered him on condition that he would not oppose the divorce but he refused this dignity on such terms, after a sharp contention, as he says in his epistle to king Edward, between his ambition and his conscience. He is said also to have given his opinion on this subject so very freely to the king, that he dismissed him in great anger from his presence, and never sent for him more.

About this time the pope, having resolved to call a general council for the reformation of the church, summoned several learned men to Rome, for that purpose, and among these he summoned Pole to represent England. As soon as this was known in that country, his mother and other friends requested him not to obey the pope’s summons; and at first he was irresolute, but the importunities of his Italian friends prevailed, and he arrived at Rome in 1536, where he was lodged in the pope’s palace, and treated with the utmost respect, being considered as one who might prove a very powerful agent in any future attempt to reduce his native land to the dominion of the pope. The projected scheme of reformation, in which Pole assisted, came to nothing; but a design was now formed of advancing him to the purple, to enable him the better to promote the interests of the papal see. To this he objected, and his objections certainly do him no discredit, as a zealous adherent to the order and discipline of his church. He was not yet in holy orders, nor had received even the clerical tonsure, notwithstanding the benefices which had been bestowed on him and he represented to the pope, that such a dignity would at this juncture destroy all his influence in England, by subjecting him to the imputation of being too much biassed to the interest of the papal see and would also have a natural tendency to bring ruin on his own family. He, therefore, intreated his holiness to leave him, at least for the present, where he was, adding other persuasives, with which the pope seemed satisfied but the very next day, whether induced by the imperial emissaries, or of his own will, he commanded Pole’s immediate obedience, and he having submitted to the tonsure, was created cardinal- deacon of S. Nereus and Achilleus, on Dec. 22, 1536. Soon after he was also appointed legate, and received orders to depart immediately for the coasts of France and Flanders, to keep up the spirit of the popish party in England and he had at the same time letters from the pope to the English nation, or rather the English catholics, the French king, the king of Scotland, and to the emperor’s sister, who was regent of the Low Countries. Pole undertook this commission with great readiness, and whether from ambition or bigotry, consented to be a traitor to his country. In the beginning of Lent 1537, he set out from Rome, along with his particular friend, the bishop of Verona, and a handsome retinue. His first destination was to France, and there he received his first check, for on the very day of his arrival at Paris, the French king sent him word that he conld neither admic him to treat of the business on which be came, nor allow him 'to make any stay in his dominions. Pole now learnt that Henry VIII. had proclaimed him a traitor, and set a price (50,000 crowns) on his head. Pole then proceeded to Cambray, but there he met with the same opposition, and was not allowed to pursue his journey. The cardinal bishop of Liege, however, invited him, and liberally entertained him in that city, where he remained three months, in hopes of more favourable accounts from the emperor and the king of France but nothing of this kind occurring, he returned to Ro'iki[ after an expedition that had been somewhat disgracefu and totally unsuccessful. In 1538 he again set out on a similar design, with as little effect, and was now impeded by the necessary caution he was obliged to preserve for fear of falling into the hands of some of Henry’s agents. In the mean time, he was not only himself attainted of high treason by the Parliament of England, but his eldest brother Henry Pole, lord Montague, the marquis of Exeter, sir Edward Nevil, and sir Nicholas Carew, were condemned and executed for high treason, which consisted in a conspiracy to raise cardinal Pole to the crown. Sir Geoffrey Pole, another brother of the cardinal’s, was condemned on the same account, but pardoned in cpnsequence of his giving information against the rest. Margaret, also, countess of Salisbury, the cardinal’s mother, was condemned, but not executed until two years after. The cardinal now found how truly he had said to the pope that his being raised to that dignity would be the ruin of his family but he appears to have at this time in a great measure subdued his natural affection, as he received the account of his mother’s death with great composure, consoling himself with the consideration that she died a martyr to the catholic faith. When his secretary Beccatelli informed him of the news, and probably with much concern, the cardinal said, “Be of good courage, we have now one patron more added to those we already had in heaven.”

In 1539, when Pole returned to Rome, the pope thought it necessary to counteract the plots of Henry’s emissaries by appointing him a guard for the security of his person. He likewise conferred on him the dignity of legate of Viterbo, an office in which, while he maintained his character as an example of piety and a patron of learning, he is said to have shown great moderation and lenity towards the protestants. He was here at the head of a literary society, some of the members of which were suspected of a secret attachment to the doctrines of the reformation and Immanuel Tremellius, who was a known protestant, was converted from Judaism to Christianity in Pole’s palace at Viterbo, where he was baptised, the cardinal and Flaminius being his godfathers.

Pole continued at Viterbo till 1542, when the general council for the reformation of the church, which had been long promised and long delayed, was called at Trent, and is known in ecclesiastical history as the famous “Council of Trent.” It did not, however, proceed to business until 1545, when Pole went thither, with the necessary escort of a troop of horse. For the proceedings of this extraordinary assembly, we must refer the reader to father Paul’s history. The principal circumstance worthy of notice respecting the cardinal was his writing a treatise on the nature and end of general councils, just before he left Rome, in which he proves himself the determined advocate for the boundless prerogative of the pope. He Continued at Trent until a rheumatic disorder, which fell into one of his arms, obliged him to go to Padua for medical advice; and afterwards, the council being prorogued, he went to Rome at the request of the pope, who wished to avail himself of his pen in drawing up memorials and vindications of the proceedings of the see of Rome; and Pole, a man of superior talents to most of the Italian prelates, knew how to render these very persuasive, at a time when freedom of discussion was not allowed.

On the death of Henry VIII. in 1547, he endeavoured to renew his designs, in order, as his partial historian says, “to repair the breaches which Henry had made in the faith and discipline of the church.” On this occasion he solicited the pope’s assistance, and wrote to the privycouncil of England, partly soothing and partly threatening them with what the pope could t do; but all this had no effect, and the members of the privy-council refused to receive either the letter or him who brought it. The cardinal also drew up a treatise, and inscribed it to Edward VI. which contained an elaborate vindication of his conduct towards the late king, but it does not appear that it ever came into Edward’s hands. Pole therefore remained still attainted, and was one of the few excepted in the acts of grace which passed at the accession of the young king.

In 1549, our cardinal had the prospect of advancement to all of power and dignity which the church of Rome had to bestow, the chair of St. Peter itself. On the death of pope Paul III. he was proposed in the conclave as his successor by cardinal Farnese, and the majority of votes appeared to be in his favour, when an opposition was excited by the French party, with cardinal Caraffa at their head, who hoped, if Pole were set aside, to be chosen himself. It was necessary, however, to show some strong grounds for opposing cardinal Pole and these, bad they been proved, were certainly strong enough, heresy and incontinency he had been lenient to the protestants at Viterbo, and he was the reputed father of a young girl, at this time a nun. But against both these charges Pole vindicated himself in the most satisfactory manner, and his party determined to elect him. Why they did not succeed is variously related. It is said that they were so impatient to bring the matter to a conclusion as to go late at night to Pole’s house to pay their adorations to him, according to custom, and that Pole refused to accede to such a rash and unseasonable proceeding, and requested they would defer it until morning. They then retired, but immediately after two of the cardinals came again to him, and assured him that they required nothing of him but what was usual upon which he gave his consent, but afterwards repented, and endeavoured to retract. The cardinals, in the mean time, of their own accord had deferred proceedings until next morning, when a very different spirit appeared in the conclave, and the election fell upon cardinal de Monte, who reigned as pope by the name of Julius, 111. a man of whom it is sufficient to say that he gave his cardinal’s hat to a boy who had the care of his monkey. When Pole appeared, with the other cardinals, to perform his adoration to the new pope, the latter raised him up and embraced him, telling him, that it was to his disinterestedness he owed the papacy. How far our cardinal was really disinterested, is a matter of dispute. Some suppose that he still had in view a marriage with the princess Mary, and the hopes of a crown; and it is certain that he had hitherto never taken priest’s orders, that he might be at liberty to return to the secular world, which his being only a cardinal would not have opposed.

The cardinal was at a convent of the Benedictines at Maguzano, in the territory of Venice, whither he had retired when the tranquillity of Rome was disturbed by the French war, when the important news arrived of the accession of the princess Mary to the throne of England, by the death of her brother Edward VI. It was immediately determined by the court of Rome that he should be sent as Jegate to England, in order to promote that object to which his family had been sacrificed, the reduction of the kingdom to the obedience of the holy see. Pole, however, who did not know that his attainder was taken off, determined first to send his secretary to England to make the necessary inquiries, and to present letters to the queen, who soon dissipated his fears by an ample assurance of her attachment to the catholic cause. He then set out in Oct. 1553, but in his way through Germany, was detained by the emperor, who was then negociating a marriage between his son Philip and the queen of England, to which he imagined the cardinal would be an obstacle. This delay was the more mortifying as the emperor at the same time refused to admit him into his presence, although he had been commissioned by the pope to endeavour to mediate r a peace between the emperor and the French king. But the greatest of all his mortifications came from queen Mary herself, who under various pretences, which the cardinal saw in their proper light, contrived to keep him abroad until her marriage with Philip was concluded.

All obstacles being now removed, he proceeded homewards, and arrived at Dover, Nov. 20, 1554, where he was received by some persons of rank, and reaching London, was welcomed by their majesties in the most honourable manner. No time was now lost in endeavouring to promote the great objects of his mission. On the 27th of November, the cardinal legate went to the House of Peers, where the king and queen were present, and made a long Speech, in which he invited the parliament to a reconciliation with the apostolic see from whence, he said, he was sent by the common pastor of Christendom, to bring back them who had long strayed from the inclosure of the church; and two days after the Speaker reported to the House of Commons the substance of this speech. What followed may be read with a blush. The two Houses of Parliament agreed in a petition to be reconciled to the see of Rome, which was presented to the king and queen, and stated, on the part of the parliament, that “whereas they had been guilty of a most horrible defection and schism from the Apostolic see, they did now sincerely repent of it; and in sign of their repentance, were ready to repeal all the laws made in prejudice of that see; therefore, since the king and queen had been no way defiled by their schism, they prayed them to intercede with the legate to grant them absolution, and to receive them again into the bosom of the church.” This petition being presented by both Houses on their knees to the king and queen, their majesties made their intercession with the legate, who, in a long speech, thanked the parliament for repealing the act against him, and making him a member of the nation, from which he was by that act cut off; in recompense of which, he was npw to reconcile them to the body of the church. After enjoining them, by way of penance, to repeal the laws which they had made against the Romish religion, he granted them, in the pope’s name, a full absolution, which they received on their knees; and he also absolved the whole realm from all ecclesiastical censure. Bin however gratifying to the court or parliament all this mummery might be, the citizens of London and the people at large felt no interest in the favours which the pope’s representative bestowed. In London, during one of his processions, no respect was paid to him, or to the cross carried before him and so remiss were the people in other parts in their congratulations on the above joyful occasion, that the queen was obliged to write circular letters to the sheriffs, compelling them to rejoice.

In March 1555, pope Julius III. died, and in less than a month, his successor Marcel Jus II. on which vacancy, the queen employed her interest in favour of cardinal Pole, but without effect; nor was he more successful when he went to Flanders this year, to negociate a peace between France and the emperor. To add to his disappointments, the new pope, Paul IV. had a predilection for Gardiner, and favoured the views of the latter upon the see of Canterbury, vacant by the deposition of Cranmer; nor although the queen nominated Pole to be archbishop, would the pope confirm it, till after the death of Gardiner. The day after Cranmer was burnt, March 22, 1556, Pole, who now for the first time took priest’s orders, was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. Having still a turn for retirement, and being always conscientious in what he thought his duties, he would now have fixed his abode at Canterbury, and kept that constant residence which became a good pastor, but the queen would never suffer him to leave the court, insisting that it was more for the interest of the catholic faith that he should reside near her person. Many able divines were consulted on this point, who assured the cardinal that he could not with a safe conscience abandon her majesty, “when there was so much business to be done, to crush the heretics, and give new life to the catholic cause.”

It was cardinal Pole’s misfortune that he was never long successful in that line of conduct which he thought would have most recommended him; and now, when he was doing every thing to gratify the Roman see, by the persecution of the protestants, &c. the pope, Paul IV. discovered a more violent animosity against him than before. The cause, or one of the causes, was of a political nature. Paul was now engaged in a war with Philip, king of Spain and husband to Mary, and he knew that the cardinal was devoted to the interests of Spain. He therefore wanted a legate at the court of England like himself, vigorous and resolute who, by taking the lead in council, and gaining the queen’s confidence, might prevent her from engaging in her husband’s quarrels. But while Pole remained in that station, he was apprehensive that by his instigation she might enter into alliances destructive to his politics. Upon various pretensions, therefore, Paul IV. revived the old accusation against the cardinal, of being a suspected heretic, and summoned him to Rome to answer the charge. He deprived him also of the office of legate, which he conferred upon Peyto, a Franciscan friar, whom he had made a cardinal for the purpose, designing also the see of Salisbury for him. This appointment took place in Sept. 1557, and the new legate was on his way to England, when the bulls came into the hands of queen Mary, who having been informed of their contents by her ambassador, laid them up without opening them, or acquainting Pole with them. She also directed her ambassador at Rome to tell his holiness, “that this was not the method to keep the kingdom steadfast in the catholic faith, but rather to make it more heretical than ever, for that cardinal Pole was the very anchor of the catholic party.” She did yet more, and with somewhat of her father’s spirit, charged Peyto at his peril to set foot upon English ground. Pole, however, who by some means became acquainted with the fact, displayed that superstitious veneration for the apostolic see which was the bane of his character, and immediately, laid clown the ensigns of his legantine power and dispatched his friend Ormaneto to the pope with an apology so submissive, that, we are told, it melted the obdurate heart of Paul. The cardinal appears to have been restored to his power as legate soon after, but did not live to enjoy it a full year, being seized with an ague which carried him ff Nov. 18, 1558, the day after the death of queen Mary. With them expired the power of the papal see over the political or religious constitution of this kingdom, and all its fatal effects on religion, liberty, and learning.

, an Italian marquis, and a learned mathematician, was born at Padua in 1683. He was appointed professor of astronomy and mathematics in the university of his native city, and filled that post with high reputation. In three instances he gained prizes from the Royal Academy of Sciences, and in 1739 he was elected an associate of that body. He was also a member of the academy of Berlin, a fellow of the London Royal Society, and a member of the Institutes of Padua and Bologna, and contributed many valuable mathematical and astronomical papers to the Memoirs of these Societies. As he was celebrated for his skill and deep knowledge of hydraulic architecture, he was nominated by the Venetian government, superintendant of the rivers and waters throughout the republic; other states also applied to him for advice, in business belonging to the same science. He was sent for by pope Benedict XIV. to survey the state of St. Peter’s church at Rome, and drew up a memoir on what he conceived necessary to be done. He died at Padua in 1761, at the age of 7S. He appears to have acquired very distinguished reputation in his day, and was the correspondent of many learned contemporaries, particularly sir Isaac Newton, Leibnitz, the Bernoulli’s, Wolff, Cassini, Gravesande, Muschenbroeck, Fontenelle, and others. Nor was he more esteemed as a mathematician than as an antiquary, and the learned world is indebted to him for a valuable supplement to the collections of Graerius and Gronovius, Venice, 1737, 5 vols. fol. but these volumes are rather scarce. Among his other most valued publications are, “Exercitationes Vitruvianae, seu Commentarius Criticus de Vitruvii architectura,” Venice, 1739, 4to and “Dissertazione sopra al Tempio di Diana di Efeso,” Rome, 1742. Fabroni gives a long list of his mathematical and astronomical essays, and of the Mss. he left behind him.

a celebrated French cardinal, was born Oct. 11, 1661, at Puy, in Velay, and was the son of Louis Armand, viscount de Polignac, descended from one of the most ancient families in Languedoc. He was.sent early to Paris, where he distinguished himself as a student, and was soon noticed as a young man of elegant manners and accomplishments. In 1689, cardinal de Bouillon carried him to Rome, and employed him in several important negociations. It was at one of his interviews with pope Alexander VIII. that this pontiff said to him, “You seem always, sir, to be of my opinion, and yet it is your own which prevails at last.” We are likewise told that when, on his return to Paris, Louis XIV. granted him along audience, he said as he went out, <4 I have been conversing with a man, and a young man, who has contradicted me in every thing, yet pleased me in every thing.*' In 1693, he was sent as ambassador into Poland, where he procured the prince of Conti to be elected and proclaimed king in 1696; but, this election not having been supported, he was obliged to retire, and return to France, where he arrived in 1698, after losing all his equipage and furniture, which was seized by the Dantzickers. The king then banished him to his abbey at Bonport, but recalled him to court with great expressions of regard in 1702, and in 1706 appointed him auditor of the Rota. M. Polignac then set out again for Rome and cardinal de la Tremouille, who conducted the French affairs there, having the same opinion of him as cardinal de Bouillon had, employed him in several negociations. Going back to France three years after, his majesty sent him as plenipotentiary into Holland in 1710, with marechal d'Uxelles. He was also plenipotentiary at the conferences and peace of Utrecht, in 1712 and 1713. The king, satisfied with his services, obtained a cardinal’s hat for him the same year, and appointed him master of his chapel. During the regency, cardinal de Polignac was banished to his abbey of Anchin in 1718, and not recalled till 172L. In 1724, he went to Rome for the election of pope Benedict XIII. and remained there eight years, being entrusted with the affairs of France. In 1726, he was made archbishop of Auch, returned to his native country in 1732, and died at Paris, November 10, 1741, aged 80. He was a member of the French academy, the academy of sciences, and that of belles lettres. He is now chiefly remembered for his elegant Latin poem, entitled “Anti-Lucretius,” in which he refutes the system and doctrine of Epicurus, according to the principles of Descartes’ philosophy. This he left to a friend, Charles de Rothelin, who published it in 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. It has since been often reprinted, and elegantly translated by M. de Bougainville, secretary to the academy of belles lettres. His Life was published at Paris, 1777, 2 vols. 12mo, by F. Ghrysostom Faucher. The reviewer of this life very justly says, that the man who compiled the “Anti-Lucretius,” and proposed a plan for forming a new bed for the Tiber, in order to recover the statues, medals, basso-relievos, and other ancient monuments, which were buried there during the rage of civil factions, and the incursions of the barbarians, deserves an eminent place in literary biography. Few works have been more favourably received throughout Europe than the cardinal’s celebrated poem, although he was so much of a Cartesian. The first copy that appeared in England was one in the possession of the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and such was its reputation abroad at that time, that this copy was conveyed by a trumpet from marshal Saxe to the Duke of Cumberland, directed for the earl of Chesterfield, It was sent to him both as a judge of the work, and a friend of the writer.

The-“Miscellanea” of Poiitian were first published at Florence, in 1489, and were every where received with the greatest applause, and compared by the learned to the “Noctes Atticas” of Aulus Gellius. His Latin version of Heroclian is universally allowed to be a masterly performance, and perhaps no other translation of any Greek author has been so much and so generally admired. Some critics have declared, that if the Greek of Heroclian could have been suppressed, this work might have passed among the learned for the classical and finished' production of some original pen of antiquity. Yet amidst such general approbation, there were not wanting others who accused him of having published as his own, a version previously made by Gregorius of Tiphernum M. de la Monnoye maintains that Omnibuono, a native of Lunigo, nearVicenza, commonly denominated Omnibonus Vicentinus, was the author of this prior version and endeavours to prove from a fragment of it, that Politian had seen and availed himself of it. These detractions, however, have not been generally admitted. Politian inscribed this version to Pope Innocent VIII. in a dedication which is prefixe*d to most of the ancient editions of the work, and which procured him a present from his holiness of two hundred gold crowns. Politian returned thanks i a courtly and somewhat adulatory epistle, in which he/ extols the pope’s bounty, and promises to redouble his efforts to produce something more worthy of so exalted a patron.

, a modern Aristotelian, was born at Mantua in 1462. He delivered lectures on the philosophy of Aristotle and Averroes at Padua and Bologna, where his eloquence and talents procured him many auditors. He was at Bologna when he composed his celebrated little treatise “De immortalitate Animae,” in which he was supposed to call in question the immortality of the soul, at least he maintained that all natural reason was against it, but revelation for it, and upon the latter account ie believed it. It is probable, however, that the impression it made on the public mind was not very favourable to the received opinions, as pope Leo X. thought it necessary to suppress the work by a bull; and it was at his request that Augustine Niphus wrote a treatise with the same title, “De immortalitate Animae,” in which he undertook to prove that this doctrine is not contrary to the principles of the Aristotelian philosophy. Some time after, Pomponatius’s opinions were referred to the arbitration of Bembus, who endeavoured to justify him, and succeeded so far as to obtain permission for him to issue a second edition of the work, as well as to save the author from the vengeance of the church. Brucker is of opinion that notwithstanding Pomponatius’s pretences, he had more respect for the authority of Aristotle, than for that of Jesus Christ. He adds, that though much addicted to superstition and fanaticism, and a zealous advocate for judicial astrology, as appears from his book “De Incantationibus,” “On Enchantments,” he had an understanding capable of penetrating into the depths of the Peripatetic system, in the

, an eminent Italian antiquary, all whose names were of his own choice, was the illegitimate offspring of the illustrious house of Sanseverino, in the kingdom of Naples; but this was a circumstance on which he preserved an inflexible silence, and admitted no conversation or questions on the subject. Even when that family sent him an invitation to reside with them, he rejected it by a laconic note which is preserved by Tiraboschi “Pomponius Laetus cognatis et propinquis suis salutem. Quod petitis fieri non potest. Valete.” “Pomponius Laetus to his kinsmen and relations what you ask cannot be granted. Farewell.” He went young to Home, where he studied first under a very able grammarian of that time, Pietro da Monopoli, and afterwards under Laurentius Valia. On the death of this eminent scholar in 1457, he was thought qualified to succeed him in his professorship. He now began to found an academy, the members of which were men of letters, fond of antiquary researches, like himself, but who sometimes entered upon philosophical discussions. They were mostly young men, and in their zeal for past times, the glorious days of Rome, adopted Latinized names. Our author took that of Pomponius Lsetus, and Buonaccorsi that of Callimachus Experiens, &c. In their philosophical discussions, they went so far as to compare ancient with modern institutions, not much to the credit of the latter and at length this was represented to pope Paul II. (whom we have recently noticed as the persecutor of Platina) first as inferring a contempt for religion secondly, as an attack on the church and lastly, as a conspiracy against the pope himself. The pope, either really alarmed, or pretending to be so, ordered all the members of the academy to be arrested, that could be found, and imprisoned and put them to the torture, of which one very promising young scholar died and although Pomponius was at this time (1468) at Venice, and had been indeed residing for three years with the Cornaro family, he was dragged in chains to Rome, and shared the same horrible fate as his fellow academicians; and although, after various examinations, conducted by the pope himself, no proof of guilt appeared, he and his companions remained in confinement a very considerable time. The death of their persecutor, however, restored them to liberty, and it was no inconsiderable testimony of their innocence that his successor Sixtus IV. equally strict in matters of heresy, made Platina librarian of the Vatican, and restored Pomponius to his professorship, in which office he continued to draw a great concourse of scholars. He also endeavoured to revive his academy, against which Paul It. had been so inveterate that he forbid its name to be mentioned either in jest or earnest, “vel serio vel joco,” attd we find two grand commemorations held by the members, in 1482 and 1483; the one on account of the death of Platina, the other to celebrate the foundation of Rome.

, the most elegant and popular of all English poets, was born in Lombard -street, London, May 22, 1688, where his father, a linen-draper, had acquired a property of 20,000l. His mother was daughter of William Turner, esq. of York, two of whose sons died in the service of Charles I. and a third became a general officer in Spain, and from this last Mrs. Pope is said to have inherited what sequestrations and forfeitures had left in the family. Both his parents were Roman catholics. He. was from his birth of a constitution tender and delicate but is said to have shewn remarkable gentleness and sweetness of disposition. The weakness of his body continued throughout life, and was so great that he constantly wore stays; but the mildness of his mind, says Johnson, perhaps ended with his childhood. His voice, when he was young, was so pleasing, that he was called in fondness “the little Nightingale.”

He was taught to read by an aunt who was particularly fond of him, and to write by copying printed books, which he did all his life with great skill and dexterity, although his ordinary hand was far from elegant. At the age of eight he was placed under the care of Taverner, a Homish priest, who taught him the rudiments of the Greek antfi Latin languages at the same time, a method very rarely practised. Having improved considerably under Taverner, he was sent to a celebrated seminary of catholics at Twyford, near Winchester - y but in consequence of his writing a lampoon on his master, one of his first efforts in poetry, he was again removed to a school kept near Hyde-parkcorner. His master’s name here is not mentioned by any of his biographers, but it was probably John Bromley, who was curate of St. Giles’s in the fields in the beginning of James II. 's reign, soon after became a decided catholic, and losing his employment at the revolution, taught a school with good reputation. Dodd was infornaed that Pope was one of his pupils. Before his removal to this last place he had been much a reader of Ogilby’s Homer, and Sandys 7 Ovid, and frequently spoke, in the latter part of his life, of the exquisite pleasure which the perusal of these two writers gave him. He now had an opportunity of visiting the playhouse, and became so delighted with theatrical exhibitions, that he formed a kind of play from, the chief events of the Iliad as related by Ogilby, with some verses of his own intermixed. He persuaded a few of the upper boys to act in this piece; the master’s gardener represented the character of Ajax; and the actors were dressed after the pictures of his favourite Ogilby, which indeed were designed and engraved by artists of note.

How early Pope began to write cannot be ascertained some think the “Ode to Solitude,” written at twelve years of age, was his earliest production but Dodsley, who lived in intimacy with him, had seen pieces of a still earlier date. I At fourteen, he employed himself in some of those transis lations and imitations which appear in the first volume of his works and still zealous in the prosecution of his poetical studies, he appears at this time ambitious to exhibit specimens of every kind of poetry. He wrote a comedy, a tragedy, and an epic poem, with panegyrics on all the princes of Europe; and, as he confesses, “thought himself the greatest genius that ever was.” Most, however, of these puerile productions he afterwards destroyed. At sixteen he wrote his “Pastorals,” which laid the foundation of lasting hostility between Philips and himself, but were the means of introducing him to the acquaintance and friendship of Sir William Trumbull, who had formerly been much, in public life, as a statesman, and was then retired within a short distance of Binfield. TrwnbuH, who was pleased to find in his neighbourhood a youth of such abilities and taste as young Pope, circulated his “Pastorals” among his friends, and introduced him to Wycherley and Walsh, and the wits of that time. They were not however published until 1709, and then only in Tonsori’s Miscellany. Of their poetical merit, it seems now agreed that their chief excellence lies in correctness and melody of versification, and that the discourse prefixed to them, although much of it is borrowed from Rapin and other authors, is elegantly and elaborately written. From this time the life of Pope, as an author, may be computed, and having now declared himself a candidate for fame, and entitled to mix with his brethren, he began at the age of seventeen to frequent the places where they used to assemble. This was done without much interruption to his studies, his own account of which was, that from fourteen to twenty he read only for amusement, from twenty to twenty-seven for improvement and instruction that in the first part of his time he desired only to know, and in the second he endeavoured to judge. His next performance greatly increased his reputation this was the “Essay on Criticism,” written in 1709, and published in 1711, which Dr. Johnson has characterized, as displaying “such extent of comprehension, such nicety of distinction, such acquaintance with mankind, and such knowledge both of ancient and modern learning, as are not often attained hy the maturest age and longest experience.” It found its way, however, rather slowly into the world but when the author had sent copies to Lord Lansdowne, the Duke of Buckingham, and other great men, it began to be called for. It was in this “Essay” he made his attack on Dennis, which provoked those hostilities between them that never were completely appeased. Dennis’s reply was sufficiently coarse, but he appears to have been the first who discovered that leading characteristic of Pope, his propensity to talk too frequently of his own virtues, and that sometimes when they were least visible' to others.

The “Messiah” appeared first in the Spectator, 1712, with a warm recommendation -. by Steele, and raised the highest expectations of what the author was capable of performing; but he was not so happy in his “Ode on St. Cecilia’s Day.” This was followed by the beautiful little ode, “The Dying Christian to his Soul,” written at Steele’s desire, to-be set to music. In this he owns his obligations to the verses of Adrian, and the fragment of Sappho, but says nothing of Flatman, whose ode he not only imitated, but copied some lines of it verbatim. - The very pathetic “Elegy to the memory of an unfortunate Lady” was probably written about thistime, but who the lady was remains a matter of conjecture. One story, in a note appended to Dr. Johnson’s life of Pope, is, that her name was Withinbury, or Winbury that she was in love with Pope, and would have married him that her guardian, though she was deformed in person, looking upon such a match as beneath her, sent her to a convent, &c. where she committed suicide but all this has been contradicted, and nothing substituted in its room much more worthy of belief.

In the same year, 1711, he produced the “Rape of the Lock,” a poem which at once placed him higher than any modern writer, and exceeded every thing of the kind that had appeared in the republic of letters. It was occasioned by a frolic of gallantry, in which Lord Petre cut off a favourite lock of Mrs. Arabella Fermor’s hair, and this familiarity being so much resented as to occasion a serious rupture between the two families, Mr. Caryl, a friend to both, de-r sired Pope to write something that might bring them into better humour. Two cantos were accordingly produced in a fortnight, and published in one of Lintot’s Miscellanies and finding these received with universal applause, he next year enlarged the poem to five cantos and by the addition of the machinery of the Sylphs, placed the “Rape of the Lock” above all other mock heroic poems whatever.

It appears by a letter to Steele, dated Nov. 16, 1712, that he then first communicated to him “The Temple of Fame,” though he had written it two years before. The descriptive powers of Pope, Warton thinks are much more visible and strong in this poem, than in the “Windsor Forest” which followed it in the order of publication, although the first part was published in 1704. The last of his separate publications which appeared about this time was the “Epistle from Eloisa to Abelard,” in which it has been justly said that he excelled every composition of the same kind. Its poetical merit, however, great as it is, is Scarcely sufficient to make the reader forget the inherent indelicacy of the story, or its pernicious tendency.

Having amply established his fame by so many excellent, and by two incomparable, poems, the “Rape of the J-oc]t” and the “Eloisa,” he now meditated what Warton, somewhat incautiously, calls “a higher effort,” his translation of Homer. A higher effort it certainly was not than the poems just mentioned, but we may allow it was “something that might improve and advance his fortune as well as his fame.” A clamour was raised at the time that he had uot sufficient learning for such an undertaking and Dr. Johnson says, that considering his irregular education, and course of life, it is not very likely that he overflowed with Greek but this, it is known, he supplied by the aid of his friends, or by scholars employed, of whom he had no personal knowledge, as the celebrated Dr. Jortin, who, when a soph at Cambridge, made extracts from Eustathius for his notes. This translation Pope proposed to publish by subscription, in six vols. 4to. at the price of six guineas, and his list of subscribers soon amounted to 575, who engaged for 654 copies. The greatness of the design, and popularity of the author, and the attention of the literary world, naturally raised such expectations of the future sale, that the booksellers made their, offers with great eagerness but the hi-ghest bidder was Bernard Lintot, who became proprietor, on condition of supplying, at his own expence, all the copies which were to be delivered to subseribeYs, 4or pre,­sentecl to friends, and paying 200l. for every volume, so ­that Pope obtained, on the whole, the sum of 5S20J. 4s. Thk money he partly laid out in annuities, particularly one of 200l. a year, or as some say 500l. from the Duke of Buckingham, and partly in the purchase of a house at Twickenham, to which he now removed, having persuaded his father to sell his little property at Binfield.

The publication of the first volume of the “Iliad” was attended by a circumstance which interrupted the friendship that had long subsisted between Pope and Addison. This was the appearance of a translation of the first book of the Iliad under the name of Tickell, which Pope had reason to think, and confidently asserted, was the work of Addison himself, and not of Tickell. In the collection of Pope’s letters, in Johnson’s life, and in the notes to Addison’s life in the “Biographia Britannica,” written by Mr. Justice Blackstone, are many particulars of this unhappy quarrel, the real cause of which is not very clear. Every candid reader will wish that a' charge of disingenuity against so amiable a man as Addison, could be clearly refuted, and Blackstone has made considerable progress in this. Pope’s biographers seem to think that much cannot be learned from the evidence of style, and that this translation of the first book of the Iliad is more likely to have been written by Tickell than by Addison. With his usual frankness and good nature, Steele once endeavoured to reconcile Pope and Addison but, in the interview he procured, they so bitterly upbraided each other with envy, arrogance, and ingratitude, that they parted with increased aversion and ill-will. Pope was chiefly irritated at the calm and contemptuous unconcern with which Addison affected to address him in this conversation, and his mind had been alienated from him long before, owing to a notion that Addison was jealous of his fame. Of TickelPs translation no more appeared than this first book; and if we may be permitted to add one to the many conjectures already offered on this subject, we should say that probably no more was intended, and that this specimen was published rather to alarm Pope’s vanity than to hurt his interest or his fame.

During the publication of the Iliad, Pope found leisure to gratify his favourite passion of laying out grounds, which he displayed with great taste and judgment at his newly purchased house at Twickenham. This spot was visited and admired by the first men of this country, and frequently by Frederick, prince of Wales, who contributed some ornamental articles and for nearly a century it continued to be an object of curiosity; but in 1807 the house was entirely pulled down, and the grounds, from the many alterations they have undergone, can no longer be associated with the taste and skill of Pope* Here in 1717 his father died, after having lived to spend thie greater part of the 20,000l. which he acquired in trade, but which, being disaffected to government, he would not trust in any of its funds, and therefore he went on consuming the principal. His son celebrated him with equal elegance, tenderness, and gratitude, in the “Epistle to Arbuthnot.” The year before he had published in folio a collection of all his poems, with that sensible preface whichnow usually stands at the. head of his works.

In 172O, the publication of the ‘.’ Iliad“, was. completed, and in 1721 he acted as editor of the poems of his friend Parnell, to which he prefixed the fine epistle to Lord Oxford. Pope loved money, and in 1720 had been one of the adventurers in the South-Sea scheme, but from this he escaped without being a very great loser the same motive, though his remuneration did not much exceed 200/ tin-­duced him to become editor of Shakspeare, for which he was totally unfit. Tonson wished to have a good name prefixed to his edition, and Pope’s was then the first/among living poets. His labours were attacked by Theobald, first in his” Shakspeare Restored,“and afterwards in his own edition, to which Warburton contributed many remarks. Pope was much mortified by this failure, but is said to have recovered his tranquility by reflecting that he had a mind too great for the petty employments of collators, commentators, and verbal critics. It was on this occasion that Mallet obtained Pope’s friendship by addressing to him an epistle on” Verbal Criticism." What sort of friend MaiJet proved at last, we have already mentioned in our account of him.

Soon after this Pope issued proposals for a translation of the “Odvssey” but of this he performed only twelve books, namely the third, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-fourth. The rest were translated by Fenton and Broome, and Pope is said to have given the former three hundred, and the latter five hundred pounds for their assistance; but as the number of subscribers equalled that of the Iliad, his own profits must have been very considerable. About this time he was full of grief and anxiety, on account of the impeachment of his friend bishop Atterbury, for whom he seems to have felt the greatest affection and regard; and being summoned before the Lords at the trial, to give some account of At* lerbury’s domestic life and employments, not being used to speak in a large assembly, he made several blunders in the few words he had to utter. It is remarkable that the day which deprived him of Atterbury, restored to him another friend, Bolingbroke, who continued in habits of intimacy with him during the whole of his life.

In 1727, Swift, who had long corresponded withhiai, coming to England, joined with Pope in publishing in 4 vols. 8vo, their miscellanies in prose and verse. To these Pope wrote a preface, complaining, among other instances, of the ill usage he had received front booksellers, and of the liberty one of them (Curll) had taken in this same year to publish his juvenile letters, purchased from a Mrs. Thomas, a mistress of his correspondent Mr. Cromwell. Pope had been intimate with this lady in his young days, but was now so seriously hurt at the publication of his letters, although he knew that she did it from distress, that he took a severe revenge in a poem called “Corinna,” and in the “Dunciad,” which appeared in the following year. The object of this celebrated satire was to crush all his adversaries in a mass, by one strong and decisive blow. His own account of this attempt is very minutely related by Pope himself, in a dedication which he wrote to Lord Middlesex, under the name of Savage the poet, who assisted Pope in finding out many particulars of these adversaries. If we may credit this narrative, Pope contemplated his victory over Dunces with great exultation and such, says Dr. Johnson, was his delight in the tumult he had raised, that for a while his natural sensibility was suspended, and he read reproaches and invectives without emotion, considering them only as the necessary effects of that pain which he rejoiced in having given. He would not however have long indulged this reflection, if all the persons he classed among the Dunces had possessed the spirit which animated some of them. Ducket demanded and obtained satisfaction for a scandalous imputation on his moral character and Aaron Hill expostulated with Pope in a manner so much superior to all mean solicitation, that Pope “was reduced to sneak and shuffle, sometimes to deny, and sometimes to apologize: he first endeavours to wound, and is then afraid to own that he meant a blow.” There are likewise some names introduced in this poem with disrespect which could receive no injury from such an attack. His placing the learned Bentley among dunces, could have occurred to Pope only in the moment of his maddest revenge Bentiey had spoken truth of the translation of the Iliad he said it was “a fine poem, but not Homer.” This, which has ever since been the opinion of the learned world, was not to be refuted by the contemptuous lines in which Bentley is mentioned in the “Dunciad.” On the other hand, the real Dunces, who are the majority in this poem, were beneath the notice of a man who now enjoyed higher fame than any poetical contemporary, and greater popularity, and greater favour with men of rank. But it appears’ to have been Pope’s opinion that insignificance should be no protection, that even neutrality should not be safe, and that whoever did not worship the deity he had set up, should be punished. Accordingly we find in this poem contemptuous allusions to persons who had given no open provocation, and were nowise concerned in the author’s literary contests. The “Dunciad” indeed seems intended as a general receptacle for all his resentments, just or unjust; and we find that in subsequent editions he altered, arranged, or added to his stock, as he found, or thought he found new occasion; and the hero of the “Dunciad,” who was at first Theobald, became at last Gibber.

The “Dunciad” first appeared in 1729; and two years after, Pope produced his “Epistle to Richard Earl of Burlington, occasioned by his publishing Palladio’s designs of the Baths, Arches, Theatres, &c. of ancient Rome, &c.” Of the merit of this highly-finished poern, there is no difference of opinion but it gave rise to an attack on Pope’s private character which was not easily repelled. Dr. Warton says, “The gang of scribblers immediately rose up together, and accused him of malevolence and ingratitude, in having ridiculed the house, gardens, chapel, and dinners, of the Duke of Chandos at Canons (who had lately, as they affirmed, been his benefactor) under the name of Timon. He peremptorily and positively denied the charge, and wrote an exculpatory letter to the Duke, with the asseverations of which letter, as the last Duke of Chandos told me, his ancestor was not perfectly satisfied.” It was not therefore the “gang of scribblers” who brought this accusation, but all the family and connections of the Duke of Chandos, and no defence has yet been advanced which can induce any impartial reader to think the accusation unjust. What seems to have injured Pope most at the time was, that the excuses he offered were of the same shuffling kind which he employed in the case of Aaron Hill, and which, wherever employed, have the effect of doubling the guilt of the convict. This was one of the circumstances which induce us to think that Pope greatly injured his personal character by the indiscriminate attacks in his “Dunciad,” and by the opinion he seems to have taken up that no man was out of his reach.

In 1732, Pope published his epistle “On the use of Riches,” addressed to Lord Bathurst, which he has treated in so masterly a way, as to have almost exhausted the subject. His observation of human life and manners was indeed most extensive, and his delineations most exact and perfect. It is very hazardous to come after him in any subject of ethics which he has handled. Between this year and 1734, he published the four parts of his celebrated “Essay on Man,” the only work from his pen which equally engaged the attention of the moral, the theological, and the poetical world. He appears himself to have had some fears respecting it, for it appeared without his name, and yet it is wonderful that the style and manner did not betray him. When discovered it was still read ds an excellent poem, abounding in splendid and striking sentiments of religion and virtue, until Crousjaz endeavoured to prove, and not unsuccessfully, that it contained tenets more favourable to natural than to revealed religion. Crousaz was answered by a writer who a considerable time before had produced and read a dissertation against the doctrines of the “Essay on Man,” but now appeared as their vigorous defender. This was the learned and justly celebrated Warburton, who wrote a series of papers in the monthly journals called “The Republic of Letters” and “The Works of the Learned,” 'Which were afterwards collected into a volume. Pope was so delighted with this vindication, that he eagerly sought the acquaintance of Warburton, and told him he understood his opinions better than he did himself; which may be true, if, as commonly understood, Bolingbroke furnished those subtle principles by which Pope at first, and his readers afterwards, were deceived. The consequence* of this acquaintance tp Warburton were indeed momentous, for Pope introduced him to Murray, afterwards the celebrated Lord Mansfield, by whose interest he became preacher at Lincoln’s Inn and to Mr. Allen, “who gave him his niece and his estate, and by consequence a bishopric” and when he died he left him the property of his works.

Few pieces, in Warton’s opinion, can be found that, for depth of thought and penetration into the human mind and heart, excel the Epistle to lord Cobham, which Pope published in 1733, and which produced from his lordship two very sensible letters on the subjects and characters introduced in that epistle. In the same year appeared the first of our author’s Imitations of Horace, and in 1734, the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, which was considerably altered. It was first called “A Prologue to the Satires,” and then “A Dialogue.” Pope did not always write with a decided preference of form or manner, for his admirable poem pa “The Use of Riches” he called an epistle to lord Bathurst, although that nobleman is introduced as speaking, and speaking so insignificantly, that, as Warton informs us, he never mentioned the poem without disgust. Pope’s affectionate mention of his mother in this Epistle to Arbuthnot must always be quoted to his honour. Of all his moral qualities, filial affection was most predominant. He then, in 1735, produced the Epistle on the “Characters of Women,” in an advertisement to which he asserted that no one character was drawn from life. Pope had already lost some credit with the public for veracity, and this assertion certainly was not believed, nor perhaps did he wish it to be believed, for in a note he informed his readers that the work was imperfect, because part of his subject was tt Vice too high" to be yet exposed. This is supposed to allude to the character of the first duchess of Marlborough under the name of Atossa, which was inserted after her death, in a subsequent edition, although Pope received £1000 from her to suppress it. This is said to rest on the sole authority of the late Horace Walpole, lord Orford but if told by him as we find it in Warton’s and Bowles’s editions of Pope’s works, it confutes itself. The fact as they relate it is, that Pope received £lOOO. from the duchess, promising on these terms to suppress the character, and that he took the money and then published it. But Pope could not have published it, for it did not appear, according to Warton’s account, until 1746, two years after his death I It might then probably have been found among Mr. Pope’s Mss. and inserted without any great blame by those who knew nothing of the bargain with the duchess, if there was even such a bargain.

In 1736 and 1737 he published more of his Imitations of Horace, all with his name, except the one entitled, “Sober Advice from Horace to the young Gentlemen about town,” which he was ashamed to acknowledge although he suffered Dodsley to publish it as his own in a 12mo edition. In the last mentioned year appeared an edition of his “Letters” published in 4to by a large subscription. His friend Mr. Allen of Bath had such an opinion of Pope that he advised this publication, from which, he said, “a perfect system of morals might be extracted,” and offered to be at the cost of a publication of them. Pope preferred the patronage of the public, but yet wanted some apology for publishing his own letters. Dr. Johnson relates where he found that, in the following words:

"One of the passages of Pope’s life, which seems to deserve some inquiry, was a publication of Letters between him and his friends, which falling into the hands of Curll, a rapacious bookseller of no good fame, were by him printed and sold. This volume containing some letters from noblemen, Pope incited a prosecution against him in the House of Lords for breach of privilege, and attended himself to stimulate the resentment of his friends. Curll appeared at the, bar, and knowing himself in no danger, spoke of Pope with very little reverence. ‘ He had,’ said Curll, ‘ a knack of versifying, but in prose I think myself a match for him.’ When the orders of the house were examined, none of them appeared to have been infringed: Curll went away triumphant, and Pope was left to seek some other remedy.

"Curll’s account was, that one evening a man in a clergyman’s gown, but with a lawyer’s band, brought and offered to sale a number of printed volumes, which he found to be Pope’s epistolary correspondence that he asked no name, and was told none, but gave the price demanded, and thought himself authorized to use his purchase to his own advantage. That Curll gave a true account of the transaction it is reasonable to believe, because no' falsehood was ever yet detected; and when, some years afterwards, I mentioned it to Lintot, the son of Bernard, he declared his opinion to be, that Pope knew better than any body else how Curll obtained the copies, because another parcel was at the same time sent to himself, for which no price had ever been demanded, as he made known his resolution not to pay a porter, and consequently not to deal with a nameless agent.

"Such care had been taken to make them public, that they were sent at once to two booksellers; to Curll, who was likely to seize them as a prey; and to Lintot, who might be expected to give Pope information of the seeming injury. Lintot, I believe, did nothing; and Curll did what was expected. That to make them public was the only purpose, may be reasonably supposed, because the numbers offered to sale by the private messenger, shewed that hope of gain could not have been the motive of the impression. __

“It seems that Pope, being desirous of printing his letters, and not knowing how to do, without imputation of vanity, what has in this country been done very rarely, contrived an appearance of compulsion: that, when he could complain that his letters were surreptitiously published, he might decently and defensively publish them himself.”

Such was the artifice, which, however, was soon detected, for no man could for a moment doubt that the letters were conveyed to Curll by Pope himself, that he might have a pretence for an edition, which, being avowed by himself, would obtain the preference over every other* Could a doubt remain, it must be removed by the notes and information respecting these letters in Mr. Bowles’s edition of his works. As to the letters themselves, Warton says “they are all over-crowded with professions of integrity and disinterestedness, with trite reflections on contentment and retirement; a disdain of greatness and courts; a contempt of fame and an affected strain of common-place morality.” Affectation indeed pervades the greater part of the correspondence, and those objects are mentioned with the greatest disdain, which were the objects of their highest ambition.

Returning to his more original publications, Pope nowissued those two dialogues which were named, from the year in which they appeared, “Seventeen hundred and thirty eight,” and are among the bitterest of satires. Ever/ species of sarcasm and mode of style are here alternately employed ridicule, reasoning, irony, mirth, seriousness, lamentation, laughter, familiar imagery, and high poetical painting. Although many persons in power were highly provoked, he does not appear to have been very directly menaced with a prosecution; but Paul Whitehead, who about this time wrote his “Manners,” and his publisher Dodsley, were called to an account, which was supposed to have been intended rather to intimidate Pope, than to punish Wintehead> and Pope appears to have taken the hint; for he discontinued a Third Dialogue, which he had begun, and never afterwards attempted to join the patriot with the poet. He had been led into this by his connection with the prince of Wales and the opposition, but he could not have long been of service to them. Had they come into office, he must have been either silent, or offensive, for he was both a Jacobite and a papist. Dr. Johnson says very justly that he was entangled in the opposition now, and had forgot the prudence with which he passed, in his earlier years, uninjured and unoffending, through much more violent conflicts of faction.

Ceasing therefore from politics, for which he was so unfit, he amused himself, in 1740, in republishing “Selecta Carmina Italorum,” taken, withgut acknowledgement, from the collection called “Anthologia,” 1684, 12mo, attributed to Atterbury, falsely, as Warton asserts, but justly accorcling to every other opinion. The work however is more imperfect than it would have been had he consulted other collections of the kind. His last performance shewed either that his own judgment was impaired, or that he yielded too easily to thatot Warburton, who now ad vised him to write the fourth book of the “Dunciad” and in 1743 he betrayed a yet greater want of judgment by printing a new edition of the Dunciad, in which he placed Cibber in the room of Theobald, forgetting how opposite their characters were. He had before this introduced Cibber with contemptuous mention in his satires, and Cibber resented both insults in two pamphlets which gave Pope more uneasiness than he was willing to allow.

The time was now approaching, however, in which all his contests were to end. About the beginning of 1744 his health and strength began visibly to decline. Besides his constant head achs, and severe rheumatic pains, he had been afflicted, for five years, with an asthma, which was suspected to be occasioned by a dropsy of the breast. In the month of May he became dangerously ill, and on the sixth was all day delirious, which he mentioned four clays afterwards as a sufficient humiliation of the vanity of man fte afterwards complained of seeing things as through a curtain, and in false colours, and one day asked what arm "it was that came out from the wall. He said that his greatest inconvenience was inability to think. Bolingbroke sometimes Wept over him in this state of helpless decay and being told by Spence, that Pope, at the intermission of his deliriousness, was always saying something kind either of his present or absent friends, and that his humanity seemed to have survived his understanding, answered,

* It has’so*:“and added,” I never in my life knew a man that had so tender a heart for his particular friends, or more general friendship for mankind.“At another time he said,” I have known Pope these thirty years, and value myself more in his friendship than“-his grief then suppressed his voice. Pope expressed undoubting confidence of a future state. Being asked by his friend Mr. Hooke, a papist, whether he would not die like his father and mother, and whether a priest should not be called he answered,” I do not think it is essential, but it will be very right: and I thank you for putting me in mind of it.“In the morning, after the priest had done his office, he said,” There is nothing that is meritorious but virtue and friendship, and indeed friendship itself is only a part of virtue." He died in the evening of May 30, 1744, so placidly, that the attendants did not discern the exact time of his expiration. He was buried at Twickenham, near his father and mother, where a monument was afterwards erected to him by Warburton.

Some idea of Pope’s character may be derived from the preceding particulars, and more may be learned from his biographers Ruffhead, Johnson, Warton, and Bowles. Many circumstances, however, still want explanation, although upon the whole we cannot be said to be ignorant of the temper and character of a man whose publications and Quarrels form a great part of the literary history of the first half of the eighteenth century, and of which some notice has been taken by every journalist, every critic, and every biographer, from his own to the present times. A large volume might be filled with even a moderate account of Pope’s contests, and less than such a volume perhaps woulcfy not be satisfactory.

We have already copied an expression of Dr. Warton’s, that Pope was invariably and solely a poet from the beginning of his life to the end and we may add from the same elegant critic, that his whole life, and every hour of it, in sickness and in health, was devoted with unremitting diligence, to cultivate that one art in which he had determined to excel, and in which he did excel. It is not our intention, however, to expatiate on his merits as a poet. What has been advanced by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Warton must supersede all other efforts; but we may be permitted to regret that he added so little to the dignity of the literary character, and that his passions were vulgar and vulgarly expressed. Never had the genus irritabile a more faithful representative. With abundant professions of philosophy, benevolence, and friendship, he thought no display of petty revenge, and no discharge of acrimony, beneath him and was continually endeavouring to promote his interest by quackish stratagems and idle artifices, often so poorly disguised as to expose him to immediate contempt; and all this at a time when he was confessedly at the head of the poetical list, and when his wealth was so great that he was mean enough to upbraid his adversaries for their want of it. “It would be hard,” says Johnson, “to find a man so well entitled to notice by his wit, that ever delighted so much in talking of his money. In his letters and in his poems, his gardens and his grotto, his quincunx and his vines, or some hints of his opulence, are always to be found. The great topic of his ridicule is poverty; the crimes with which he reproaches his antagonists are their debts, their habitation in the Mint, and their want of a dinner.”

In constitution he was constantly a valetudinarian. His person was deformed, and he was so feeble as not to be able to dress or undress himself without assistance. Such a state of body generally produces a certain degree of irritability and peevishness, which must naturally be greatly exasperated by a life of literary warfare. This was surely not the proper life for a man who, in his private habits was capricious and offensive, and who expected that every thing should give way to his humour. He was thus provoking contradictions, and risking mortifications, from which he. might have been free, if he could have lived on his own. ample treasures of genius and fame. But if Pope created enemies, he also conciliated friends, and had a pleasure in enumerating the men of high rank with whom he was acquainted, and to gain whose favour he practised no meanness or servility. It is indeed allowed that he never flattered those whom he did not love, or praised those whom he did not esteem. And as, from his infirmities and his capricious habits, he must have been a very disagreeable guest, his frequent reception in the houses and at the tables of men of high rank is a proof that there was much in his character to admire or esteem, and a presumption that some of the failings which have been reported of him may have been exaggerated by his enemies. “A man,” says his ablest biographer, “of such exalted superiority, and so little moderation, would naturally have all his delinquencies observed and aggravated: and those who could not deny that he was excellent, would rejoice to find that he was not perfect.” Unfortunately some of those imperfections were too obvious for concealment. Pope was, among other instances, with all his defects of person, a man of gallantry, and besides his presumptuous and ridiculous love for lady Mary Wortley Montague, carried on an intercourse with the Misses Blount, which certainly was not of the Platonic kind. From the account given by Mr. Bowles, in his recent Life of Pope, and the new Letters published in Mr. Bowles’s edition of his works, no great obscurity now rests on the nature of that connection.

This transient notice of the Misses Blount leads to a remark that he was not always fortunate in his friendships. Martha Blount, to whom he was most attached, deserted him in his last illness and Bolingbroke, whom we have seen weeping over the dying bard, and pouring out the effusions of the warmest affection for the friend he was about to lose, soon employed the hireling Mallet to blacken Pope’s character in the very article for which he thought him most estimable, the purity and honour of his friendships. We have already noticed this affair in our account of Mallet, (vol. XXI. p. 195,) and shall now only briefly say that, on Pope’s death, it was disclosed to Lord Bolingbroke by Mallet, who had his information from a printer, that Pope had printed an edition of the Essay on a “Patriot King.” But, as there has been much misconception and misrepresentation respecting this affair, we are happy to bd able, in this place, to state the circumstances attending it on unquestionable authority, that of a gentleman to whom the following particulars were more than once related by the late earl of Marchmont, and who, besides the obliging communication of them, has conferred the additional favour of permitting us to use his name, the Right Hon. George Rose.

Conformably to that determination, some copies of the Essay were printed, which were distributed to lord Cornbury, lord Marchmont, sir William Wyndham, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Pope, and lord Chesterfield one only havirfg been reserved. Mr. Pope put his copy into the hands of Mr. Allen, of Prior Park, near Bath, stating to him the injunction of lord Bolingbroke; but that gentleman was so captivated with it as to press Mr. Pope to allow him to print a small impression at his own expense, using such caution as should effectually prevent a single copy getting into the possession of any one, till the consent of the author should be obtained.

"Under a solemn engagement to that effect, Mr. Pope very reluctantly consented the edition was then printed, packed up, and deposited in a separate warehouse, of which Mr. Pope had the key.

“Qn th circumstance being made known to lord Bolingbroke, who was then a guest in his own house at Battersea with lord Marchmont, to whom he had lent it for two or three years, his lordship was in great indignation; to appease which, lord Marchmont sent Mr. Grevenkop (a German gentleman who had travelled with him, and was afterwards in the household of lord Chesterfield when lord lieutenant of Ireland,) to bring out the whole edition, of which a bonfire was instantly made on the terrace at Battersea.” This plain unvarnished tale, our readers will probably think, tends very much to strengthen the vindication which Warburton offered for his deceased friend, although he was ignorant of the concern Allen had in the matter; but it will be difficult to find an excuse for Bolingbroke, who, forgetting the honourable mention of him in Pope’s will, a thing quite incompatible with any hostile intention towards him, could employ such a man as Mallet to blast the memory of Pope by telling a tale of "breach of faith/ 1 with every malicious aggravation, and artfully concealing what he must have known, since lord Marchmont knew it, the share Allen had in the edition* of the Patriot King.

Of the editions of Pope’s works, it is unnecessary to mention any other than those of Warburton, and Johnson (the poems only), Warton, and the recent one by Mr. Bowles, which contains many additional letters and documents illustrative of Pope’s character and connections.

, founder of Trinity college, Oxford, was born at Dedington, in Oxfordshire, about the year 1508. His parents were William and Margaret Pope, the daughter of Edaiund Yate, of Stanlake, in Oxfordshire. She was the second wife of our founder’s father, and after his death in 1523, was again married to John Bustarde, of Adderbury, in the same county, whom she survived, and died in 1557. The circumstances of the family, if not opulent, were “decent and creditable.”

He held this office for five years, and during that time was appointed master, or treasurer, of the jswel- house in the Tower. In 1546, the court of augmentations was dissolved, and a new establishment on a more confined plan substituted. In this sir Thomas Pope was nominated master of the woods of the court on this side the river Trent., end was How a member of the privy council. It has been asserted that he was appointed one of the commissioners or Visitors under Cromwell, for dissolving the religions houses; but the only occasion, according to his biographer, in which he acted, was in the case of the Abbey of St. Albans. He was undoubtedly one of those into whose hands the seal of that abbey was surrendered in 1539, and it was to his interest with the king that we owe the preservation of the church now standing. But although there is no proof of his having been one of the visitors employed in the general dissolution, it is certain that his immense fortune arose from “that grand harvest of riches,” and diverted his thoughts from the regular profession of the law. Before 1556, he appears to have been actually possessed of more than thirty manors in the counties of Oxford, Gloucester, Warwick, Derby, Bedford, Hereford, and Kent, besides other considerable estates and several advowsons. Some of these possessions were given him by Henry VIII. but the greatest part was acquired by purchase while he was connected with the court of augmentations, and many of his estates were bought of queen Mary.

During the reign of Henry VIII. sir Thomas Pope was employed in various services and attendances about court, but in none of more affecting interest than when he was sent by the king to inform his old friend and patron, sir Thomas More, of the hour appointed for his execution. (See More.) On the accession of Edward VI. as he was not of the reformed religion, sir Thomas Pope received no favour or office; but when queen Mary succeeded, he was again made a privy councillor and cofferer to the household, and was often employed in commissions of considerable importance; nor are we surprized to find his name in a commission for the more effectual suppression of heretics, in concert with Bonner and others; but his conduct, when the princess (afterwards queen) Elizabeth was placed under his care in 1555, was far more to his credit. After having been imprisoned in the Tower and at Woodstock, she was permitted by her jealous sister to retire with sir Thomas Pope to Hatfield-house, in Hertfordshire, then a royal palace, where he shewed her every mark of respect that was consistent with the nature of his charge, and more than could have been expected from one of his rigid adherence to the reigning politics. After a residence here of four years, she was raised to the throne on the death of her sister Mary, Nov. 17, 1558, and on this occasion sir Thomas does not appear to have been continued in the privycouncil, nor had he afterwards any concern in political transactions. He did not, indeed, survive the accession of Elizabeth above a year, as he died Jan. 29, 1559, at his house in Clerkenwell, which was part of the dissolved monastery there. No circumstances of his illness or death have been discovered. Mr. Warton is inclined to think that he was carried off by a pestilential fever, which raged with uncommon violence in the autumn of 15p8. He was interred, in great state, in the parish church of St. Stephen’s,Walbrook, where his second wife, Margaret, had been before buried, and his daughter Alice. But in 1567 their bodies were removed to the chapel of Trinity college, and again interred on the north side of the altar under a tomb of gothic workmanship, on which are the recumbent figures of sir Thomas in complete armour, and his third wife Elizabeth, large as the life, in alabaster.

Sir Thomas Pope was thrice married. His first wife was Elizabeth Gunston, from whom he was divorced July 11, 1536. His second was Margaret Dodmer, widow, to whom he was married July 17, 1536. Her maiden name was Townsend, a native of Stamford in Lincolnshire, and the relict of Ralph Dodmer, knight, sheriff and lord-mayor of London. By sir Thomas Pope she had only one daughter, Alice, who died very young, but she had two sons by her former husband, whom sir Thomas treated as his own. She died in 1538, after which, in 1540, he married Elizabeth the daughter of Walter Blount, esq. of Blount’s Hall, in Staffordshire. She was at that time the widow of Anthony Basford, or Beresford, esq. of Bently, in Derbyshire, by whom she had one son, but no children by sir Thomas Pope. After Sir Thomas’s death she married sir Hugh Powlett, of Hinton St. George, in Somersetshire, the son of sir Amias Powlett, who was confined in the Temple by the order of cardinal Wolsey. Sir Hugh joined her cordially in her regard and attentions to the college, of which she was now styled the foundress. She died at an advanced age, Oct. 27, 1593, at Tyttenhanger, in Hertfordshire, the favourite seat of sir Thomas Pope, and was interred, in solemn pomp, in the chapel of Trinity college.

Mr. Warton’s character of sir Thomas Pope must not be omitted, as it is the result of a careful examination of his public and private conduct. He appears to have been a man eminently qualified for business; and although not employed in the very principal departments of state, he possessed peculiar talents and address for the management and execution of public affairs. His natural abilities were strong, his knowledge of the world deep and extensive, his judgment solid and discerning. His circumspection and prudence in the conduct of negociations entrusted to his charge, were equalled by his fidelity and perseverance. He is a conspicuous instance of one, not bred to the church, who, without the advantages of birth and patrimony, by the force of understanding and industry, raised himself, to opulence and honourable employments. He lived in an age when the peculiar circumstances of the times afforded obvious temptations to the most abject desertion of principle; and few periods of our history can be found which exhibit more numerous examples of occasional compliance with frequent changes. Yet he remained unbiassed and uncorrupted amid the general depravity. Under Henry VIII. when on the dissolution of the monasteries he was enabled by the opportunities of his situation to enrich himself with their revenues by fraudulent or oppressive practices, he behaved with disinterested integrity; nor does a single instance occur upon record which impeaches his honour. In the succeeding reign of Edward VI. a sudden check was given to his career of popularity and prosperity: he retained his original attachment to the catholic religion; and on that account lost those marks of favour or distinction which were so liberally dispensed to the sycophants of Somerset, and which he might have easily secured by a temporary submission to the reigning system. At the accession of Mary he was restored to favour; yet he was never instrumental or active in the tyrannies of that queen which disgrace our annals. He was armed with discretionary powers for the suppression of heretical innovations; yet he forbore to gratify the arbitrary demands of his bigoted mistress to their utmost extent, nor would he participate in forwarding the barbarities of her bloody persecutions. In the guardianship of the princess Elizabeth, the unhappy victim of united superstition, jealousy, revenge, and cruelty, his humanity prevailed over his interest, and he less regarded the displeasure of the vigilant and unforgiving queen, than the claims of injured innocence. If it be his crime to have accumulated riches, let it be remembered, that he consecrated a part of those riches, not amid the terrors of a death-bed, nor in the dreams of old age, but in the prime of life, and the vigour of understanding, to the public service of his country; that he gave them to future generations for the perpetual support of literature and religion.

Sir Thomas Pope was certainly in the prime of life when he determined to found a college, the necessity of which was to him apparent, from the actual state of the university, and the increasing zeal for literature, which had in less than half a century produced three new colleges in Oxford, and four in Cambridge. Like some of the most learned of his predecessors in these munificent acts, he saw the necessity of providing for classical literature, and his teacher of humanity is specially enjoined to inspire his scholars with a just taste for the graces of the Latin language, and to explain critically the works of Cicero, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, Plautus, Terence, Virgil, Horace, Livy, and Lucan. From these and other injunctions respecting the same subject, it may be inferred, that although Mr. Wavton has not made it a prominent feature in his character, the founder’s acquaintance with classical learning was not inferior to his other accomplishments.

The site chosen for his new foundation was at this time occupied by Durham college, which Edward VI. granted to George Owen, of Godstowe, the king’s physician, a man of great learning and eminence, and William Martyn, gentleman, in 1552; and sir Thomas purchased the premises of these gentlemen by indenture dated Feb. 20, 1554. On March 8, and March 28, he obtained from Philip and Mary a royal licence and charter to create and erect a college within the university of Oxford, under the title of Collegium Sanctæ Et Individuæ Trinitatis In Universitate Oxon. Ex Fundatione Thomæ Pope Militis. The society was to consist of a president, a priest, twelve fellows, four of whom should be priests, and eight scholars (afterwards increased to twelve) and the whole to be liberally and amply endowed with certain manors, lands, and revenues. They were to be elected out of the diocese and places where the college has benefices, manors, or revenues, more particularly in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Kent. The same charter empowered him to found and endow a school at Hokenorton, in Oxfordshire, to be called Jesus Scholehouse; and to give statutes both to the college and to the first and second masters of the said school. And by deed, dated March 28, 1555, he declared his actual erection and establishment df the said college, and the same day delivered possession, before a large concourse of witnesses, to the president, fellows, and scholars. In May following he supplied his college with necessaries and implements of every kind, books, furniture for the chapel, of the most costly kind; and next year he transmitted a body of statutes to the society, dated May 1, 1556. These statutes he had submitted to the revision of cardinal Pole, from whom he received some valuable hints. On the 8th of the same month, May, he gave them one hundred pounds as a stock for immediate purposes; and the endowment, by thirty-five manors, thirteen advowsons, besides impropriations and pensions, was completed before, or upon the feast of Annunciation, in the same year; and the first president, fellows and scholars, nominated by himself, were formally admitted within the chapel, May 30, on the eve of Trinity Sunday. During his life-time, the founder nominated the fellows and scholars, and afterwards delegated the power to his widow, dame Elizabeth, of nominating the scholars, and presenting to the advowsons, and this she continued to exercise during her long life, but with some interruptions, and some opposition. On one occasion the college rejected her nomination to a scholarship, and chose another candidate; but on an appeal to the visitor, he decided in her favour. She sometimes also nominated the fellows, and once a president. But both she and her husband, sir Hugh Powlett, were so liberal and punctual in fulfilling the founder’s intentions, and in contributing to the prosperity of the college, that she was in general obeyed with respect and gratitude.

Towards the end of the above year, 1658, and before his proctorship expired, he obtained leave to travel, but returned probably before 1660, as we then find him dean of Wadham college and when, in the same year Mr. (afterwards, sir) Christopher Wren resigned the professorship of astronomy in Gresham college, Mr. Pope was chosen in his room, and Sept. 12 of that year was created doctor of physic; but the statutes not permitting him to hold both, he was obliged on this occasion to resign his fellowship in Wadham. In May 1663 he was chosen one of the first fellows of the Royal Society along with the other eminent men whom the nation then yielded, and soon after had licence to travel for two years, during which he made the tour of Italy, and remitted to the Royal Society various observations collected on his journey. In 1667 he was chosen into the council of the Royal Society, and in the following year, his half-brother Dr. Wilkins, being promoted to the bishopric of Chester, made him registrar of that diocese. In 1686 he was recovered of an inflammation in his eyes, which endangered the loss of sight, by Dr. Turbervile, an eminent oculist, as he gratefully acknowledged in an epitaph which he wrote upon him after his deatii. In the following year he resigned his Gresham professorship.

Dr. Pope was a man of humour and a satirist, and in both characters had published in 1670 the “Memoirs of Mons. Du Vail, with his last speech and epitaph.” Du Vail was a notorious highwayman, who was hanged in 1669 at Tyburn, and having been much admired and bewailed by the ladies, our author by this piece of biography endeavoured to cure them of such weakness or affectation, and to direct their esteem to more worthy objects. In 1693, he published his well-known song called “The Wish,” or “The Old Man’s Wish,” which may be seen in Mr. Nichols’s collection of Miscellany Poems, and perhaps in every collection of English songs. Vincent Bourne wrote a beautiful imitation of it in Latin. This wish seems to have been in some measure accomplished in his own case, for in his life of bishop Ward, published in 1697, he says, “I thank God, I am arriv‘d to a good old age without gout, or stone, with my external senses but little decayed; and my intellectuals, tho’ none of the best, yet as good as ever they were.” In the following year he was involved in a tedious law-suit, which gave him much uneasiness, but what the subject was, his biographer has not discovered. In 1699 he withdrew from the Royal Society, designing Yery probably to retire into the country, and enjoy himself in some respects agreeably to his “Wish.” Accordingly he spent much of his time afterwards at Epsom, but at last settled in Bunhill fields, then a suburb of London, where he died, in a very advanced age, in June 1714, and was buried in the church of St. Giles’s Cripplegate.

He maintained an intimate friendship with two very emifcent and learned men, Mr. Rooke and Dr. Barrow; but his greatest friend and patron, next to his brother bishop Wilkins, was Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, whose life he wrote, and from whom he had a pension of lOOl. a year. His intimacy with this excellent prelate seems to contradict the character Anthony Wood gives of him, that he led “an” Epicurean and heathenish life,“but there was some cause of quarrel between Wood and Dr. Pope, and the former, we know, was too apt to put his resentments in writing. Pope wds a man of wit as well as learning, but certainly not a correct or elegant writer. He was a good French and Ita* lian scholar, and well acquainted also with the Spanish language. In the Philosophical Transactions (April 1665), is by him” Extract of a letter from Venice to Dr. Wilkins, concerning the mines of mercury in Friuli, &c.“and” Observations made at London upon an eclipse of the sun, June 22, 1666.“His other works are,” The Memoirs of Mons. Du Vail,“mentioned above, Lond. 1670, 4to;” Te the Memory of the most rerrowned Du Vail, a Pindaric Ode,“ibid. 1671, 4to, said in the title to be written by Butler, and since printed among his” Remains,“and in his” Works.“Dr. Pope wrote also” The Catholic Ballad,“and other verses, which are inserted in Mr. Nichols’s Col* lection;” Select Novels,“1694, from the Spanish of Cervantes and the Italian of Petrarch;” Moral and Political Fables, ancient and modern,“ibid. 1698, 8vo. But his most useful publication is” The Life of the Right Rev. Seth, Lord Bishop of Salisbury,“a small volume printed at London in 1697, which contains many anecdotes of that prelate’s contemporaries, Wilkins, Barrow, Rooke, Turberville, &c. Dr. Thos. Wood, a civilian, and relation of Ant. Wood, published some severe animadversions on this life in what he entitled” An Appendix to the Life, &c. in a Letter to the Author, &c." 1697, 12mo, but this is much more scarce than the other.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Mantua in 1534, of a good but decayed family. He was educated principally at Rome, and made such progress in learning, that the cardinal Hercules de Gonzaga made him his secretary, and intrusted him with the education of Francis and Scipio de Gonzaga, his nephews. After studying divinity at Padua, he was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1559. As a preacher, he had distinguished success, both in Italy and France; and having a very uncommon talent both for languages and for negociation, he was employed by pope Gregory XIII. in important embassies to Poland, Sweden, Germany, and other parts of Europe. When he returned to Rome, he laboured to effect a reconciliation between Henry IV“. of France and the court of Rome. This, however, displeased the Spanish court, by whom he was compelled to leave that city. He died at Ferrara, Feb. 26, 1611, being then seventy-eight years old. Possevin, though so deeply skilled in politics and knowledge of mankind, was a man of profound erudition and exemplary piety. The most important of his works are, 1.” Bibliotheca selecta, de ratione studiorum,“published at Rome in 1593, folio, and reprinted at Venice in 1607, in 2 vols. folio, with many augmentations. This work was intended as a general introduction to knowledge; at once to facilitate the approach to it, and to serve as a substitute for many books, the perusal of which the author considered as dangerous for young minds. Tt treats distinctly of every science, with great extent of learning, but not always with sufficient correctness. 2.” Apparatus sacer,“Cologne, 1607, 2 vols. folio. The intention of this book was to give a general knowledge of the commentators on the Scriptures, and other theological writers. Though the catalogues it contains were from the first imperfect and ill-digested, it was much circulated, as the best book of the time, and it contains notices of above six thousand authors. It is now become almost entirely useless. 3.” Moscovia," 1587, folio; a description of Russia, the fruit of some of his travels. 4. Some controversial and other theological books. 5. Some smaller works, written and published in Italian. Possevin’s Life was published by father Dorigny at Paris, 1712, 12mo.

, a very ingenious but visionary man, was by birth a Norman, of a small hamlet called Dolerie where he was born in 1510. Never did genius struggle with more vigour against the extremes of indigence. At eight years old, he was deprived of both his parents by the plague when only fourteen, unable to subsist in his native place, he removed to another near Pontoise, and undertook to keep a school. Having thus obtained a little money, he went to Paris, to continue his studies but there was plundered and suffered so much from cold, that he languished for two years in an hospital. When he recovered, he again collected a little money by gleaning irv the country, and returned to Paris, where he subsisted by waiting on some of the students in the college of St. Barbe; but made, at the same time, so rapid a progress in knowledge, that he became almost an universal scholar. His acquirements were so extraordinary, that they became known to the king, Francis I. who, touched with so much merit, under such singular disadvantages, sent him to the East to collect manuscripts. This commission he executed so well, that on his return, he was appointed royal professor of mathematics and languages, with a considerable salary. Thus he might appear to be settled for life; but this was not his destiny. He was, unfortunately for himself, attached to the chancellor Poyet, who fell under the displeasure of the queen of Navarre and Postel, for no other fault, was deprived of his appointments, and obliged to quit France. He now became a wanderer, and a visionary. From Vienna, from Rome, from the order of Jesuits, into which he had entered, he was successively banished for strange and singular opinions; for which also he was imprisoned at Rome and at Venice. Being released, as a madman, he returned 10 Paris, whence the same causes again drove him into Germany. At Vienna he was once more received, and obtained a professorship; but, having made his peace at home, was again recalled to Paris, and re-established in his places. He had previously recanted his errors, but relapsing into them, was banished to a monastery, where he performed acts of penitence, and died Sept. 6, 1581, at the age of seventy-one. Postel pretended to be much older than he was, and maintained that he had died and risen again which farce he supported by many tricks, such as- colouring his beard and hair, and even painting his face. For the same reason, in most of his works, he styles himself, “Postellus restitntus.” Notwithstanding his strange extravagances, he was one of the greatest geniuses of his time; had a surprising quickness and memory, with so extensive a knowledge of languages, that he boasted he could travel round the world without an interpreter. Francis I. regarded him as the wonder of his age Charles IX. called him his philosopher; and when he lectured at Paris, the crowd of auditors was sometimes so great, that they could only assemble in the open court of the college, while he taught them from a window. But by applying himself very earnestly to the study of the Rabbins, and of the stars, he turned his head, and gave way to the most extravagant chimeras. Among these, were the notions that women at a certain period are to have universal dominion over men that all the mysteries of Christianity are demonstrable by reason that the soul of Adam had entered into his body that the angel Raziel had revealed to him the secrets of heaven and that his writings were dictated by Jesus Christ himself. His notion of the universal dominion of women, arose from his attachment to an old maid at Venice, in consequence of which he published a strange and now very rare and high-priced book, entitled “Les tres-marveilieuseS victoires des Femmes du Nouveau Monde, et comme elles doivent par raison a tout le monde commander, et me' me a; eeux qui auront la monarchic du Monde viel,” Paris, 1553, 16mo. At the same time, he maintained, that the extraordinary age to which he pretended ttf have lived, was occasioned hy his total abstinence from all commerce with that sex. His works are as numerous as, they are strange and some of them are very scarce, hut very little deserve to be collected. One of the most important is entitled “De orbis concordia,” Bale, 1544, folio. In this the author endeavours to bring all the world to the Christian faith under two masters, the pope, in spiritual affairs, and the king of France in temporal. It is divided into four books; in the first of which he gives the proofs of Christianity; the second contains a refutation of the Koran; the third treats of the origin of idolatry, and all false religions and the fourth, on the mode of converting Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, Of his other works, amounting to twenty-six articles, which are enumerated in the “Dictionnaire Historique,” and most of them by Brunet as rarities with the French collectors, many display in their very titles the extravagance of their contents; such as, “Clavis absconditorum a, constitutione ixmndi,” Paris, 1547, 16mo; “De Ultimo judicio;” “Proto-evangelium,” &c. Some are on subjects of more real utility. But the fullest account of the whole may be found in a book published at Liege in 1773, entitled “Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur 3a Vie et les ouvrages de Guillaume Postel,” by father des Billons. The infamous book, “De tribus impostoribus,” has been very unjustly attributed to Postel, for, notwithstanding all his wildness, he was a believer.

In 1635 he was promoted to the deanery of Worcester, having before had a promise of a canonry of Windsor, which he never enjoyed. In 1640 he was vice-chancellor of the university of Oxford, in the execution of which office he met with some trouble from the members of the long parliament. Upon breaking out of the civil wars, he sent all his plate to the king, and declared, that he would rather, like Diogenes, drink in the hollow of his hand, than that his majesty should want; and he afterwards suffered much for the royal cause. In consideration of this, upon the death of Dr. W r alter Balcanqual, he was nominated to the deanery of Durham in January 1645-6; but was prevented from being installed by his death, which happened at his college March the 3d following. He was interred about the middle of the chapel there and over his grave was a marble monument fastened to the north wall, at the expence of his widow Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. Charles Sonibanke, some time canon of Windsor, afterwards wife of Dr. Gerard Langbaine, who succeeded Dr. Potter in the provostship of Queen’s college. He was a person esteemed by all that knew him to be learned and religious exemplary in his behaviour and discourse, courteous in his carriage, and of a sweet and obliging nature, and comely presence. But he was more especially remarkable for his charity to the poor; for though he had a wife and many children, and expected daily to be sequestered, yet he continued his usual liberality to them, having, on hearing Dr. Hammond’s sermon at St. Paul’s, been per* suaded of the truth of that divine’s assertion, that charity to the poor was the way to grow rich. He translated from Italian into English, “Father Paul’s History of the Quarrels of Pope Paul V. with the State of Venice,” London, 1626, 4to and left several Mss. prepared for the press, one of which, entitled “A Survey of the Platform of Predestination,” falling into the hands of Dr. William Twisse, of Newbury, was answered by him. This subject perhaps is more fully discussed in his controversy with Mr. Vicars, which was republished at Cambridge in 1719, in a “Collection of Tracts concerning Predestination and Providence.” The reader to whom this “Collection” may not be accessible, will find an interesting extract, from Dr.Potter’s part, in Dr. Wordsworth’s “Ecclesiastical Biography,” vol. V. p. 504, &c. Chillingworth likewise engaged in the controversy against Knott.

, an excellent classical scholar and translator, was born in 1721; but where, or of what family, we have not discovered. He was educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1741, but that of master not until 1788, according to the published list of Cambridge graduates, probably owing to his being then made a dignitary in Norwich cathedral. His first preferment was the vicarage of Seaming in Norfolk, in the gift of the Warner family; and, until he completed his translation of Sophocles, he held no higher preferment. In 1774, he published, in octavo, a volume of poems, some of which had appeared before separately: they consist of, “A Birth-day Thought;” “Cynthia;” “Verses to the same;” “Retirement, an epistle to Dr. Hurd” “A Fragment” “Verses to the painter of Mrs. Longe’s picture at Spixworth” “An Ode to Philoclea” “Verses to the same, exemplifying the absurdity of an affected alliteration in poetry” “Two Pieces in imitation of Spenser” “Holkham, inscribed to the earl of Leicester” “Kymber, to Sir A. Woodhouse” and a chorus from the “Hecuba” of Euripides, his intended translation of whose tragedies he announces in an advertisement. In most of these poems, particularly the “Holkham,” and “Kymber,” he shews himself a successful imitator of Pope. In the following year he published a very judicious tract, entitled “Observations on the Poor Laws, on the present state of the Poor, and on houses of Industry,” in which his principal object was, to recommend houses of industry, upon the plan of those already established in some parts of Norfolk and. Suffolk, particularly that at Bulcamp.

, a learned popish divine, was bora about the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was educated at Oxford. He appears to have been fellow of Oriel college in 1495, and afterwards became D. D. and was accounted one of the ornaments of the university. In November 1501, he was made rector of Bledon, in the diocese of Wells, and in July 1503 was collated to the prebend Centum solidorum, in the church of Lincoln, as well as to the prebend of Carleton. In 1508, by the interest of Edmund Audley, bishop of Salisbury, he was made prebendary of that church, and in 1525 became prebendary of Sutton in Marisco, in the church of Lincoln. In November 1514, Pope Leo gave him a licence to hold three benefices, otherwise incompatible. His reputation for learning induced Henry VIII. to employ him to write against Luther, which he did in a work entitled “Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii evangelici, ac septenarii sacramentorum numeri adversus M. Lutherum, fratrem famosum, et Wickliffistam insignem,” Lond. 1523, 4to. This performance, says Dodd, was commonly allowed to be the best that had hitherto been published. There are two public letters from the university of Oxford, one to the king, the other to bishop Audley, applauding the choice of a person so well qualified to maintain the cause of the church and in these letters, they style him the glory of their university, and recommend him as a person worthy of the highest preferment. But all this could not protect him from the vengeance of Henry VIII. when he came to employ his learning and zeal in defence of queen Catherine, and the supremacy of the see of Rome, on both which articles he was prosecuted, hanged, drawn, and quartered in Smithfield, July 30, 1540, along with Dr. Thomas Abel, and Dr. Richard Fetherstone, who suffered on the same account. He wrote in defence of queen Catherine, “Tractatus de uon dissolvendo Henrici regis cum Catherina matrimonio” but it is doubtful if this was printed. Stow, indeed, says it was printed in 4to, and that he had seen it, but no copy is now known. Mr. Churton, in his “Lives of the Founders of Brazenose college,” mentions Dr. Powell’s preaching a Latin sermon, in a very elegant style, at the visitation of bishop Smyth at Lincoln.

, an eminent lawyer and judge, was the son of Thomas Price, esq of Geeler in Denbighshire, and born in the parish of Kerigy Druidion, Jan. 14, 1653. After an education at the grammar-school of Wrexham, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for his profession, left the university without taking a degree, and entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn about 1673. In 1677 he made what was called the grand tour, in company with the earl of Lexington, and lady and sir John Meers. When at Florence, we are told that he was apprehended, and some law-books taken from him; and his copy of “Coke upon Littleton” being supposed, by some ignorant officer, to be an English heretical Bible, Mr. Price was carried before the pope where he not only satisfied his holiness as to this work, but made "him a present of it, and the pope ordered it to be deposited in the Vatican library. In 1679 he returned, and married a lady of fortune; from whom, after some years’ cohabitation, he found it necessary to be separated, on account of the violence of her temper. In 1682 he was chosen member of parliament for Weobly in Herefordshire, and gave nis hote against the bill of exclusion. The same year he was made attorney-general for South Wales, elected an alderman for the city of Hereford, and the year following was chosen recorder of Radnor. His high reputation for knowledge and integrity procured him the office of steward to the queen dowager (relict of Charles II.) in 1684; he was also chosen townclerk of the city of Gloucester; and, in 1686, king’s counsel at Ludlow. Being supposed to have a leaning towards the exiled family, he was, after the revolution, removed from tn*e offices of attorney-general for South Wales and town-clerk of Gloucester. In resentment for this affront, as his biographer insinuates, or from a more patriotic motive, he opposed king William’s grant of certain lands in Wales to his favourite, earl of Portland, and made a memorable speech on this occasion in the House of Commons; the consequence of which was, that the grant was rejected.

, in Latin Priolus, author of an History of France from the death of Louis XIII. in 1643 to 1664, was born in 1602. He was descended from the Prioli, an illustrious family, some of whom had been doges of Venice. He underwent some difficulties from losing his father and mother, when young; but these did not abate his passion for learning, which he indulged day and night. He studied first at Orthez, next at Montauban, and afterwards at Leyden in which last city he profited by the lectures of Heinsius and Vossius. He went to Paris, for the sake of seeing and consulting Grotius and afterwards to Padua, where he learned the opinions of Aristotle and other ancient philosophers, under Cremoninus and Licetus. After returning to France, he went again into Italy, in order to be recognized by the house of Prioli, as one of their relations. He devoted himself to the duke of Rohan, then in the Venetian service, and became one of his most intimate confidents; but, uncertain what his fate would be after this duke’s death, he retired to Geneva, having married, three months before, a lady of a very noble family. The duke de Longueville drew him from this retirement, upon his being appointed plenipotentiary from the court of France for the treaty of Munster, as a person whose talents might be of service to him and Priolo resided with him a year at Munster, where he contracted a very intimate friendship with Chigi the nuncio, % who was afterwards pope Alexander VII. From Munster he returned to Geneva; whence he went to France, in order to settle at Paris. He stayed six months in Lyons, and there had frequent conferences with cardinal Francis Barberini the effect of which was, that himself and his whole family abjured the Protestant religion, and immediately received the communion from the hands of the cardinal. He was not, however, long easy at Paris for, the civil war breaking out soon after, he joined with the malecontents, which proved the ruin of his fortune. He was obliged to retire to Flanders, his estate was confiscated, and his family banished. Being afterwards restored to the favour of his sovereign, he resolved to lead a private life, and to devote himself to study. It was at this time, and to divert his melancholy, that he wrote, without the least flattery or partiality, his “History of France,” in Latin. It has gone through several impressions but the best edition is that of Leipsic, 1686, 8vo. He was again employed in negociations; and set out, in 1667, upon a secret affair to Venice; but did not arrive at the end of his journey, being seized with an apoplectic fit, of which he died in the archbishop’s palace at Lyons. He left seven children; who, by virtue of his name, and their own accomplishments and merit, rose to very flourishing circumstances.

"He was, however, in Pope’s opinion, fit only to make verses, and less qualified for business than Addison himselfThis was surely said without consideration. Addison, exalted to a high place, was forced into degradation by a sense of his own incapacity; Prior, who was employed by men very capable of estimating his value, having been secretary to one embassy, had, when great abilities were again wanted, the same office another time; and was, after so much experience of his knowledge and dexterity, at last sent to transact a negociation in the highest degree arduous and important, for which he was qualified, among other requisites, in the opinion of Bolingbroke, by his influence upon the French minister, and by skill in questions of commerce above other men.

, of Aquitaine, a celebrated, learned and pious writer, in the 5th century, and one of the greatest defenders of the grace of Christ, after St. Augustine, was secretary to St. Leo, and is even supposed by some critics to have been author of the epistle addressed by that pope to Flavian against the Eutychian heresy. Prosper had before zealously defended the books of St. Augustine, to whom he wrote in the year 429, concerning the errors of the SemiPelagians, which had recently appeared in Gaul and after St. Augustine’s death, he continued to support his doctrine, which he did in a candid and argumentative manner. Prosper answered the objections of the priests of Marseilles, refuted the conferences of Cassian, in a book entitled “Contra Collatorem,” and composed several other works, in which he explains the orthodox doctrine, with the skill of an able divine, against the errors of the Pelagians and Semi- Pelagians. Many learned men have asserted, with great appearance of probability, that Prosper was only a layman but others, with very little foundation, suppose him to have been bishop of Reggio in Italy, or rather of Riez in Provence. The time of his death is not ascertained, but he was alive in 463. The best edition of his works is that of Paris, 1711, folio, by M. Mangeant, reprinted at Rome, 1732, 8vo. Prospers poem against the Ungrateful, i. e. against the enemies of the grace of Christ, is particularly admired. M. le Maistre de Sacy has given an elegant translation of it in French verse, 12mo. Our author must be distinguished, however, from another Prosper, who lived about the same time, and went from Africa, his native country, into Italy, to avoid the persecution of the Vandals. This Prosper, called “the African,” was author of a treatise on the Call of the Gentiles, which is esteemed, and of the “Epistle to the Virgin Demetriade,” in the “Appendix Angustiniana,” Antwerp, 1703, fo].

Prynne has been thought an honest man, for opposing equally Charles, the army, and Cromwell, when he thought they were betrayers of the country; and after having accurately observed, and sensibly felt, in his own person, the violation of law occasioned by each of them, he gave his most strenuous support to the legal and established government of his country, effected by the restoration of Charles II. The earl of Clarendon calls him learned in the law, as far as mere reading of books could make him learned. His works are all in English; and, “by the generality of scholars,” says Wood, “are looked upon to be rather rhapsodical and confused, than any way polite or concise: yet for antiquaries, critics, and sometimes for divines, they are useful. In most of them he shews greatindustry, but little judgment, especially in his large folios against the pope’s usurpations. He may be well entitled ‘voluminous Prynne,’ as Tostatus Abulensis was, two hundred years before his time, called ‘ voluminous Tostatus;’ for I verily believe, that, if rightly computed, he wrote a sheet for every day of his life, reckoning from the time when he came to the use of reason and the state of man.” Many of his works have lately been in request, and have been purchased at high prices. Whether they are more read than before, is not so certain; but much curious matter might be extracted by a patient and laborious reader, which would throw light on the controversies and characters of the times. He was himself perhaps one of the most indefatigable students. He read or wrote during the whole clay, and that he might not be interrupted, had no regular meals, but took, as he wanted it, the humble refreshment of bread, cheese, and ale, which were at his elbow.

, of Lucca, an ecclesiastical historian in the fourteenth century, was descended from a noble family, from whom he derived the name of “Bartholomew Fiadoni,” but took that of Ptolemy when he entered into the order of St. Dominic. He became superior of the monastery both at Lucca and Florence. He was afterwards selected by pope John XXII. as his confessor, and in 1318 he was tnade bishop of Torcello, under the patriarchate of Venice. This prelate died in 1327. He was the first of the Italians who studied and wrote on church history. His “Annales” extend from 1060 to 1303, and was published at Lyons in 1619. His largest work was “Historiae Ecclesiastic,” in twenty-four books, commencing with the birth of Jesus Christ, and brought down to 1313. This, after remaining long in ms. was at length published at Milan in 1727, by Muratori, in his grand collection, entitled “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.”

, an English cardinal who flourished in the twelfth century, was distinguished as a zealous friend to the interests of literature. He is placed by Fuller as a native of Oxfordshire, perhaps from his ciditnectioa with the university. In his youth he studied at 1?aris, and about 1130 returned to England, where he found the university of Oxford ravaged and nearly ruined by the Danes, under the reign of Harold I. and by his indefatigable exertions contributed to itsv restoration. The Chronicle of Osny records him as having begun in the reign of Henry I. to read the Scriptures at Oxford, which were grown obsolete, and it is supposed he commented on Aristotle. Rouse, the Warwick antiquary, mentions his reading the Holy Scriptures, probably about 1134, about which time he had a patron in Henry I. who had built his palace near the university. For some years he taught daily in the schools, and was rewarded with the archdeaconry of Rochester. After this he returned to Paris, where he filled the chair of professor of divinity. He was, however, recalled by his metropolitan, and the revenues of his benefice sequestered till he obeyed the summons. The archdeacon appealed to the see of Rome, and sentence was given in his favour. The fame of his learning induced pope Innocent II. to invite him to Rome, where he was received with great marks of honour; and in 1144 was created cardinal by Celestine II. and afterwards chancellor of the Roman church, by pope Lucius II. He died in 1150. He was author of several works; but the only one of them now extant is his “Sententiarum Liber,” which was published at Paris in 1655. It differs in some measure from the general character of the times as he prefers the simple authority of reason and scripture to the testimony of the fathers, or the subtlety of metaphysics.

Pulteney placed himself at the head of the discontented whigs; and, in conjunction with Bolingbroke, his ancient antagonist, he became the principal supporter of the “Craftsman” to which paper he gave many essays, and furnished hints and observations. The controversy in 1731, which passed between Pulteney and Walpole' s friends and pamphleteers, widened the breach, and rendered it irreparable. The “Craftsman” was full of invectives against Walpole, and the measures of his administration. Jn answer to this paper, a pamphlet was published under the title of “Sedition and Defamation displayed,” which contained a scurrilous abuse of Pulteney and Bolingbroke. Pulteney’s opposition is here wholly attributed, and surely not very unjustly, to disappointed ambition and personal pique. In answer to this pamphlet, which Pulteney supposed to be written by lord Hervey, the great friend and supporter of sir Robert Walpole, he wrote “A proper reply to a late scurrilous libel, &c. by Caleb D'Anvers, of Gray’s Inn, esq.;” and introduced a character of sir Robert, which does not yield in scurrility or misrepresentation to that of Pulteney, given in “Sedition and Defamation displayed.” The author also treated lord Hervey (Pope’s lord Hervey) with such contempt and ridicule, in allusion to his effeminate appearance, as a, species of half man and half woman, that his lordship was highly offended: a duel ensued, and Pulteney slightly wounded his antagonist. Pulteney afterwards acknowledged his mistake, when he found that the pamphlet was not written by lord Hervey, but appears to have made a similar mistake in ascribing it to Walpole; for it was the production of sir William Yonge, secretary at war.

In this manner he continued inflexibly severe, attacking the measures of the minister with a degree of eloquence and sarcasm that worsted every antagonist; and sir Robert was often heard to say, that he dreaded his tongue more than another man’s sword. In 1738, when opposition ran so high, that several members openly left the House, as finding that party, and not reason, carried it in every motion, Pulteney thought proper to vindicate the extraordinary step which they had taken; and, when a motion was made for removing sir Robert Walpole, he warmly supported it. What a single session could not effect, was at length brought about by time; and, in 1741, when sir Robert found his place of prime minister no longer tenable, he wisely resigned all his employments, and was created earl of Orford. His opposers also were assured of being provided for; and, among other promotions, Pulteney himself was sworn of the privy-council, and soon afterwards created earl of Bath. He had long lived in the very focus of popularity, and was respected as the chief bulwark against the encroachments of the crown; but, from, the moment he accepted a title, all his favour with the people was at an end, and the rest of his life was spent in contemning that applause which he no longer could secure. What can be said in his favour has been candidly stated by the biographer of his great antagonist. Dying without issue, June 8, 1764, his title became extinct; and his only son, having died some time before in Portugal, the paternal estate devolved to his brother, the late lieutenantgeneral Pulteney. Besides the great part he bore in “The Craftsman,” he was the author of many political pamphlets; in the drawing up and composing of which no man of his time was supposed to exceed him. Lord Orford, who has introduced him among his Royal and Noble Authors, says, that his writings will be better known bv his name, than his name will be by his writings, though his prose had much effect, and his verses (for he was a poet) were easy and graceful. " Both were occasional, and not dedicated to the love of fame. Good-humour, and the spirit of society, dictated his poetry ambition and acrimony his political writings. The latter made Pope say,

Still he was allowed to have accumulated a great fund of learning. Bullart says, “It was the great learning of Puteanus, which, having won the heart of Urban VIII. deter* mined that great pope to send him his portrait in a gold medal, very heavy, with some copies of his works. It was that same learning, which engaged cardinal Frederic Borromeo to receive him into his palace, when he returned to Milan. It was also his learning, which made him tenderly beloved by the count de Fuentes, governor of Milan and afterwards by the archduke Albert, who, having promoted him to Justus Lipsius’s chair, admitted him also most honourably into the number of his counsellors. Lastly, it was his learning; which made him so much esteemed in the chief courts of Europe, and occasioned almost all the princes, the learned men, the ambassadors of kings, and the generals of armies, to give him proofs of their regard in the letters they wrote to him; of which above sixteen thousand were found in his library, all placed in a regular order. He had the glory to save the king of Poland’s life, by explaining an enigmatical writing drawn up in unknown characters, which no man could read or understand, and which contained the scheme of a conspiracy against that prince.” He was also, in his private character, a man of piety, of an obliging disposition, andremarkable not only for his kindness to his scholars, but for many good offices to his countrymen in every case of need. The archduke Albert, as Bullart notices, nominated him one of his counsellors, and entrusted him with the government of the castle of Louvain. He died at Louvain Sept. 17, 1646, in the seventy-second year of his age. Nicolas Vernulaeus pronounced his funeral oration, and his life was published by Milser with an engraved portrait.

Peter Du Puy had two brothers the eldest Christopher, was also a friend of Thuanus, and when at Rome, had influence enough to prevent the first part of his history from being put on the list of prohibited books. He was an ecclesiastic, had obtained some promotion, and would have received higher marks of esteem from pope Urban VIII. had he not taken part with his brothers in resisting the usurpations of the court of Rome. He is the author of the “Perroniana,” published in 1669 by Daille. He died in 1654. The other brother, James Du Puy, who died in 1656, was prior of St. Saviour’s, and librarian to the king, and assisted his brother in some of his works. To the royal library he was an important benefactor, bequeathing to it his own and his brother’s collection, amounting to 9000 volumes of printed books, and about 300 manuscripts. He published a very useful list of the Latiliized names in Thuanus’ history, at Geneva, in 1614, 4to, which was reprinted under the title of “Resolutio omnium difficultatum,” Ratisbon, 1696, 4to. He published also a catalogue of Thuanus’s library, and an improved edition of “Instructions et missives des Rois de France et de leurs ambassadeurs au Concile de Trente,” Paris, 1654, 4to.

From his earliest days Mr. Pye was devoted to reading. When he was about ten years old, his father put Pope’s Homer into his hand: the rapture which he received from this exquisite paraphrase of the Grecian bard was never to be forgotten, and it completely fixed him a rhymer for' life, as he pleasantly expressed it. To this early love of reading Mr. Pye was indebted for the various learning he possessed. His first literary production, probably, was an “Ode on the birth of the Prince of Wales,” published in the Oxford Collection and the following distinct publications have successively appeared from his prolific pen 1.“Beauty > a poetical essay,” 1766. 2. “'Elegies on different occasions,” 1768, 4to. 3. “The Triumph of Fashion, a vision,” 1771, 4to. 4. “Faringdon Hill, a poem in two books,” 1774, 4to. 5. “Six Olympic Odes of Pindar, being those omitted by Mr. West, translated into English verse, with notes,” 1775, 12mo. 6. “The Art of War, a poem, translated from the French of the king of Prussia,” written and published in 1778, at his leisure hours during the encampment at Coxheath. 7. “The Progress of Refinement, a poem, in three parts,” 1783, 4to; forming a history of the procedure of the human mind, in manners, learning, and taste, from the first dawnings of cultivated life to the present day. The poem displays the great knowledge of the author, the elegance of his genius, and the soundness of his judgment. His descriptions are just and beautiful, and his versification correct, polished, and harmonious. 8. “Shooting, a poem,” 1784, 4to. 9. “Poems on various Subjects,” in two vols. 8vo, in which several of the beforementioned pieces were collected, and a few new ones added, 1787. 10. “An elegant and very faithful English Translation of the Song of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, is to be found, among other excellent pieces, in this collection. 11.” A Translation of the Poetics of Aristotle, first published in an octavo volume in 1788, and afterwards prefixed to a Commentary on that Work, published in a quarto volume. 12. “Amusement, a poetical essay,” 1790. 13. “The Siege of Meaux, a tragedy, in three acts,” acted at Covent-Garden theatre, 1794, 8vo. 14. “The War Elegies of Tyrtseus imitated, and addressed to the people of Great Britain with some Observations on the Life and Poems of TyrtEeus,” 1795. 15. “The Democrat; interspersed with Anecdotes of well-known Characters,” 1795, 2 vols. 12mo. 16. “Lenore, a tale, translated from the German of Gottfried Augustus Burger,” 1796, 4to. Of the several translations of this tale which have appeared, Mr. Pye’s is esteemed the best but nei r ther English morals nor English taste are likely to be benefited by the translation of such poems as “Lenore.” 17. “Naucratia, or Naval dominion, a poem,” 2d edit. 1798. 18. “The Inquisitor, a tragedy in five acts, altered from the German by the late James Petit Andrews and Henry James Pye,” 1798, 8vo. 19. “The Aristocrat, by the author of the Democrat,” 1799, 2 vols. 12mo. 2O. “Carmen Seculare for the year 1800.” 21. “Adelaide, a tragedy,” acted at Drury-lane theatre, 1800, 8vo, but calculated rather for the closet than the stage. 22. “Alfred, an epic poem in six books,” 1802, 4to. 23. “Verses on several subjects, written in the vicinity of Stoke Park, in the summer and autumn of 1801,” 1802. sm. 8vo. 24. “A second Collection of his Poems, in two octavo volumes, comprising, besides several of those already mentioned, a volume of sketches on various subjects and a translation of Xenophon’s Defence of the Athenian Democracy, with, notes.” 25. “A Prior Claim, a comedy,” acted at Drurylane Theatre, 1805, 8vo, in which he was assisted by Mr. Samuel James Arnold, his son-in-law. 26. “Comments on the Commentators on Shakspeare with preliminary observations on his genius and writings, and on the labours of those who have endeavoured to elucidate them,” 1807, 8vo. 27. “A Translation of the Hymns and Epigrams of Homer,” 1810. He published also many occasional poems, besides his odes for the new year, for his majesty’s birthday, and for the anniversary of the Literary Fund, which are preserved in the magazines. Mr. Pye died Aug. 11, 1813, in the sixty-ninth year of his age.

, an English poet, was born in the year 1592, at Stewards, near Romford in Essex, and baptized on May 8 of that year. His family was of some consideration in the county of Essex, and possessed of several estates in Romford, Hornchurch, Dagenham, &c. In Romford church are registered the deaths of his grandfather, sir Robert Quarles, and his two wives and daughters, and James Quarles, his father, who died Nov. 16, 1642. He was clerk of the green cloth, and purveyor of the navy, to queen Elizabeth. Our poet was educated at Christ’s cbllege, Cambridge, and Lincoln’s-inn, London. His destination seems to have been to public life, for we are told he was preferred to the place of cup-bearer to Elizabeth, daughter of James 1. electress palatine and queen of Bohemia; but quitted her service, very probably upon the ruin of the elector’s affairs, and went over to Ireland, where he became secretary to archbishop Usher. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion in that kingdom, in 1641, he suffered greatly in his fortune, and was obliged to fly for safety to England. But here he did not meet with the quiet he expected; for a piece of his, styled “The Royal Convert,” having given offence to the prevailing powers, they took occasion from that, and from his repairing to Charles I. at Oxford, to hurt him as much as possible in his estates. But we are told, that what he took most to heart was, being plundered of his books, and some manuscripts which he had prepared for the press. The loss of these is supposed to have hastened his death, which happened Sept. 8, 1644, when he was buried in the church of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, London. Quarles was also chronologer to the city of London. What the duties of this place were, which is now abolished, we know not but his wife Ursula, who prefixed a short life of him to one of his pieces, says that “he held this place till his death, and would have given that city (and the world) a testimony that he was their faithful servant therein, if it had pleased God to blesse him with life to perfect what he had begun.” Mr. Headley observes, that Mr. Walpole and Mr. Granger have asserted, that he had a pension from Charles I. though they produce no authority and he thinks this not improbable, as the king had taste to discover merit, and generosity to reward it. Pope, however, asserted the same thing, and probably had authority for it, although he did not think it necessary to quote it:

, an Italian poet, was born at Monopolis in the kingdom of Naples; and acquired in his early years a great facility in extempore verses. He went to Rome about 1514, with a poem of twenty thousand lines, called Alexias. Some young gentlemen of that city professed great friendship to him they treated him in the country, and at a feast crowned him arch-poet so that he was not known afterwards by any other name. Leo X. who, upon certain occasions, was not averse to buffoonery, delighted in his company, and caused him to be served with meat from his own table and Querno, being an excellent parasite, humoured him very exactly. He was obliged to make a distich extempore, upon whatever subject was given him even though he was at the time ill of the gout, with which he was extremely troubled. Once, when the fit was on him, he made this verse, “Archipoeta facit versus pro mille poetis,” and, as he hesitated in composing the second, the pope readily and wittily added, “Et pro mille aliis Archipoeta bibit.” Querno, hastening to repair his fault, cried, “Porrige, quod faciat mihi carmina docta, Falernum,” to which the pope instantly replied, “Hoc vinum enervat, debilitatque pedes,” alluding either to the gout in his feet, or to the feet of his verses. After the taking of Rome, he retired to Naples, where he suffered much during the wars in 1528, and died there in the hospital. He used to say, “He had found a thousand wolves, after he had lost one lion.”

, a celebrated French ecclesiastic, was born July 14, 1634, at Paris. He entered the congregation of the Oratory, Nov. 17, 1657, and devoted himself wholly to the study of Scripture, and the Fathers, and the composition of works of piety. When scarcely twenty-eight, he was appointed first director of the Institution of his order, at Paris, under father Jourdain; and began, in that house, his famous book of “Moral Reflections” on each verse of the New Testament, for the use of young pupils of the Oratory. This work originallyconsisted only of some devout meditations on our Saviour’s words; but M. de Lomenie, who, from being minister and secretary of state, had entered the Oratory, the marquis de Laigue, and other pious persons, being pleased with this beginning, requested father Quesnel to make similar reflections on every part of the four Gospels. Having complied, M. de Laigue mentioned the book to Felix de Vialart, bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne and that prelate, who was. much celebrated for his piety, adopted the work in his diocese, and recommended the reading- of it by a mandate of November 9, 1671, after having had it printed at Paris by Pralard the same year, with consent of the archbishop Harlai, the royal privilege, and the approbation of the doctors. Father Quesnel afterwards assisted in a new edition of St. Leo’s works. When De Harlai banished father De Sainte Marthe, general of the Oratory, he obliged father Quesnel, who was much attached to him, to retire to Orleans 1681. The general assembly of the Oratory having ordered, in 1684, the signature of a form of doctrine, drawn up in 1678, respecting various points of philosophy and theology, father Quesnel refused to sign it, and withdrew into the Spanish Netherlands, in February 1685. He took advantage of the absurd mixture of philosophy and theology introduced into this form. After this he went to M. Arnauld at Brussels, residing with him till his death, and there finished the “Moral Reflections” on the whole New Testament; which, thus completed, was first published in 1693 and 1694, and approved in 1695, by cardinal de Noailles, then bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne, who recommended it by a mandate to his clergy and people. When the same prelate became archbishop of Paris, he employed some divines to examine these “Reflections” carefully and it was after this revisal that they were published at Paris, 1699. This edition is more ample than any other. The celebrated archbishop of Meaux was also engaged on the subject; and “The Justification of the Moral Reflections, against the Problem,” appeared under his name 1710. The famous Case of Conscience gave occasion for renewing the disputes about the signature of the Formulary, and the subject of Grace. Father Quesnel was arrested at Brussels, May 30, 1703, by order of the archbishop of Malines, and committed to prison but Don Livio, a young Spaniard, employed by the marquis d'Aremberg, released him September 13th following, and he remained concealed at Brussels till October 2; then quitted that place for Holland, where, arriving in April 1704, he published several pieces against the archbishop of Malines, who condemned him by a sentence dated November 10, 1704. This sentence father Quesnel attacked, and wrote in 1705 two tracts to prove it null one entitled, “Idee generale du Libelle, public en Latin,” &c. the other, “Anatomic de la Sentence de M. l'Archeveque de Malines.” Several pieces appeared, soon after, against the book of “Moral Reflections” two had been published before one entitled, “Le Pere Quesnel heretique” the other, “Le Pere Quesnel Seditieux.” These publications induced pope Clement XI. to condemn it altogether, by a decree of July 15, 1708; but this decree did not appease the contest, and father Quesnel refuted it with great warmth, 1709, in a work entitled “Entretiens sur le Décret de Rome, contre le Nouveau Testament de Chalons, accompagne de reflexions morales.” In the mean time, the bishops of Lucon, la Rochelle, and Gap, condemned his book by mandates, which were to be followed and supported by a letter addressed to the king, and signed by the greatest part of the French bishops. This was sent to them, ready drawn p but the plan was partly defeated for a packet intended by the abbe Bochart de Saron for the bishop of Clement, his uncle, and which contained a copy of the letter to the king, fell into the hands of cardinal de Noailles, and much contusion ensued. At length, the disputes on this subject still continuing, pope Clement XL at the solicitation of Louis XIV. published, September 8, 1713, the celebrated bull beginning with the words, “Unigenitus Dei Filius,” by which he condemned father Quesnel’s book, with 101 propositions extracted from it, and every thing that had been written, or that should be written, in its defence. This bull was received by the assembly of the French clergy, and registered in parliament, in 17 14, with modifications. Cardinal de Noailles, however, and seven other prelates refused, and lettres de cachet were issued by Louis XIV. against them but after his decease, the cardinal and several other bishops appealed from the bull to a general council, all which proceedings produced disputes in the French church that lasted nearly to the time of the revolution.

Soon after he quitted Drury-lane, an unfortunate transaction took place, which threatened to interrupt, if not entirely to stop his theatrical pursuits. This was an unlucky rencounter between him and Mr. Bowen, which ended fatally to the latter. From the evidence given at the trial it appeared, that on the 17th of April, 1718, about four or five o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Bowen and Mr. Quin met aecidentlly at the Fleece-tavern in Cornhill. They drank together in a friendly manner, and jested with each other for some time, until at length the conversation turned upon their performances on the stage. Bowen said, that Quin had acted Tamerlane in a loose sort of a manner; and Quin, in reply, observed, that his opponent had no occasion to value himself on his performance, since Mr. Johnson, who had but seldom acted it, represented Jacomo, in “The Libertine,” as well as he who had acted it often. These observations, probably, irritated them both, and the conversation changed, but to another subject not better calculated to produce good humour the honesty of each party. In the course of the altercation, Bowen asserted, that he was as honest a man as any in the world, which occasioned a story about his political tenets to be introduced by Quin and both parties being warm, a wager was laid on the subject, which was determined in favour of Quin, on his relating that Bowen sometimes drank the health of the duke of Ormond, and sometimes refused it at the same time asking the referee how he could be as honest a man as any in the world, who acted upon two different principles. The gentleman who acted as umpire then told Mr. Bowen, that if he insisted upon his claim to be as honest a man as any in the world, he must give it against him. Here the dispute seemed to have ended, nothing in the rest of the conversation indicating any remains of resentment in either party. Soon afterwards, however, Mr. Bowen arose, threw down some money for his reckoning, and left the company. In about a quarter of an hour Mr. Quin was called out by a porter sent by Bowen, and both Quin and Bowen went together, first to the Swan tavern, and then to the Pope’s-head tavern, where a rencounter took place, and Bowen received a wound, of which he died on the 20th of April following. In the course of the evidence it was sworn, that Bowen, after he had received the wound, declared that he had had justice done him, that there had been nothing but fair play, and that if he died, he freely forgave his antagonist. On this evidence Quin was, on the 10th of July, found guilty of manslaughter only, and soon after returned to his employment on the stage*.

Quin had the honour to enjoy the intimacy and esteem of Pope and other emiment men of his time. The friendship between Thomson and him is yet within the recollection of many persons living. “The commencement of it,” says Dr. Johnson, “is very honourable to Quin, who is reported to have delivered Thomson (then known to him only for his genius) from an arrest, by a very considerable present; and its continuance is honourable to both, for friendship is not always the sequel of obligation.”

of Solyman the magnificent, and Rustan his vizier. On the night of its exhibition were assembled all the chiefs in opposition to the court and many speeches were applied by the audience to the supposed grievances of the times, and to persons and characters. The play was in general well acted particularly the parts of Solyman and Mustapha by Quin and Milward. Mr. Pope was present in the boxes, and at the end of the play went behind the scenes, a place which he had not visited for some years. He expressed himself well pleased with his entertainment; and particularly addressed himself to Quih, who was greatly flattered with the distinction paid him by so great a man and when Pope’s servant brought his master’s scarlet cloke, Quin insisted upon the honour of putting it on.

"Mr. Quin was a man of strong, pointed sense, with strong passions and a bad temper yet in good-humour he was an excellent companion, and better bred than many who valued themselves upon good-manners. It is true, when he drank freely, which was often the case, he forgot himself, and there was a sediment of brutality in him when you shook the bottle; but he made you ample amends by his pleasantry and good sense when he was sober. He told a story admirably and concisely, and his expressions were strongly marked; however, he often had an assumed character, and spoke in blank verse, which procured him respect from some, but exposed him to ridicule from others, who had discernment to see through his pomp and affectation. He was sensual, and loved good eating, but not so much as was generally reported with some exaggeration; and he was luxurious in his descriptions of those turtle and venison feasts to which he was invited. He was in his dealing a very honest fair man, yet he understood his interest, knew how to deal with the managers, and nevef made a bad bargain with them in truth, it was not an easy matter to over-reach a man of his capacity and penetration, united with a knowledge of mankind. He was not so much an ill-natured as an ill-humoured man, and he was capable of friendship. His airs of importance and his gait was absurd so that he might be said to walk in blank verse as well as talk but his good sense corrected him, and he did not continue long in the fits. I have heard him represented as a cringing fawning fellow to lords and great men, bat I could never discover that mean disposition in him. I observed he was decent and respectful in high company, and had a very proper behaviour, without arrogance or diffidence, which made him more circumspect, and consequently less entertaining. He was not a deep scholar, but he seemed well acquainted with the works of Dryden, Milton, and Pope and he made a better figure in company, with his stock of reading, than any of the literary persons I have seen him with.

, a Venetian cardinal, celebrated as an historian, a philologer, and an antiquary, was born in 1684, or, according to some authors, in 1680. He entered very early into an abbey of Benedictines at Florence, and there studied with so much ardour as to lay in a vast store of literature of every kind, under Salvini, Bellini, and other eminent instructors. The famous Magliabecchi introduced to him all foreigners illustrious for their talents, and it was thus that he became acquainted with sir Isaac Newton and Montfaucon. Not contented with this confined intercourse with the learned, he began to travel in 1710, and went through Germany to Holland, where he conversed with Basnage, Le Clerc, Kuster, Gronovius, and Perizonius. He then crossed into England, where he was honourably received by Bentley, Newton, the two Burnets, Cave, Potter, and others. Passing afterwards into France, he formed an intimate friendship with the amiable and illustrious Fenelon and became known to all the principal literati of that country. - The exact account of the travels of Quirini would contain, in fact, the literary history of Europe at that period. Being raised to the, dignity of cardinal, he waited on Benedict XIII. to thank him for that distinction. “It is not for you,” said that pope, “to thank me for raising you to this elevation, it is rather my part to thank you, for having by your merit reduced me to the necessity of making you a cardinal.” Quirini spread in every part the fame of his learning, and of his liberality. He was admitted into almost all the learned societies of Europe, and in various parts built churches, and contributed largely to other public works. To the library of the Vatican he presented his own collection of. books, which was so extensive as to require the addition of a large room to contain it. What is most extraordinary is, that though a Dominican and a cardinal, he was of a most tolerant disposition, and was every where beloved by the Protestants. He died in the 'beginning of January 1755.

, a celebrated archbishop of Mentz, and one of the most learned divines in the ninth century, was born in the year 785 at Mentz, or rather at Fulda, and descended from one of the most noble families in that country. Mackenzie, however, has inserted him among his Scotch writers, but without much apparent authority. The parents of Rabanus sent him, at ten years old, to the monastery of Fulda, where he was instructed in learning and virtue, and afterwards studied underthe famous Alcuinus, at Tours. In this situation he made so rapid a progress, as to acquire great reputation from his writings at the age of thirty. On his return to Fulda he was chosen abbot there, and reconciled the emperor Louis le Débonnaire to his children. Rabanus wrote a letter of consolation to this prince when unjustly deposed, and published a tract on the respect due from children to their parents, and from subjects to their princes, which may be found in “Marca de Concordiâ,” published by Baluze. He succeeded Orgar, archbishop o Mentz, in the year 847, but was so much a bigot, as to procure the condemnation of Godeschalc. He died at his estate of Winsel, in the year 856, aged sixty-eight, after having bequeathed his library to the abbeys of Fulda and St. Alban’s, leaving a great number of works printed at Cologn, 1627, 6 vols. in 3 folio. The principal are, 1. “Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” the greatest part of which are mere extracts from the fathers, as was the usual method among commentators in his time. 2. A poem in honour of the holy cross, of which there is a neat edition printed at Augsburg, 1605, in folio; but the most rare is that printed at Phorcheim, in ædibus Thomæ Anselim, 1503, curiously ornamented. Of the frontispiece the first figure is that of Albinus, abbot of Fulda, who presents Rabanus to the pope, with a poetical piece entitled “Intercessio Albini;” Rabanus appears next, presenting his book to the pope, with a poetical piece, entitled “Commendatio Papæ,” Then follows a kind of dedication to the emperor Louis le Débonnaire, who is delineated on this dedication holding a shield in one hand, and a cross in the other, his head surrounded with glory all the letters comprised in these ornamented lines, form a discourse foreign to the dedication. The poem is in the same style on each of the 28 pages of which it consists, are figures of the cross, stars, cherubim, seraphim, &c. The last represents a cross, with the author adoring it; the letters comprised in this cross form various pious exclamations. 3. A treatise on “the Instruction of the Clergy.” 4. A treatise on “the Ecclesiastical Calendar,” in which he points out the method of distinguishing the leap years, and marking the inductions. 5. A book “on the sight of God, purity of Jieart, and the manner of doing penance.” 6. A large work, entitled “De Universe, sive Etymologiarum Opus.” 7. “Homilies.” 8. “A Martyrology,” &c. But a treatise on “Vices and Virtues,” which is attributed to Rabanus Maurus, was written by Halitgarius bishop of Orleans. His treatise “against the Jews,” may be found in Martenne’s “Thesaurus;” and some other small tracts in the “Miscellanea” of Baluze, and Father Sirmond’s works. Rabanus was unquestionably one of the most learned men of his age, and his character in this respect has been highly extolled both by Dupin and Mosheim.

, a celebrated French wit, was the son of an apothecary, and born about 1483, at Chinon, in the province of Touraine. He was bred up in a convent of Franciscan friars in Poictou, the convent of Fontenaile-Comte, and received into their order. His strong inclination and taste for literature and the sciences made him transcend the bounds which restrained the learned in his times so that he not only became a great linguist, but an adept in all branches of knowledge. His uncommon capacity and merit soon excited the jealousy of his brethren. Hence he was envied by some others, through ignorance, thought him a conjuror; and all hated and abused him, particularly because he studied Greek; the novelty of that language making them esteem it, not only barbarous, but antichristian. This we collect from a Greek epistle of Budaeus to Rabelais, in which he praises him highly for his great knowledge in that tongue, and exclaims against the stupidity and malice of the friars. Having endured their persecutions for a long time, he obtained permission of pope Clement VII. to leave the society of St. Francis, and to enter into that of St. Benedict but his mercurial temper prevailing, he did not find any more satisfaction among the Benedictines, than he had found among the Franciscans, so that after a short time he left them also. Changing the regular habit for that which is worn by secular priests, he rambled up and down for a. while and then fixed at Montpellier, where he took the degrees in physic, and practised with great reputation. He was universally admired for his wit and great learning, and became a man of such estimation, that the university of that place, when deprived of its privileges, deputed him to Paris to obtain the restitution of them, by application to the chancellor Du Prat, who was so pleased with him, and so much admired his accomplishments, that he easily granted all that he solicited. He returned to Montpellier and the service he did the university upon this occasion, is given as a reason why all the candidates for degrees in physic there, are, upon their admission to them, formally invested with a robe, which Rabelais left; this ceremony having been instituted in honour of him.

In 1532, he published at Lyons some pieces of Hippocrates and Galen, with a dedication to the bishop of Mailezais in which he tells him, that he had read lectures upon the aphorisms of Hippocrates, and the “ars medica” of Galen, before numerous audiences in the university of Montpellier. This was the last year of his cootinuance in that place for the year after he went to Lyons, where he became physician to the hospital, and joined lectures with practice for some years following. John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, and afterwards cardinal, with whom he had been acquainted in his early years, going to Rome in? 1534, upon the business of Henry VIITs divorce from Catherine of Spain, and passing through Lyons, carried Rabelais with him, in quality of his physician who returned home, however, in about six months. He had sometime before quitted his religious connections for the sake of leading a life more suitable to his taste and humour; but now renewed them, and in a second journey to Rome, obtained in 1536, by his interest with some cardinals, a brief from pope Paul III. to qualify him for holding ecclesiastical benefices. John du Bellay, had procured the abbey of St. Maur near Paris to be secularized; and into this was Rabelais, now a Benedictine monk, received as a secular canon. Here he is supposed to have begun his famous romance, entitled “The lives, heroic deeds, and sayings of Gargantua and Pantagruel.” He continued ifi this retreat till 1545, when Du Bellay, his friend and patron, and now a cardinal, nominated him to the cure of Meudon, which he is said to have filled with great zeal and application to the end of his life. His profound knowledge and skill in physic made him doubly useful to the people under his care and he was ready upon all occasions to relieve them under indispositions of body as well as mind. He died in 1553. As he was a great wit, many witticisms and facetious sayings are laid to his charge, of which he knew nothing and many ridiculous circumstances are related of him by some of his biographers, to which probably little credit is due.

* Warton, in his “Essay on Pope,” follies they stigmatize, are perished

Rabener’s “Satirical Letters” were translated into English, and the French and other nations have translation* of some of his satires, which, it is thought, have not appeared to great advantage. He seems to have been intimately acquainted with the writings of Swift, Pope, and Arbuthnot, which he appears very frequently to have imitated and in some particular places has translated them. From them he borrowed the idea of adopting, in -some of his pieces, the character of Martinus Scriblerus and there is a great similarity of manner between his extract of the chronicle of the village of Querlequitscb, and the “Memoirs of P. P. clerk of this parish.” He also wrote an account of a. codicil to Swift’s will, relative to the foundation of an hospital for fools and madmen, in which he appropriates an additional wing for the reception of Germans.

After the death of Raphael, Marc Antonio was employed by Julio Romano. This connection was unfortunate, for he disgraced himself and his profession by engraving that painter’s abominable designs to accompany Aretine’s infamous verses. For this pope Clement VII. sent him to prison, from which he was released with great difficulty by the interest of the cardinal Julius de Medici and Baccio Bandinelli, the sculptor. The exquisite merit of his “martyrdom of St. Laurence,” at length reconciled the pope to him, who pardoned his offence entirely, and took him under his protection. He had now attained his highest reputation, and had accumulated wealth, but lost the latter entirely in 1527, when Rome was taken by the Spanish army. After this misfortune he retired to Bologna, where perhaps he died, but when is not known. The last print we have of his is dated 1539, after which he cannot be traced with certainty. Strutt considers him as one of the most extraordinary engravers that ever lived. The purity of his outlines, the correctness with which the extremities of his figures are marked, and the beauty and character which appear in the heads, prove him to have been a man of great taste and solid judgment, as well as a perfect master of drawing. These beauties, without doubt, appear most striking in his works from Raphael, a circumstance which seemsr greatly to confirm the report of his being much assisted by that great master. Strutt has given a list of the best of Marc Antonio’s prints, which however are rarely to be met with in their original state.

, or Raleigh, or'Rawlegh, an illustrious Englishman, was the fourth son, and the second by a third wife, of Walter Ralegh, esq. of Fardel, near Plymouth. His father was of an ancient knightly family, and his mother was Catharine, daughter of sir Philip Champernoun, of Modbury in Devonshire, relict of Otho Gilbert, of Compton, the father, by her, of sir Humphrey Gilbert, the celebrated navigator. Mr. Ralegh, upon his marriage with this lady, had retired to a farm called Hayes, in the parish of Budiey, where sir Walter was born in 1552. After a proper education at school, he was sent to Oriel college, Oxford, about 1568, where he soon distinguished himself by great force of natural parts, and an uncommon progress in academical learning but Wood is certainly mistaken in saying he stayed here three years for in 1569, when only seventeen, he formed one of the select troop of an hundred gentlemen whom queen Elizabeth permitted Henry Champernoun to transport to France, to assist the persecuted Protestants. Sir Walter appears to have been engaged for some years in military affairs, of which, however, we do not know the particulars. In 1575 or 1576, he was in London, exercising his poetical talents; for there is a commendatory poem by him prefixed, among others, to a satire called “The Steel Glass,” published by George Gascoigne, a poet of that age. This is dated from the Middle Temple, at which he then resided, but with no view of studying the law for he declared expressly, at his trial, that he had never studied it. On the contrary, his mind was still bent on military glory; and accordingly, in 1578, he went to the Netherlands, with the forces which were sent against the Spaniards, commanded by sir John Norris, and it is supposed he was at the battle of Rimenant, fought on Aug. 1. The following year, 1579, when sir Humphrey Gilbert, who was his brother by his mother’s side, had obtained a patent of the queen to plant and inhabit some Northern parts of America, he engaged in that adventure; but returned soon after, the attempt proving unsuccessful. In 1580, the pope having incited the Irish to rebellion, he had a captain’s commission under the lord deputy of Ireland, Arthur Grey, lord Grey de Wilton. Here he distinguished himself by his skill and bravery. In 1581, the earl of Ormond departing for England, his government of Munster was given to captain Ralegh, in commission with sir * William Morgan and captain Piers Ralegh resided chiefly at Lismore, and spent all this summer in the woods and country adjacent, in continual action with the rebels. At his return home, he was introduced to court, and, as Fuller relates, upon the following occasion. Her majesty, taking the air in a walk, stopped at a splashy place, in doubt whether to go on when Ralegh, dressed in a gay and genteel habit of those tirhes, immediately cast off and spread his new plush cloak on the ground n which her majesty gently treading, was conducted 6ver clean and dry. The truth is, Ralegh always made a very elegant appearance, as well in the splendor of attire, as the politeness of address; having a commanding figure, and a handsome and well-compacted person a strong natural wit, and a better judgment and that kind of courtly address which pleased Elizabeth, and led to herfaTOur. Such encouragement, however, did not reconcile hirn to an indolent life. In 1583 he set out with his brother sir H. Gilbert, in his expedition to Newfoundland but within a few days was obliged to return to Plymouth, his ship’s company -being seized with an infectious distemper and sir H. Gilbert was drowned in coming home, after he had taken possession of that country. These expeditions, however, being much to Ralegh’s taste, he still felt no discouragement; but in 1584 obtaining letters patent for discovering unknown countries, he set sail to America, and took possession of a place, to which queen Elizabeth gave the name of Virginia.

Warburton says these lines were inserted after the first edition of the Dunciad, and that he was not known to Pope, until he published a swearing-piece called “Sawney,” very abusive df Pope, Swift, and Gay. He adds that “this low writer attended his own works with panegyrics in the Journals; anfd once, in particular, praised himself highly above Mr. Addison, in wretched remarks upon that author’s account of English poets, printed in a London Journal, Sept. 172$. He was wholly illiterate, and knew no language, not even French. Being advised to read the rules of dramatic poetry before he began a play, he smiled and replied, ‘ Shakspeare writ without rules.’ He ended at last in the common sink of all such writers, a political newspaper, to which he was recommended by his friend Arnall (see Arnall), and received a small pittance for pay and being detected in writing on both sides on one and the same day, he publicly justified the morality of his conduct.”

Such is Warburton’s account, heightened a little, unqaestionnbly, by his regard for Pope, but, except where he calls him illiterate, not much beyond the truth for Ralph’s pen was completely venal, and both his principles and his distresses prevented any consideration on the moral part of his conduct. He had by this time produced on the stage, “The Fashionable Lady,” an opera, “The Fall of the Earl of Essex,” a tragedy and afterwards, “The Lawyer’s Feast,” a farce, and “The Astrologer,” a comedy, none of which had much success. He was a writer, iff 1739, in the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper; but from his letters to Dr. Birch* in the British Museum, it appears that he was no great gainer hy any of his performances. There is an excellent pamphlet, however* attributed tp him, which was published about 1731, a “Review of the Public Buildings of London” but from the style and subject, we should suppose his name borrowed. In 1735 he commenced a managing partner with Fielding- in the Haymarket theatre but, as Davies says, “he had no other share in the management than viewing and repining at his partner’s success.”

His works are, 1. “Discours sur le Poeme Epique;” prefixed to the later editions of Telemachus. V 2. “La Vie de Mr. Fenelon,” of which there is an English translation. 3. “Essai sur le Gouvernrnent Civil.” 4. “Le Psychometre, ou Reflexions sur les dirTerens characteres de ressprit, par un Milord Anglois.” These are remarks upon lord Shaftesbury’s Characteristics. 5. “Les Voyages de Cyrus,” in French and English, the only work of his much known in this country. It is a professed imitation of Telemachus, and we can remember was once a very popular book. 6. “L'Histoire de M. de Turenne, in French and English.” 7. “Poems,” somewhat in the mystic and inflated style, printed at Edinburgh, 1728, 4to, seemingly without his knowledge. 8. “Two Letters in French, to M. Racine the son, upon the true sentiments of Mr. Pope, in his Essay on Man.” These were printed after his decease, in “Les Oeuvres de M. Racine le fils,” torn. II. 1747, and form a kind of defence of Pope from the charge of irreiigion in the “Essay.” This is a subject of which the chevalier was perhaps a better judge than of philosophy; for in one of these letters he calls Locke gtnia superfci'el, “a superficial genius.” Two posthumous works of his were also printed at Glasgow: 9. “A plan of education;” and, 10. “Philosophical Principles of natural and revealed Religion, explained and unfolded in a geometrical order,” 1749, 2 vols. 4to, neither of which ever attracted much attention. The last, his French biographers seem to be of opinion, must have been either falsely attributed to him, or much altered by his editors, as he maintains the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and denies the eternity of hell-torments; and not only contends that these were the sentiments of Fenelon, but that they are agreeable to the decisions of the church.

In Florence he again pursued his studies with unremitting assiduity; and the Brancacci and Corsini chapels in the church of the Carmelites, painted by Masaccio, were his favourite school; but of living artists there was no one to whom he was so much attached as Fra. Bartolomeo, by whose instruction and example he improved himself in colouring, and the principles of chiaroscuro; and in return he gave his friend some information in perspective. The work to which his mind was at this time particularly directed, was a cartoon for a picture, which, when he left Perugia, he engaged to paint for the church of St. Francis. This picture, which represents the body of Christ borne to, the sepulchre, he afterwards painted in Perugia, and it obtained so much credit, that his professional rank was from that time decidedly established. It shewed the advantages he had acquired by study, and the benefit he derived from the friendship of Fra. Bartolomeo; for this was the first step he had taken to overcome the restraints of his previous education. When the picture was finished he again returned to Florence; was much sought after by men of taste, and with accumulated reputation his fame soon extended itself to the Vatican. Julius II. was then pope, a great patron of the arts, and having heard of Raphael, invited him to Rome in 1508, and received him. with the most flattering marks of distinction. Here being immediately commissioned to paint one of the state chambers of the Vatican, which the pope was then ornamenting with great taste and splendour, Raphael executed his “School of Athens,” which gave such entire satisfaction to the pope, that all the pictures by the various masters already painted in the different rooms, were ordered to be effaced, and the walls prepared to transmit to posterity his own unrivalted genius. The only work preserved from this general destruction was the ceiling of one of these rooms, the fourth in the suite, which had been painted by Perugino, and was saved at Raphael’s intercession. So amiable a trait of character ought not to be forgotten.

Raphael, though possessing pre-eminent powers as a painter, had not suffered that profession alone to absorb his mind; he had studied architecture under Bramante, and in chastity of design was not inferior to that distinguished artist, who in full confidence of his abilities, recommended him as his successor, to conduct the great work of St. Peter’s, to which recommendation his holiness paid due attention. According to the pope’s brief on this occasion, dated August 1515, his salary was fixed at three hundred golden crowns, or 150l. per annum. For so important an undertaking this sum would seem to be a very inadequate remuneration but, as his biographer observes, in our own country, one hundred and sixty years subsequent to this period, sir Christopher Wren did not receive more than 200l. per annum, for the building of St. Paul’s, which included draughts, models, making estimates and contracts, examining and adjusting all bills and accounts, with constant personal superintendance, and giving instructions to the artificers in every department. St. Peter’s, which cost more than a century to complete, underwent so many changes by the various architects employed, that it would be now extremely difficult to particularize with any degree of certainty the different parts of it which were executed by Raphael. It appears, however, that it is to him we are indebted for the general plan of the church as it now exists. In 1515, Raphael went with the pope to Florence, and made a design for the facade of the church of St. Lorenzo: and, according to Vasari, he was also the architect of a magnificent house for the bishop of Troja, which still exists in the street of St. Gallo in that city; but of the different buildings designed or executed by Raphael, that on which his reputation as an artist is thought principally to rest, is the Caffarelli palace at Rome. The other buildings of Raphael still existing are, a palace for M. Giovanni Baptista dell' Aquila, opposite to the church of S. Maria della Vallicella, in Rome; a villa for cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII.; and for the prince Ghigi he built a set of stables in the Longara, and a chapel in the church of S. Maria del Popolo. This prince was a distinguished patron of Raphael, and much employed him. For him he painted in fresco, in one of the rooms of his Casino in the Longara, now called the Farnesina, a picture of Galatea drawn by dolphins, and surrounded with tritons, &c. which would appear to have been much admired and praised by his friend count Castiglione, from a letter still existing by Raphael to that nobleman, which the reader may see in our principal authority. For prince Ghigi he painted in fresco, on the spandrels of an arch in front of the Ghigi chapel in the church of S. Maria della Pace, a large allegorical subject of Sibyls delivering their prophecies for the confirmation of the revealed religion. This work was highly esteemed when finished; but is now unfortunately much injured, and parts are entirely effaced. For his Casino in the Longara, Raphael made a series of designs from Apuleius’s history of Cupid and Psyche, which were painted by himself and his scholars on a ceiling of a spacious hall. What part was painted by himself it would not be easy at this time to ascertain, as the work has suffered much by being originally exposed to the open air, as the loggia of the Vatican is at present, and by being repainted and repaired.

, one of the very few learned prelates in the tenth century, was born at Libya, and embraced a monastic life at the abbey of Lobbes, or Laubes, in Flanders. Here he distinguished himself by his abilities and acquirements. In the year 928, after Hilduin had been driven out of the see of Liege, he accompanied him into Italy; and in 931 he was, by the express order of the pope, put in possession of the see of Verona; and with this promotion he commenced a life of vicissitudes and persecutions, an account of which here would perhaps be uninteresting, but may be found amply detailed in the edition of his works printed by the brothers Ballerini in 1767. He died at Namur, about the year 973. His works are numerous, and divided into three parts the first contain his “Prologues,” in six books which form a treatise on the duties of all classes of men, expressing also their vices and irregularities; the second is a collection of letters; and the third consists of sermons.

, was born at Vercelli, in Piedmont, in 1479, and became a citizen of Siena. The warm tone of his colour, the masses of his chiaroscuro, and other traces of the Milanese school in his works, seem to confirm the tradition as to the place of his birth. The frescoes which he painted in the Vatican, under the pontificate of Julius II. were by order of that pope demolished, to make room for those of Raphael. Certain other pictures, representing deeds of Alexander the Great, still remain in the palace Chigi, now called the Farnesina: with much of the chiaroscuro, though not of the dignity and grace, of Lionardo da Vinci, they are remarkable for beauties of perspective and playful imagery.

, a native of Avignon, and exJesuit, was an advocate, but compelled to quit his profession for want of health. He died in 1752. Reboulet wrote the “Mernoires de Forbin,” 2 vols. 12mo, and the “Hist, de l'Enfance,” 2 vols. compiled from memoirs with which the Jesuits furnished him, of whom he was too servile a flatterer to express any doubt concerning what they related. This work, however, was burnt as calumnious and defamatory, by a sentence of the parliament of Toulouse. His other works are, “A History of Pope Clement XI.” in 2 small volumes, 4to, which the king of Sardinia suppressed; as his father did not love the Jesuits, and could not therefore be a great man in the opinion of Reboulet. A “History of Louis XIV.” 3 vols. 4to, or 9 vols. 12mo, his best work, is tolerably accurate as to facts, but the narration is dry.

Notwithstanding a due attention to business, Mr. Reed found leisure to amuse himself and the world with many miscellanies in prose and verse of very considerable merit. The late Mr. Ritson, who had for Mr. Reed, what he extended to very few, a high respect, intended to have edited some of these miscellanies, in a volume or volumes, of which the following were to have been the contents: 1. “Madrigal and Trulletta, a mock tragedy,” 1758. 2. “The Register Office,” 1761, a farce, or rather a dramatic satire. 3. The same; the second edition. 4. “Tom Jones,” a comic opera, 1769. 5. “Dido,” a tragedy, 1767, printed for the first time by Messrs. Nichols in 1808, but the whole impression having been destroyed by the fire which consumed their premises in February of that year, it has not been reprinted. 6. The “Retort Courteous,” to the manager of the theatre. 7. An “Epitaph on the Earl of Chatham.” 8. “St. Peter’s Lodge,” a serio-comic legendary tale. 9. “A Rope’s end for Hempen monopolists.” Besides the above articles, Mr, Reed was the author of, 10. “A Poem, in imitation of the Scottish dialect, on the death of Mr. Pope,” printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1744. 11. “The Superannuated Gallant,” a farce, Newcastle, 1745, 12mo. 12. “A British Philippic, inscribed to the right hon. the earl of Granville,” London, 1756, 4to. 13. “A Sop in the Pan for a physical critic, in a letter to Dr. Smollett, occasioned by a criticism (in the Critical Review) on Madrigal and Trulletta/' 1759. 14.” A humorous account of his own Life,“printed in the Universal Museum for 1764. 15.” The Tradesman’s Companion, or Tables of Averdupois weight, &c.“London, 1762, 12mo. 16.” The Impostors, or a Cure for Credulity,“a farce, acted for the benefit of Mr. Woodward, March 19, 1776, with an excellent prologue, not printed. To these may be added, several tragedies, comedies, and farces, never acted or printed; a few unpublished poems; and some numbers of the” Monitor,“a political paper published in the administration of the earl of Bute, and” Letters“under the signature Benedict, in defence of Mr. Garrick, on the publication of Kenrick’s” Love in the Suds," printed originally in the Morning Chronicle, and afterwards added to the fifth edition of that poem.

, a French writer, very learned in Oriental history and languages, was born at Paris in 1646; and, being taught classical literature by the Jesuits, and philosophy in the college of Harcourt, afterwards entered into the congregation of the oratory, where he did not continue long. His father being first physician to the dauphin, he was early introdued to scenes, where his parts, his learning, and his politeness, made him admired. His reputation was afterwards advanced and established by several learned works, which he published. In 1700, heattended cardinal de Noailles to Rome; and received great honours, together with the priory of Frossey in Bretagne, from pope Clement V. Returning by Florence he was honoured in the same manner by the great duke; and was also made a member of the academy de la Crusca. On his return to France he devoted himself entirely to letters, and composed a great number of learned dissertations, which are printed in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” of which he was a member, as well as of the French academy. He died in 1720. Voltaire blames him for having prevented Bayle’s dictionary from being printed in France. This is very natural in Voltaire and Voltaire’s followers; but it is a more serious objection to Renaudot, that, while his love of learning made him glad to correspond with learned Protestants, his cowardly bigotry prevented him from avowing the connection. Not long before Dr. Pocock’s death that eminent orientalist received a letter from Renaudot, in which he professes a very high esteem for the doctor, desires the liberty of consulting him in all the doubts that should occur in preparing his “Collection of Liturgies,” &c. and promises, in return for this favour, to make a public acknowledgment of it, and preserve a perpetual memory of the obligation; yet, when the above work appeared, he travelled out of his way to reproach Dr. Pocock with a mistake, which was perhaps the only one that could be discovered in his writings.

After some time, Eberhard, count of Wirtemberg, being to make the tour of Italy, Reuchlin was chosen among others to attend him; chiefly because, during his residence in France, he had corrected his own German pronunciation of the Latin, which appeared so rude and savage to the Italians. They were handsomely received at Florence by Lorenzo de Medicis, the father of Leo X. and became acquainted with many learned men there, as ChalcondylaSj Ficinus, Politian, Picus earl of Mirandula, &c. They proceeded to Rome, where Hermolaus Barbarus prevailed with Reuchlin to change his name to Capnio, which signifies the same in Greek as Reuchlin does in German; that is, smoke. Count Eberhard entertained so great an esteem for Capnio, so he was afterwards called, thatj upon his return to Germany, he made him ambassador to the emperor Frederic III.; who conferred many honours upon him, and made him many presents. He gave him. in particular an ancient Hebrew manuscript bible, very neatly written, with the text and paraphrase of Onkelos, &c. Frederic died in 1493; and Capnio returned to count Eberhard, who died also about three months after the emperor: when, an usurpation succeeding, Capnio was banished. He retired to Worms, and continued his studies: hut the elector Palatine, having a cause to defend at Rome some time after, selected him as the ablest man for his purpose; and accordingly, in 1498, Capnio made an oration before the pope and cardinals concerning the rights of the German princes, and the privileges o the German churches. He remained more than a year at Rome; and had so much leisure as to perfect himself in the Hebrew tongue under Abdias, a Jew, and also in the Greek under Argyropylus. He had some trouble in his old age by an unhappy difference with the divines of Cologne, occasioned by a Jew named Pfefferkorn. This man, of whom we have already given a brief account (see Pfeffekcorn), to shew his zeal for Christianity, advised that all the Jewish books, except the Bible, should be burnt; but the Jews having prevailed on the emperor to allow them to be examined first, Capnio, who was universally acknowledged to excel in this kind of learning, was appointed by the elector of Mentz, under the authority of the emperor, to pass a judgment upon these writings. Capnio, who had too much good sense to adopt, in its full extent, this wretched policy, gave it as his opinion, that no other books should be destroyed, but those which were found to be written expressly against Jesus Christ, lest, with the Jewish books on liberal arts and sciences, their language itself, so important to the church, should perish. This opinion was approved by the emperor, and the books were by his authority restored to the Jews. Pfefferkorn and his supporters were exceedingly enraged against Capnio, and pursued him with invectives and accusations even to the court of Home. His high reputation in the learned world, however, protected him; and bigotry met with a most mortifying defeat in his honourable acquittal.

, a learned Italian astronomer, philosopher, and mathematician, was born in 1598, at Ferrara, a city in Italy, in the dominions of the pope. At sixteen years of age he was admitted into the society of the Jesuits, and the progress he made in every branch of literature and science was surprising. He was first appointed to teach rhetoric, poetry, philosophy, and scholastic divinity, in the Jesuits’ colleges at Parma and Bologna; yet applied himself in the mean time to making observations in geography, chronology, and astronomy. This was his natural bent, and at length he obtained leave from his superiors to quit all other employment, that he might devote himself entirely to those sciences.

While at Oxford he had distinguished himself by his opposition to the mendicant friars, whose affectation of poverty, and other superstitions and irregularities, he exposed in his lectures. They were therefore not a little alarmed when, in 1347, he was advanced to the archbishopric of Armagh; and with some reason; for, when about ten years afterwards, he returned to England, and found the contest very warm concerning preaching, hearing confessions, and other points, in which the friars encroached on the jurisdiction of the parochial priests, he preached several sermons, the substance of which was; that in cai>es of confession the parish church is to be preferred to the church of the friars; that for confession the parishioners ought rather to apply to the parson or curate than to a friar; that notwithstanding our Lord Jesus Christ was poor, when he conversed on earth, yet it does not appear that he affected poverty; that he did never beg, nor make profession of voluntary poverty; that he never taught people to make a choice and profession of beggary; that on the contrary, he held that men ought not to beg by inclination, nor without being forced to it by necessity; that there is neither sense nor religion in vowing voluntary and perpetual beggary; that it is not agreeable to the rule of Observant or Friars Minorites, to be under engagements of voluntary poverty, &c. &c. The friars were so enraged at these propositions, which certainly shew considerable freedom of sentiment, that they procured him to be cited before pope Innocent VI. at Avignon, where he defended his opinions with great firmness, and maintained them, although with no little danger from the malice of his opponents, to the end of his life. The age, honwer, was not prepared to listen to him, and the pope decided in favour of the friars.

By many family misfortunes, and his own writings, which in a manner realized every feigned distress, his nerves naturally weak, or, as Pope expresses it, “tremblingly alive all o'er,” were so unhinged, that for many years before his death his hand shook, he had frequent vertigoes, and would sometimes have fallen, had he not supported himself by his cane under his coat. His paralytic disorder affected his nerves to such a degree, for a considerable time before his death, that he could not lift a glass of wine to his mouth without assistance. This disorder at length terminating in an apoplexy, deprived the world of this amiable man, and truly original genius, on July 4, 1761, at the age of seventy-two. He was buried, by his own direction, with his first wife, in the middle aile, near the pulpit of St. Bride’s church. His picture was painted by Mr. High more, whence a mezzotinto has been taken.

, a celebrated cardinal and minister of France, was the third son of Francis du Plessis, seigneur de Richelieu, knight of the king’s orders, and grand provost of France, and was born Sept. 5, 1585, at Paris. He was admitted into the Sorbonne at the age of twenty-two, obtained a dispensation from pope Paul V. for the bishopric of Lucon, and was consecrated at Rome in 1607. On his return, he acquired considerable interest at court, and was appointed by Mary de Medicis, then regent, her grand almoner; and in 1616 was raised to the post of secretary of state. After the death of one of his friends, the marshal D'Ancre, in 1617, when Mary was banished to Blois, he followed her thither; but, the duke de Luynes becoming jealous of him, he was ordered to retire to Avignon, and there he wrote his “Method of Controversy,” on the principal points of faith.

In 1619 the king recalled Richelieu, and sent him into Angouleme, where he persuaded the queen to a reconciliation, which was concluded in 1620; and in consequence of this treaty, the duke de Luynes obtained a cardinal’s hat for him from pope Gregory XV. Richelieu, continuing his services after the duke’s decease, was admitted, in 1624, into the council, through the interest of the queen, and almost against the will of the king, who, devout and scrupulous, considered him as a knave, because he had been informed of his gallantries. It is even said that he was insolent enough to aspire to queen Anne of Austria, and that the railleries to which this subjected him were the cause of his subsequent aversion to her. Cardinal Richelieu was afterwards appointed prime minister, head of the councils, high steward, chief, and superintendant-generai of the French trade and navigation. He preserved the Isle of Rhe in 1627, and undertook the siege of Rochelle against the protestants the same year. He completed the conquest of Rochelle in October 1628, in spite of the king of Spain, who had withdrawn his forces, of the king of England, who could not relieve it, and of the French king, who grew daily more weary of the undertaking, by means of that famous mole, executed by his orders, but planned by Lewis Metezeau and John Tiriot. The capture of Rochelle proved a mortal blow to the protestants, but in France was reckoned the most glorious and beneficial circumstance of cardinal Richelieu’s administration. He also attended his majesty to the relief of the duke of Mantua in 1629, raised the siege of Casal, and, at his return, compelled the protestants to accept the treaty of peace which had been concluded at Alais, and completed the ruin of their party. Six months after this, cardinal Richelieu, having procured himself to be appointed lieutenant-general of the army beyond the mountains, took Pignerol, relieved Casal a second time, which was besieged by the marquis Spinola, defeated general Doria, by means of the duke de Monttnorenci at Vegliana, July 10, 1630, and made himself master of all Savoy. Louis XIII. having returned to Lyons, in consequence of sickness, the queenmother, and most of the nobility, took advantage of this circumstance to form plots against Richelieu, and speak ill of his conduct to the king, which they did with so much success, that Louis promised the queen to discard him. The cardinal’s ruin now seemed inevitable, and he was actually preparing to set out for Havre-de Grace, which he had chosen for his retreat, when cardinal de la Valette, knowing that the queen had not followed her son to Versailles, advised him first to see his majesty. In this interview, he immediately cleared himself from all the accusations of his enemies, justified his conduct, displayed the advantages and necessity of his administration, and wrought so forcibly upon the king’s mind by his reasoning, that, instead of being discarded, he became from that moment more powerful than ever. He inflicted the same punishments upon his enemies which they had advised for him; and this day, so fortunate for Richelieu, was called “The Day of Dupes.” Those who had the misfortune to incur his displeasure, certainly did not all deserve the penalties to which he doomed them; but he knew how to make himself master of their fate, by appointing such judges to try them as were at his disposal. That abominable method of taking the accused from their lawful judges, had, in the preceding century, served as a means for the families of condemned persons to get their characters restored; after which the French had no reason to fear its revival; but Richelieu hesitated not to adopt it, though at the risque of general odium, as being favourable to his designs. By thus making himself master of the lives and fortunes of the mal-contents, he imposed silence even on their murmurs. This artful minister, being now secure of his lasting ascendancy over the king, and having already accomplished one of the two great objects which he had proposed to himself from the beginning of his administration, which were, the destruction of the protestants, and the humbling the too great power of the house of Austria, began now to contrive means for executing this second undertaking. The principal and most efficacious method employed by the cardinal with that view, was a treaty he concluded, January 23, 1631, with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, for currying the war into the heart of Germany. He also formed a league with the duke of Bavaria, secured to himself Lorrain, raised part of the German princes against the emperor, treated with Holland to continue the war wirh Spain, favoured the Catalonians and Portuguese when they shook off the Spanish yoke, and, in short, made use of so many measures and stratagems, that he completely accomplished his design. Cardinal Richelieu was carrying on the war with success, and meditating on that glorious peace, which was not concluded till 1648, when h died in his palace at Paris, worn out by his long toils, December 4,“1642, aged fifty-eight. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where his mausoleum (the celebrated Girardon’s master-piece) may be seen. He is considered as one of the most complete statesmen, and ablest politicians, that France ever had. Amidst all the anxieties which the fear of his enemies must necessarily occasion, he formed the most extensive and complicated plans, and executed them with great superiority of genius. It was cardinal Richelieu who established the throne, while yet shaken by the protestant factions, and the power of the House of Austria, and made the royal authority completely absolute, and independent, by the extinction of the petty tyrants who wasted the kingdom. In the mean time he omitted nothing which could contribute to the glory of France. He promoted arts and sciences; founded the botanical garden at Paris called the king’s garden; also the French academy, and the royal printing-office; built the palace since called the Palais Royal, and gave it to his majesty; rebuilt the Sorbonne (of which he was provisor) in a style of kingly magnificence; and prepared for all the splendour of Louis the Fourteenth’s reign. His enemies, says the abbe L'Atocat, unable to deny his great talents, have reproached him with great faults; irregularity of conduct, unbounded ambition, universal despotism, from which even the king, his master, did not escape; for he left him, as they express it, only the power of curing the evil; a vanity and ostentation which exceeded the dignity of the throne itself, where all was simplicity and negligence, while the cardinal’s court exhibited nothing but pomp and splendour; unexampled ingratitude to his benefactress, queen Mary de Medicis, whom he inhumanly compelled to end her da*ys in Germany, in obscurity and indigence; and, finally, his revengeful temper, which occasioned so many cruel executions; as those of Chalais, Grandier, the marechal de Marillac, M. de Montmorenci, Cinqmars, M. de Thou, &c. Even the queen, for having written to the duchess de Chevreuse, Richelieu’s enemy, and a fugitive, saw all her papers seized, and was examined before the chancellor Sequier. Mad. de la Fayette, mad. de Hautefort, and father Caussin, the king’s confessors, were all disgraced in consequence of having offended this despotic minister. But, says his apologist, there are many points to be considered with respect to these accusations: it appears certain, from a thousand passages in the life of this celebrated cardinal, that he was naturally very grateful, and never proceeded to punishment but when he thought state affairs required it; for which reason, when in his last sickness, his confessor asked” if he forgave his enemies?“he replied,” I never had any but those of the state.“At the head of his” Political Testament“may be seen his justification of himself on the subject of these bloody executions, with which he has been so much reproached. It is equally certain, that he never oppressed the people by taxes or exorbitant subsidies, notwithstanding the long wars he had to carry on; and that, if he was severe in punishing crimes, he knew how to distinguish merit, and reward it generously. He bestowed the highest ecclesiastical dignities on such bishops and doctors as he knew to be men of virtue and learning; placed able and experienced generals at the head of the armies, and entrusted public business with wise, punctual, and intelligent men. It was this minister who established a navy. His vigilance extended through every part of the government; and, notwithstanding the cabals, plots, and factions, which were incessantly forming against him during the whole course of his administration (and which must have employed great part of his time) he left sufficient sums behind him to carry on the war with glory; and France was in a more powerful and flourishing state at the time of his decease than when Louis XIV. died. After stating these facts, Richelieu’s enemies areinvited to determine whether France would have derived more advantage from being governed by Mary de Medicis, Gaston of Orleans, &c. than by this cardinal The estate of Richelieu was made a dukedom in his favour, in 1631, and he received other honours and preferments. Besides the” Method of Controversy“he wrote, 2.” The principal points of the Catholic Faith defended, against the writing addressed to the king by the ministers of Charenton.“3.” The most easy and certain Method of converting those who are separated from the Church.“These pieces are written with force and vivacity. He wrote also,” A Catechism,“in which he lays down the doctrine of the church, in a clear and concise manner and a treatise of piety, called,” The Perfection of a Christian.“These are his theological works; and they have been often printed: but that which is most read, and most worthy of being read, is his” Political Testament," the authenticity of which has been doubted by some French writers, particularly Voltaire. The cardinal also had the ambition to be thought a dramatic poet; and, says lord Chesterfield, while he absolutely governed both his king and country, and was, in a great degree, the arbiter of the fate of all Europe, he was more jealous of the great reputation of Corneille, than of the power of Spain; and more flattered with being thought (what he was not) the best poet, than with being thought (what he certainly was) the greatest statesman in Europe; and affairs stood still, while he was concerting the criticism upon the Cid.

, a learned French divine, was born September 30, 1560, at Chaource, in the diocese of Langres. He had been at first drawn into the party and sentiments of the Leaguers, and even ventured to defend James Clement, but soon hastened to acknowledge his legitimate sovereign, after having taken his doctor’s degree, 1590. Richer became grand master of the college of Le Moine, then syndic of the faculty of divinity at Paris, January 2, 1603, in which office he strenuously defended the ancient maxims of the doctors of this faculty, and opposed the thesis of a Dominican in 1611, who maintained the pope’s infallibility, and his superiority over the council. He published a small tract the same year, “On the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power,” 8vo, to establish the principles on which he asserted that the doctrine of the French church, and the Sorhonne, respecting papal authority, and the authority of the general council, were founded. This little book made much noise, and raised its author enemies in the Nuncio, and some doctors undertook to have him deposed from the syndicate, and his work condemned by the faculty of theology; but the parliament prohibited the faculty from interfering in that affair. In the mean time cardinal du Perron, archbishop of Sens, assembled eight bishops of his province at Paris, and made them censure Richer’s book, March 9, 1612. Richer entered an appeal (Comme tfabus) from this censure, to the parliament, and was admitted as an appellant; but the matter rested there. His book was also censured by the archbishop of Aix, and three bishops of his province, May 24, the same year, and he was proscribed and condemned at Rome. A profusion or pamphlets now appeared to refute him, and he received an express order from court, not to write in his defence. The animosity against Richer rose at length to such a height that his enemies obtained from the king and the queen regent letters, ordering the faculty to elect another syndic. Richer made his protestations, read a paper in his defence, and retired. A new syndic was chosen in 1612, and they have ever since been elected once in two years, although before that time their office was perpetual. Richer afterwards ceased to attend the meetings of the faculty, and confined himself to solitude, being wholly employed in study; but his enemies having involved him in several fresh troubles, he was seized, sent to the prisons of St. Victor, and would even have been delivered up to the pope, had no,t the parliament and chancellor of France prevented it, on complaints made by the university. He refused to attend the censure passed on the books of Anthony de Dominis in 1617, and published a declaration in 1620, at the solicitation of the court of Rome, protesting that he was ready to give an account of the propositions in his book “on the Ecclesiatical and Civil Power,” and explain them in an orthodox sense; and farther, that he submitted his work to the judgment of the Holy See, and of the Catholic church. He even published a second declaration; but all being insufficient to satisfy his adversaries, he was obliged to reprint his book in 1629, with the proofs of the propositions advanced in it, and the two declarations, to which cardinal Richelieu is said to have forced him to add a third. He died Nov. 28, 1631, in his seventy-second year. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where a mass used to be said annually for the repose of his soul. Besides his treatise on “Ecclesiastical Power,” reprinted with additions at Cologii in 1701, 2 vols. 4to, he was the author of a “History of general Councils,” 4 vols. 4to a “History of his Syndicate,” 8vo, and some other works, in which learning and great powers of reasoning are obvious. Baillet published a life of him in 12mo.

, an eminent English prelate, and martyr to the cause of the reformed religion, descended from an ancient family in Northumberland, was born early in the sixteenth century, in Tynedale, at a place called Wilmomswick in the above county. As he exhibited early proofs of good natural abilities, he was placed in a grammar-school at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in which he made such progress, that he was taken from thence and entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, about 15 18, when Luther was preaching against indulgences in Germany. His disposition was open and ingenuous, and his application to his studies unremitting both at school and university. He was taught Greek by Robert Crook, who had begun a course of that language at Cambridge. His religious sentiments were those of the Romish church in which he had been brought up, and in which he would probably be encouraged by his uncle, Dr. Robert Ridley, then fellow of Queen’s college. In 1522 he took the degree of B. A.; and to his knowledge of the learned languages, now added that of the philosophy and theology then in vogue. In 1524 his abilities were so generally acknowledged, that the master and fellows of University college, Oxford, invited him to accept of an exhibition there; but this he declined, and the same year was chosen fellow of his own college in Cambridge. Next year he took the degree of M. A. and in 1526 was appointed by the college their general agent in all causes belonging to the churches of Tilney, Soham, and Saxthorpe, belonging to Pembroke-hall. But as his studies were now directed to divinity, his uncle, at hjs own charge, sent him for farther improvement to the Sorbonne at Paris; and from thence to Louvain; continuing on the continent till 1529. In 1530, he was chosen junior treasurer of his college, and about this time appears to have been more than ordinarily intent on the study of the scriptures. For this purpose he used to walk in the orchard at Pembroke-hall, and there commit to memory almost all the epistles in Greek; which walk is still called Ridley’swaik. He also distinguished himself by his skill in disputation, but frequently upon frivolous questions, as was the custom of the time. In 1533 he was chosen senior proctor of the university, and while in that office, the important point of the pope’s supremacy came to be examined upon the authority of scripture. The decision of the university was, that “the bishop of Rome had no more authority and jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop;” which was signed by the vicechancellor, and by Nicholas Ridley, and Richard Wilkes, proctors. In 1534, on the expiration of his proctorship, he took the degree of B. D. and was chosen chaplain of the university, and public reader, which archbishop Tenison calls pradicater publicus, and in the Pembroke ms. he is also called Magister Glonieriaf, which office is supposed to be that of university orator. In the year 1537 his great reputation as an excellent preacher, and his intimate acquaintance with the scriptures and fathers, occasioned Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, to invite him to his house, where he appointed him one of his chaplains, and admitted him into his confidence. As a farther mark of his esteem, he collated him, in April 1538, to the vicarage of Herne in Kent. Here he was diligent to instruct his charge in the pure doctrines of the gospel, as far as they were discovered to him, except in the point of transubstantiation, on which he had as yet received no light; and to enliven the devotion of his parishioners, he used to have the Te Deum sung in his parish church in English, which was afterwards urged in accusation against him.

The greatest part of 1545 Dr. Ridley spent in retirement at Herne. He had, as we have noticed, been hitherto a believer in transubstantiation, influenced by the decrees of popes and councils, the rhetorical expressions of the fathers, and the letter of scripture; but it is supposed that a perusal of the controversy between Luther and the Zuinglians, with the writings of Ratramnus or Bertram, which had fallen into his hands, induced him to examine more closely into the scriptures, and opinions of the fathers; the result of which was, that this doctrine had no foundation. Cranmer also, to whom he communicated his discoveries, joined with him in the same opinion, as did Latimer. In the close of 1545, Cranmer gave him the eighth stall in St. Peter’s, Westminster. When Edward ascended the throne in 1547, Dr. Ridley was considered as a celebrated preacher, and in his sermons before the king, as well as on other occasions, exposed, with boldness and argument, the errors of popery. About this time, the fellows of Pembroke-hall presented him to the living of Soharo, in the diocese of Norwich; but the presentation being disputed by the bishop, Ridley was admitted to the living by command of the king. On Sept. 4 following, he was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, vacant by the translation of Dr. Holbeach to the bishopric of Lincoln. He was consecrated Sept. 25, in the chapel belonging to Dr. May, dean of St. Paul’s, in the usual form, by chrism, or holy unction, and imposition of hands; and after an ath renouncing the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, was vested, according to the ancient rites, with the robes and insignia appropriated to his dignity. Yet Dr. Brookes, in the subsequent reign, would not allow Ridley to have been a bishop, and only degraded him from his priest’s orders, which is not easy to be accounted for; because if the pretence was that his abjuration of the pope invalidated his consecration, the same objection might be made to Bonner, Tonstall, Gardiner, &c.

, who, from a low and despicable situation, raised himself to sovereign authority in Rome, in the 14th century, assuming the title of tribune, and proposing to restore the ancient free republic, was born at Rome, and was the son of no greater a personage than a mean vintner, or, as others say, a miller, named Lawrence Gabrini, and Magdalen, a laundress. However, Nicolas Rienzi, by which appellation he was commonly distinguished, did not form his sentiments from the meanness of his birth. To a good natural understanding he joined an uncommon assiduity, and made a great proficiency in ancient literature. Every thing he read he compared with similar passages that occurred within his own observation; whence he made reflections, by which he regulated his conduct. To this he added a great knowledge in the laws and customs of nations. He had a vast memory: he retained much of Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Livy, the two Senecas, and Cassar’s Commentaries especially, which he read continually, and often quoted and applied to the events of his own times. This fund of learning proved the foundation of his rise: the desire he had to distinguish himself in the knowledge of monumental history, drew him to another sort of science, then little understood. He passed whole days among the inscriptions which are to be found at Rome, and acquired soon the reputation of a great antiquary. Having hence formed within himself the most exalted notions of the justice, liberty, and ancient grandeur of the old Romans, words he was perpetually repeating to the people, he at length persuaded not only himself, but the giddy mob his followers, that he should one day become the restorer of the Roman republic. His advantageous stature, his countenance, and that air of importance which he well knew how to assume, deeply imprinted all he said in the minds of his audience: nor was it only by the populace that he was admired; he also found means to insinuate himself into the favour of those who partook of the administration. Rienzi’s talents procured him to be nominated one of the deputies, sent by the Romans to pope Clement VI. who resided at Avignon. The intention of this deputation was to make his holiness sensible, how prejudicial his absence was, as well to himself as to the interest of Rome. At his first audience, our hero charmed the court of Avignon by his eloquence, and the sprightliness of his conversation. Encouraged by success, he one day took the liberty to tell the pope, that the grandees of Rome were avowed robbers, public thieves, infamous adulterers, and illustrious profligates; who by their example authorized the most horrid crimes. To them he attributed the desolation of Rome, of which he drew so lively a picture, that the holy father was moved, and exceedingly incensed against the Roman nobility. Cardinal Colonna, in other respects a lover of real merit, could not help considering these reproaches as reflecting upon some of his family; and therefore found means of disgracing Rienzi, so that he fell into extreme misery, vexation, and sickness, which, joined, with indigence, brought him to an hospital. Nevertheless, the same hand that threw him down, raised him up again. The cardinal, who was all compassion, caused him to appear before the pope, in assurance of his being a good man, and a great partizan for justice and equity. The pope approved of him more than ever and, as proofs of his esteem and confidence, made him apostolicnotary, and sent him back loaded with favours. Yet his subsequent behaviour shewed, that resentment had a greater ascendancy over him than gratitude. Being returned to Rome, he began ta execute the functions of his office, and by affability, candour, assiduity, and impartiality, in the administration of justice, he arrived at a superior degree of popularity; which he still improved by continued invectives against the vices of the great, whom he strove to render as odious as possible; till at last, for some ill-timed freedoms of speech, he was not only severely reprimanded, but displaced. His dismission did not make him desist from inveighing against the debauched, though he conducted himself with more prudence. From this time it was his constant endeavour to inspire the people with a fondness for their ancient liberties; to which purpose, he caused to be hung up in the most public places emblematic pictures, expressive of the former splendour and present decline of Rome. To these he added frequent harangues and predictions upon the same subject, in this manner he proceeded till one party looked on him only as a madman, while others caressed him as their protector. Thus he infatuated the minds of the people, and many of the nobility began to come into his views, while the senate in no wise mistrusted a man, whom they judged to have neither interest nor ability. At length he ventured to disclose his designs to such as he believed mal-contents, first separately, but afterwards, when he thought he had firmly attached a sufficient number to his interest, he assembled them together, and represented to them the deplorable state of the city, over-run with debaucheries, and the incapacities of their governors to correct or amend them. As a necessary foundation for the enterprize, he gave them a statement of the immense revenues of the apostolic chamber; demonstrating that the pope could, only at the rate of four-pence, raise a hundred thousand florins by firing, as much by salt, and as much more by the customs and other duties. “As for the rest,” said he, “I would not have you imagine, that it is without the pope’s consent I lay hands on the revenues. Alas! how many others in this city plunder the effects of the church contrary to his will 1”

By this artful falsehood, he so animated his auditors, that they declared they would make no scruple of securing these treasures for whatever end might be most convenient, and that they were devoted to his will. Having obtained so much to secure his adherents from a revolt, he tendered them a paper, superscribed, “an oath to procure the good establishment;” and made them subscribe and swear to it, before he dismissed them. By what means he prevailed on the pope’s vicar to give a tacit sanction to his project is not certainly known; that he did procure that sanction, and that it was looked on as a master-piece of policy, is generally admitted. The 20th of May, being Whitsunday, he fixed upon to sanctify in some sort his enterprize; and pretended, that all he acted was by particular inspiration of the Holy Ghost. About nine, he came out of the church bare-headed, accompanied by the pope’s vicar, surrounded by an hundred armed men. A vast crowd followed him with shouts and acclamations. The gentlemen conspirators carried three standards before him, on which were wrought devices, insinuating, that his design was to re-establish liberty, justice, and peace. In this manner he proceeded directly to the capitol, where he mounted the rostrum; and, with more boldness and energy than ever, expatiated on the miseries to which the Romans were reduced; at the same time telling them, without hesitation, *' that the happy hour of their deliverance was at length come, and that he was to be their deliverer, regardless of the dangers he was exposed to for the service of the holy father and the people’s safety.“After which, he ordered the laws of what he called the good establishment to be read: and assured that the Romans would resolve to observe these laws, he engaged in a short time to re-establish them in their ancient grandeur. The laws of the good establishment promised plenty and security, which were greatly wanted; and the humiliation of the nobility, who were deemed common oppressors. Such laws could not fail of being agreeable to a people who found in them these double advantages; and therefore enraptured with the pleasing ideas of a liberty to which they were at present strangers, and the hope of gain, they adopted most zealously the fanaticism of Rienzi.-^­They resumed the pretended authority of the Romans; they declared him sovereign of Rome, and granted him the power of life and death, of rewards and punishments, of enacting and repealing the laws, of treating with foreign powers; in a word, they gave him the full and supreme authority over all the extensive territories of the Romans. Rienzi, arrived at the summit of his wishes, kept at a great distance his artifice: he pretended to be very unwilling to accept of their offers, but upon two conditions; the first, that they should nominate the pope’s vicar (the bishop of Orvieto) his co-partner the second, that the pope’s consent should be granted him, which (he told them) he flattered himself he should obtain. On the one hand, he hazarded nothing in thus making his court to the holy father, and, on the other, he well knew, that the bishop of Orvieto would carry a title only, and no authority. The people granted his request, but paid all the honours to him: he possessed the authority without restriction; the good bishop appeared a mere shadow and veil to his enterprizes. Rienzi was seated in his triumphal chariot, like an idol, to triumph with the greater splendor. He dismissed the people replete with joy and hope. He ^eized upon the palace, where he continued after he had turned out the senate; and, the same day, he began to dictate his laws in the capitol. This election, though not very pleasing to the pope, was ratified by him; yet Rienzi meditated the obtaining of a title, exclusive of the papal prerogative. Well versed in the Roman history, he was no stranger to the extent of the tribunitial authority; and, as he owed his elevation to the people, he chose to have the title of their magistrate. He asked it, and it was conferred on him and his co- partner, with the addition of deliverers of their country. Our adventurer’s behaviour in his elevation was at first such as commanded esteem and respect, not only from the Romans, but from all the neighbouring states. His contemporary, the celebrated Petrarch, in a letter to Charles, king of the Romans, gives the following account of him:” Not long since a most remarkable man, of the plebeian race, a person whom neither titles nor virtues had distinguished until he presumed to set himself up for a restorer or the Roman liberty, has obtained the highest authority at Rome. So sudden, so great is his success, that this man has already won Tuscany and all Italy. Already Europe and the whole world are in motion; to speak the whole in one word, I protest to you, not as a reader, but as an eye-witness, that he has restored to us the justice, peace, integrity, and every other token of the golden age.“But it is difficult for a person of mean birth, elevated at once, by the caprice of fortune, to the most exalted station, to move rightly in a sphere in which he must breathe an air he has been unaccustomed to. Rienzi ascended by degrees the summit of his fortune. Riches softened, power dazzled, the pomp of his cavalcades animated, and formed in his mind ideas adequate to those of princes born to empire. Hence luxury invaded his table, and tyranny took possession of his heart. The pop conceived his designs contrary to the interests of the holy see, and the nobles, whose power it had been his constant endeavours to depress, conspired against him; and Rienzi was forced to quit an authority he had possessed little more than six months. It was to a precipitate flight that he was indebted, at this juncture, for his life; and to different disguises for his subsequent preservation. Having made an ineffectual effort at Rome, and not knowing where to find a new resource to carry on his designs, he took a most bold step, conformable to that rashness which had so often assisted him in his former exploits. He determined to go to Prague, to Charles, king of the Romans, whom the year before he had summoned to his tribunal, and who he foresaw would deliver him up to a pope highly incensed against him. He was accordingly soon after sent to Avignon, and there thrown into a prison, where he continued three years. The divisions and disturbances in Italy, occa* sioned by the number of petty tyrants that had established themselves in the ecclesiastical territories, and even at Rome, occasioned his enlargement. Innocent VI. who succeeded Clement in the papacy, sensible that the Romans still entertained an affection for our hero, and believing that his chastisement would teach him to act with more moderation than he had formerly done, as well as that gratitude would oblige him, for the remainder of his life, to preserve au inviolable attachment to the holy see (by whose favour he should be re-established), thought him a proper instrument to assist his design of reducing those other tyrants; and therefore, not only gave him his liberty, but also appointed him governor and senator of Rome. He met with many obstacles to the assumption of this newly-granted authority, all which, by cunning and resolution, he at length over> came. But giving way to his passions, which were immoderately warm, and inclined him to cruelty, he excited so general a resentment against him, that he was murdered, Oct. 8, 1354.” Such,“say his biographers,” was the end of Nicolas Rienzi, one of the most renowned men of the age; who, after forming a conspiracy full of extravagance, and executing it in the sight of almost the whole world, with such success that he became sovereign of Rome; after causing plenty, justice, and liberty to flourish among the Romans; after protecting potentates, and terrifying sovereign princes; after being arbiter of crowned heads; after re-establishing the ancient majesty and power of the Roman republic, and filling all Europe with his fame during the seven months of his first reign after having compelled his masters themselves to confirm him in the authority he bad usurped against their interests; fell at length at the end of his second, which lasted not four months, a sacrifice to the nobility whose ruin he had vowed, and to those vast projects which his death prevented him from putting into execution."

, a chemist and poet in the time of Henry VII. was a canon of Bricllington, and accomplished in many branches of erudition; and still maintains his reputation as a learned chemist of the lower ages. He was a great traveller, and studied both in France and Italy. At his return from abroad, pope Innocent VIII. absolved him from the observance of the rules of his order, that he might prosecute his studies with more convenience and freedom. But his convent not concurring with this very liberal indulgence, he turned Carmelite at St. Botolph’s in Lincolnshire, and died in that fraternity in 1490. His chemical poems are nothing more than the doctrines of alchemy cloathed in plain language, and a very rugged versification. His capital performance is the “Compound of Alchemic,” written in 1471, in the octave metre, and dedicated to Edward IV. He has left a few other compositions on his favourite science, printed by Ashmole, who was an enthusiast in this abused species of philosophy; and some lives of saints in ms.

Thus qualified and encouraged, she was prevailed upon to accept of an engagement at the Opera, where she made her first appearance in Creso, and her second in the character of Ismina, the principal female part in Arminio. From this period till 1724, she continued to perform a principal part at the Opera with increasing favour and applause. Her salary is said to have been 1000l. and her emoluments, by benefits and presents, were estimated at nearly as much more. When she quitted the stage it was supposed to have been in consequence other marriage with the gallant earl of Peterborough, the friend of Pope and Swift, who distinguished himself so heroically in Spain during the reign of queen Anne. Though the marriage was not publicly declared till the earl’s death in 1735, yet it was then spoken of as an event which had long taken place. And such was the purity of her conduct and character, that she was instantly visited at Fulham as the lady of the mansion, by persons of the highest rank. Here, and at Mount Bevis, the earl’s seat near Southampton, she resided in an exalted station till the year of her decease, 1750, surviving her lord fifteen years; who, at the time of the connexion, must have been considerably beyond his prime, as he was arrived at his seventy-fifth year when he died.

, a celebrated general of the Dominicans, and one of the most zealous defenders of papal authority, was born at Peselada on the frontiers of Roussillon and Catalonia, about 1624. He was the son of Francis viscount de Rocaberti, of an ancient family. Having entered the Dominican order early in life, he became provincial of Arragon in 1666, general of his order in 1670, archbishop of Valencia in 1676, and grand inquisitor of the faith in 1695. His catholic majesty, whose favour he acquired, made him twice viceroy of Valencia. He died June 13, 1699, leaving a long treatise “De Romani Pontilicis Automate,” 3 vols. folio, esteemed in Spain and Italy, but prohibited in France; and “Bibliotheca Pontificia;” a large collection of all the treatises which have been written by different authors in favour of the pope’s authority and infallibility, Rome, 1700, &c. 21 vols, folio. The parliament of Paris also prohibited the sale of this immense collection.

, a learned Italian, was a native of Rocca Contrata, a town in the marche of Ancona, and horn in 1545. When young he was sent to Camerino, where, in 1552, he took the habit among the hermits of St. Augustine, and remained so long here that some have given him the surname of Camero. He afterwards continued his studies at Rome, Venice, Perusia, and Padua. He received the degree of doctor of divinity at the university of Padua, in Sept. 1577, and acquired much celebrity as a preacher at Venice, and as a teacher of the belles lettres to the juniors of his order. In 1579 Fivizani, the vicargeneral of the Augustines, invited him to Rome to be iiis secretary, and pope Sixtus V. placed him in the Vatican in 1585, and confided to his superintendance those editions of the Bible, the councils, and the fathers, which issued from the apostolical press during his pontificate. In 1595, pope Clement VIII. made him apostolical sacristan in the room of Fivizani, now deceased, and titular bishop of Tagaste in Numidia. He collected a very large and excellent library, which he presented in his life-time, by a deed of gift, dated Oct. 23, 1614, to the Augustinian monastery at Rome; but upon the express condition, that it should be always open for the benefit of the public. Rocca died April 8, 1620, at the age of seventy-five. Rocca had read much, but was either deficient in, or seldom exercised his judgment, as appears by the most of his works. Among these may be mentioned his “Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana,” which Fabricius calls a very trifling work “Bibliotheca Theologica et Scripturalis” “Notae in Novum Testamentum;” “De Patientia” “De Cometis” “Observationes in VI Libros Elegantiarum Laur. Valise;” “Observationes de Lingua Latina” and other pieces which were collected together, and printed in 1719, 2 vols. folio. From his manuscripts was aiso published, in 1745, a very curious collection, entitled “Thesaurus Pontificiarum Antiquitatum, necnon Rituurn ac Ceremoniarum,” in 2 vols. folio.

The marquis of Dorchester, a patron of learning, and learned himself, used to entertain Mr. Rooke at his seat at Ilighgate after the restoration, and bring him every Wednesday in his coach to the Royal Society, which then met on that day of the week at Gresham college. But the last time Mr. Rooke was at Highgate, he walked from thence; and it being in the summer, he overheated himself, and taking cold after it, he was thrown into a fever, which cost him his life. He died at his apartments at Gresham college, June 27, 1662, in the fortieth year of his age. It was reckoned very unfortunate that his death happened the very night that he had for some years expected to finish his accurate observations on the satellites of Jupiter. When, he found his illness prevented him from making that observation, Dr. Pope says, he sent to the Society his request, that some other person, properly qualified, might be appointed for that purpose; so intent was he to the last onmaking those curious and useful discoveries, in which he had been so long engaged. He made a nuncupatory will, leaving what he had to Dr. Ward, the,n lately made bishop of Exeter: whom he permitted to receive what was due upon bond, if the debtors offered payment willingly, otherwise he would not have the bonds put in suit: “for,” said he, “as I never was in law, nor had any contention with, any man, in my life-time, neither would I be so after my death.”

, a learned Italian, who assumed and is generally known by the name of Janus Njcius Erythræus, was born at Rome, of a noble, but not opulent family, about 1577. He studied in the college of the Jesuits, and before he was nineteen years of age had made such progress in the law, that he was permitted to give lessons on the subject. These were so much admired by a magistrate of eminence, that he appointed Rossi his auditor; but as this gentleman died the same year, all his hopes from his patronage were disappointed. The law, however, still holding out the prospect of those honours to which he aspired, he omitted no opportunity of increasing his knowledge under the direction of Lepidus Piccolomini, one of the most famous lawyers of his time, and who advised him to turn pleader; but Piccolomini dying soon after, Rossi was so discouraged by this second disappointment that, as he had devoted himself to the study of the law rather from ambition than liking, he now determined to employ his time in the study of the belles lettres. With this view he became a member of the academy of the Umoristi, where he read several of his compositions, the style of which was so much admired by Marcel Vestri, secretary of the briefs to pope Paul V., that he invited Rossi to his house, to assist in drawing up the briefs, and with a view that he should be his successor in case of himself rising to higher preferment. Rossi soon made himself useful in this office, but unfortunately Vestri died in about eight months, and Rossi was again left unemployed, Many expedients he tried, and made many applications, but without success, and his only consolation, we are told, he derived from his vanity, which suggested to him that persons in office would not employ him, from a consciousness of their inferiority to him, and a jealousy of his supplanting them. It appears, however, that a certain satirical and arrogant temper was more to blame; for this was what he could not easily repress.

At length, in 1608, when he was in his thirty-first year, the cardinal Andrew Peretti took him into his service, as secretary, and with him he lived near twenty years, that is, until the cardinal’s death, in 1628. Rossi tells us in one of his letters that he accepted this situation much against his will, and remained in it only because he could obtain no other; and complain* of the little care the cardinal took to promote his dependents, and his general want of liberality towards them. His residence here, however, appears to have cured him of all his ambition, and he resolved for the future to devote himself to study only. From this time accordingly, he was employed in perusing the scriptures and the fathers, and in the composition of his various works; and that he might be enabled to enjoy all this in quiet, he went to a retired part of Rome, where he afterwards built a small church dedicated to St. Mary. In some of his works he styles himself a Roman citizen, and a commissary of the water of Marana; but, according to one of his letters to Fabio Chjgi, afterwards pope Alexander VIL, he neither knew what the duty of that office was, what this water of Marana was, where it came from, whither it flowed, or what benefit the people of Rome derived from it, except that he had been told it turned some mills. There was, however, an annual salary annexed, which he found not inconvenient. He died Nov. 15, 1647, and was interred in the church which he built for the use of the hermits of the congregation of Peter of Pisa, whom also he made his heirs. His first publication is entitled< Eudemiae libri Decem/* Cologne (Leyden), 1645. To this, which is a bitter satire on the corrupt manners of the Romans, he prefixed his assumed name of Janus Nicius Erythraeus. His other works consist of “Dialogues,” religious tracts, orations, and letters; but that for which he is most known is his “Pinacotheca imaginum illustrjum doctrinse vcl ingenii laude virorum, qui uuctore superstite diem suum ohierunt,” in three parts, Cologn, 1643—1648, reprinted at Leipsic in 1692, and in 1729. As containing many particulars of contemporary history, this is a work necessary to be consulted, but it contains more opinions than facts, and his criticisms are often injudicious.

, a learned ecclesiastical antiquary, was born at Utrecht in 1569, and entered the society of the Jesuits at Doway in Flanders, when he was twenty years of age. His taste led him to examine the libraries of the monasteries in that city, until he was called to be professor of philosophy and divinity, first at Doway, and afterwards at Antwerp, where he attained very considerable reputation. He died in 1629, at the age of sixty. He published, in 1607, “Fasti Sanctorum quorum Vitae in Belgicis Bibliothecis Man use rip tee asservantur,” which he intended as a specimen of a larger work, and which was the prelude of the immense collection by Bollandus and others, under the title of “Acjta Sanctorum.” He was author of many other works, among which is “An Account of the Hermits of Egypt and Palestine,” “An Ecclesiastical History from the time of Christ to pope Urban VIII.” 2 vols. folio; and “The History of the Belgic Church.” In none of these did he ever rise above the prejudices of his order, but shewed himself the zealous advocate of superstition and credulity, while he treated those who differed from him with very little respect.

Mr. Rowe was twice married, had a son by his first wife, and a daughter by his second. He was a handsome, genteel man; and his mind was as amiable as his person. He lived beloved, and at his death had the honour to be lamented by Mr. Pope, in an epitaph which is printed in Pope’s works, although it was not affixed on Mr. Rowe’s monument, in Westminster-abbey, where he was interred in the Poet’s corner.

, fourth son to the preceding, was born at Florence, Oct. 20, 1475, at a time when his family was in the plenitude of its power. By what masters he was educated we have not been told, but it maybe presumed, from his father’s character, that he procured him the best which Florence could afford; and it is said that he became very accomplished in the Greek and Latin languages, as well as in his own. In 1505 he was sent as ambassador from Florence to Venice. In the tumult raised by the younger citizens of Florence on the return of the Medici in 1512, and which contributed so greatly to facilitate that event, he and his brother Pallas took a principal part, apparently in opposition to the wishes of their father, who was on the popular side. On the elevation of Leo X. and the appointment of his nephew Lorenzo to the government of Naples, Ruccellai is supposed to have accompanied the latter to Rome, when he went to assume the insignia of captain-general of the church. In 1515 he attended Leo on his visit to Florence, on which occasion the pontiff was entertained in the gardens of the Ruccellai with the representation of the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” written by our author in Italian blank verse. As Ruccellai entered into the ecclesiastical order, it has appeared surprising that Leo did not raise him to the purple; but political reasons, and not any want of esteem, seem to have prevented this, fop he sent him, at a very important crisis, as his legate to Francis I. in which station he continued until Leo’s death. After this event he returned to Florence, and was deputed, lyith five other principal citizens, to congratulate the net* pope Adrian VI. which he performed in an oration yet extant. The succeeding pope Clement VII. appointed Ruccellai keeper of the castle of St. Angelo, whence he obtained the name of IL Gastellano. He died in 1526. His fame rests chiefly on his poem of the “Api,” or Bees, which was published in 1539, and will secure to its author a high rank among the writers of didactic poetry. “His diction,” says Mr. Roscoe, “is pure without being insipid, and simple without becoming vulgar; and in the course of his work he has given decisive proofs of his scientific acquirements, particularly on subjects of natural history.” Besides the tragedy of “Rosmunda,” already noticed, he wrote another, V Oreste,“which remained in manuscript until published by Scipio Maffei in his” Teatro Italiano,“who consider it as superior to his” Rosmunda.“They are both imitations of Euripides. An edition of all his works was printed at Padua in 1772, 8vo, and his poem of the” Bees" was translated into French by Pingeron, in 1770.

, orRUFINUS, a very celebrated priest of Aquileia, called by some Toranius, was born about the middle of the fourth century, at Concordia, a small city in Italy. He retired to a monastery in Aquileia, and devoted himself wholly to reading and meditating on the sacred scriptures and the writings of the holy fathers. St. Jerome passing that way became much attached to him, and vowed an indissoluble friendship. When St. Jerome retired into the east some years after, Ruffinus, inconsolable for their separation, resolved to quit Aquileia in search of his friend. He accordingly embarked for Egypt, visited the hermits who inhabited the deserts, and having been told much of the chamy of St. Melania the elder, had the satisfaction of seeing ner at Alexandria, where he went to hear the celebrated Didymus. The piety which Melania observed in Ruffinus induced her to make him her confident, which he continued to be while they remained iti the East, which was about thirty years. But the Arians, who ruled in the reign of Valens, raised a cruel persecution against Ruffinus, cast him into a dungeon, and loaded him with chains, where he suffered the torments of hunger and thirst, and they afterwards banished him to the most desolate part of Palestine. Melania ransomed him, with several other exiles, and returned to Palestine with him. It was at this period, that St. Jerome, supposing Ruffinus would go directly to Jerusalem, wrote to a friend in that city to congratulate him on the occasion, in the following terms: “You will see the marks of holiness shine in the person of Ruffinus, whereas I am but his dust. It is enough for my weak eyes to support the lustre of his virtues. He has lately been further purified in the crucible of persecution, and is now whiter than snow, while I am defiled with all manner of sins.” Ruffinus built a monastery on mount Olivet, converted numbers of sinners, re-united to the church above 400 solitaries, who had engaged in the schism of Antioch, and persuaded several Macedonians and Arians to renounce their errors. He, at the same time, translated such Greek books as appeared to him the most interesting; but his translations of Origen’s works, particularly “the Book of principles,” occasioned that rupture between him and St. Jerome, which made so much noise in the church, and so deeply afflicted St. Augustine, and all the great men of their time. Ruffinus was cited to Rome by pope Anastatius, who is said to have condemned his translation of “the Book of principles.” Being accused of heresy, he published some very orthodox apologies, which discover great ingenuity. His chief plea was, “That he meant to be merely a translator, without undertaking to support or defend any thing reprehensible in Origen’s works.” He went afterwards into 'Sicily, and died there about the year 410. He translated from Greek into Latin, “Josephus;” “The Ecclesiastical History,” by Eusebius, to which he added, two books; several of Origen’s writings, with his “Apology” by St. Pamphilius; ten of St. Gregory of Nazianzen’s Discourses, and eight of St. Basil’s, in all which he has been accused of taking great liberties, and in some of them acknowledges it. He has also left a Tract in defence of Origen; two “Apologies” against St. Jerome; “Commentaries” on Jacob’s Benedictions, on Hosea, Joel, and Amos; several “Lives of the Fathers of the desert,” and “An Exposition of the Creed,” which has always been valued. His works were printed at Paris, 1580, fol.; but the “Commentary on the Psalms,” which bears his name, was not written by him. The abbe“Gervase has published a” Life of Ruffinus," 2 vols. 12mo.

Some time before his death, bishop Warburton, who probably thought the task might involve himself in inquiries not very suitable to the dignity of his order, employed Ruffhead to write the “Life of Pope,” but himself revised the sheets, and occasionally contributed a paragraph, although neither was sufficiently attentive to accuracy of dates, which, in Pope’s history, are matters of no small importance, nor was the work in general creditable to the subject, for Ruffhead had no taste for poetry or criticism. The public, however, knowing to whom he must be indebted for most of his materials, read the book with some avidity, and it was twice reprinted, but has since been superseded by more able pens. The university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of LL. D on Ruffhead, in 1766, which, we believe, he never assumed, although in Northouck’s dictionary he is called Dr. Ruffhead. Among his other literary engagements, Sir John Hawkins informs us that he was employed as reviewer of books in the Gentleman’s Magazine, until employed on Cay’s Statutes: and some time before his death the proprietors of Chambers’s Cyclopædia engaged him to superintend a new edition of that work: he was paid a considerable sum on account, but, having done nothing, the booksellers recovered the money of his heirs. He left one son, Thomas Ruffhead, who died curate of Prittlewell, in Essex, in 1798.

The issue of this matter, however, was, that the bishop of London proposed Dr. Benson, the friend of Dr. Rundle, for the vacant see of Gloucester, and Dr, Rundle was soon after promoted to the. lucrative bishopric of Derry in Ireland, to which he was consecrated February 1734-5. The aspersions thrown on his character in England had by this time reached Ireland, and created great discontent at the appointment; but a residence of a few years, and repeated acts of public munificence and private generosity, gradually endeared him to the people of Ireland. He died at his palace in. Dublin April 14, 1743, scarcely sixty years of age. Having survived the nearer connections of his own family, he left his property, amounting to 20,000^, principally to the hon. John Talbot, second son to the chancellor. His person is said to have been slender, and not inelegantly formed. As to his character as a man, he appears to have been distinguished by many virtues, and by some weaknesses. His biographer says, he was precipitate in forming friendships, and as ready to relinquish them; a character by no means amiable; but for which, perhaps, some excuse might be formed, if we were made acquainted with the nature of his friendships. Unsuspicious men often contract friendships which, upon a closer inspection, they find unworthy and untenable; and this may happen before years have accumulated experience, if not without blame, at least with some excuse; and perhaps Dr. Rundle did not always suffer himself to be deceived. His character as a divine, we see, once laboured under suspicion, and if we except his own declaration, it was principally vindicated by those who were not very friendly to the church. The attestations of Pope and Swift can add little to his reputation. There was nothing, however, in his public conduct subsequent to the clamour raised against him, which could be censured; and the last letter he appears to have written, a little before his death, to archdeacon S. breathes the language of genuine piety.

Among his works may be enumerated, the monuments of sir Isaac Newton and of the duke of Marlborough at Blenheim, and the equestrian statue in bronze of king William at Bristol, in 1733, for which he received 1800l.; a great many busts, and most of them very like, as of Pope, Gibbs, sir Robert Walpole, the duke and duchess of Argyle, the duchess of Marlborough, lord Bolingbroke, Wootton, Ben Jonson, Butler, Milton, Cromwell, and himself; the statues of George I. and II. at the Royal Exchange; the heads in the hermitage at Richmond, and those of the English worthies at Stowe. The competition of Scheemaker and Roubiliac hurt the business, if not the reputation of Rysbrach, for some time, and induced him to produce his three statues of Palladio, Liigo Jones, and Fiarningo, and at last his chef d'ceuvre, his Hercules; an exquisite summary of his knowledge, skill, and judgment. This athletic statue, for which he borrowed the head of the Farnesian god, was compiled from various parts and limbs of seven or eight of the strongest and best made men in London, chiefly the bruisers and boxers of the then flourishing amphitheatre for boxing: the sculptor selecting the parts which were the most truly formed in each. The arms were Broughton’s, the breasts a celebrated coachman’s, a bruiser, and the legs were those of Ellis the painter, a great frequenter of that gymnasium. As the games of that Olympic academy frequently terminated at the gallows, it was soon after suppressed by act of parliament; so that in reality Rysbrach’s Hercules is the monument of those gladiators. It was purchased by Mr. Hoare, and is the principal ornament of the noble temple at Stourhead, that beautiful assemblage of art, taste, and landscapes.

, a learned Portuguese Jesuit, was born in 1530, at Conde, in the province of Douro, and entered the society in 1545. After the usual course of studies, he taught at Coimbra, Rome, and other places, and was considered as an excellent preacher and interpreter of the scriptures, on which last account he was employed, by pope Pius V. on a new edition of the Bible. He died at Arona, in the Milanese, Dec 30, 1596, in the sixty-sixth year of his age. His chief works are “Scholia in quatuor Evangelia,” Antwerp and Cologn, 1596, 4to; and “Notationes in totam s cram Scripturam,” &c. Antwerp, 1598, 4to reprinted, with other scholi or notes, by Mariana and Tirini. Dupin says, that of all the Commentaries upon the scriptures there is nothing more concise and useful than the notes of our author, whose sole object, he adds, is to give the literalest use in a few words and in an intelligible manner. De Sa was the author of another work, which, although a very small volume, is said to have employed him for forty years: it is entitled “Aphorismi Confessariorum,” printed first at Venice, 1595, 12mo, and afterwards frequently reprinted in various places. Dupin calls it a moral work it seems rather a set of rules for confessors in cases of conscience and Lavocat tells us it contains some dangerous positions respecting both morals and the authority of kings. It underwent so many corrections and emendations before the pope would license it, that it did not appea- until the year before the author died. The French translations of it have many castrations.

, a Spanish political and moral writer, was born May 6, 1584, at Algezares, in the kingdom of Murcia, and studied at Salamanca. In 1606, he went to Rome as secretary to the cardinal Gaspar de Borgia, who was appointed Spanish ambassador to the pope, and assisted in the conclaves of 1621 and 1623, held for the election of the popes Gregory XV. and Urban VIII. For these services Saavedra was rewarded with a canonry in the church of St. James, although he had never taken priest’s orders. Some time after he was appointed agent from the court of Spain at Rome, and his conduct in this office acquired him general esteem. In 1636, he assisted at the electoral congress held there, in which Ferdinand III. was chosen king of the Romans. He afterwards was present at eight diets held in Swisserland, and lastly at the general diet of the empire at Ratisbonne, where he appeared in quality of plenipotentiary of the circle and of the house of Burgundy. After being employed in some other diplomatic affairs, he returned to Madrid in 1646, and was appointed master of ceremonies in the introduction of ambassadors; but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died Aug. 24, 1648. In his public character he rendered the state very important services, and, as a writer, is ranked among those who have contributed to polish and enrich the Spanish language. The Spanish critics, who place him among their classics, say he wrote Spanish as Tacitus wrote Latin. He has long been known, even in this country, by his “Emblems,” which were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in the early part of the last century. These politico-moral instructions for a Christian prince, were first printed in 1640, 4to, under the title of “Idea de un Principe Politico* Christiano representada en cien empress,” and reprinted at Milan in 1642; they were afterwards translated into Latin, and published under the title of “Symbola Christiano-Politica,” and have often been reprinted in various sizes in France, Italy, and Holland. He wrote also “Corona Gotica, Castellana, y Austriaca politicamente illustrada,” 1646, 4to, which was to have consisted of three parts, but he lived to complete one only: the rest was by Nunez de Castro; and “Respublica Literaria,” published in 1670, 8vo. Of this work an English translation was published by I. E. in 1727. It is a kind of vision, giving a satirical account of the republic of letters, not unlike the manner of Swift. The French have a translation of it, so late as 1770.

, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, an eminent statesman and poet, was born at Withyam in Sussex, in 1527. He was the son of sir Richard Sackville, who died in 1566, by Winifred Brydges (afterwards marchioness of Winchester), and grandson of John Sackville, esq. who died in 1557, by Anne Boleyne, sister of sir Thomas Boleyne, earl of Wiltshire and great grandson of Richard Sackviiie, esq. who died in 1524, by Isabel, daughter of John Digges, of Digues 1 s place in Barham, Kent, of a family which for many succeeding generations produced men of learning and genius. He was first of the university of Oxford, and, as it is supposed, of Hart-hall, now Hertford-college; but taking no degree there, he removed to Cambridge, where he commenced master of arts, and afterwards was a student of the Inner Temple. At both universities he became celebrated both as a Latin and English poet, and carried the same taste and talents to the Temple, where he wrote his tragedy of “Gorboduc,” which was exhibited in the great hall by the students of that society, as part of a Christmas entertainment, and afterwards before queen Elizabeth at Whitehall^ Jan. 18, 1561. It was surreptitiously printed in 1563, under the title of “The Tragedy of Gorboduc,” 4to; but a correct edition under the inspection of the authors (for he was assisted by Thomas Norton), appeared in 1571, entitled “The Tragedie of Ferrex and Porrex.” Another edition appeared in 1569, notwithstanding which, for many years it had so feompletely disappeared, that Dryden and Oldham, in the reign of Charles II. do not appear to have seen it, though they pretended to criticise it; and even Wood knew just as little of it, as is plain from his telling us that it was written in old English rhyme. Pope took a fancy to retrieve this play from oblivion, and Spence being employed to set it off with all possible advantage, it was printed pompously in 1736, 8vo, with a preface by the editor. Spence, speaking of his lordship as a poet, declares, that “the dawn of our English poetry was in Chaucer’s time, but that it shone out in him too bright all at once to last long. The succeeding age was dark and overcast. There was indeed some glimmerings of genius again in Henry VIII's time but our poetry had never what could be called a fair settled day-light till towards the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. It was between these two periods, that lord Buckhurst wrote; after the earl of Surrey, and before Spenser.” Warton’s opinion of this tragedy is not very favourable. He thinks it never was a favourite with our ancestors, and fell into oblivion on account of the nakedness anil uninteresting nature of the plot, the tedious length of the speeches, the want of discrimination of character, and almost a total absence of pathetic or critical situations. Yet he allows that the language of “Gorboduc” has great merit and perspicuity, and that it is entirely free from the tumid phraseology of a subsequent age of play-writing.

“He was a man,” says Dr. Johnson, “whose elegance and judgment were universally confessed, and whose bounty to the learned and witty was generally known. To the indulgent affection of the public, lord Rochester bore ample testimony in this remark: ‘ I know not how it is, but lord Buckhurst may do what he will, yet is never in the wrong.’ If such a man attempted poetry, we cannot wonder that his works were praised. Dryden, whom, if Prior tells truth, he distinguished by his beneficence, and who lavished his blandishments on those who are not known to have so well deserved them, undertaking to produce authors of our own country superior to those of antiquity, says, c I would instance your Lordship in satire, and Shakspeare in tragedy.' Would it be imagined thai, of this rival to antiquity, all the satires were little personal invectives, and that his longest composition was a song of eleven stanzas The blame, however, of this exaggerated praise falls on the encomiast, not upon the author; whose performances are, what they pretend to be, the effusions of a man of wit; gay, vigorous, and airy. His verses to Howard shew great fertility of mind; and his Dorinda” has been imitated by Pope.

In the same year, 1540, he lost his patron Cromwell, who was beheaded; but he retained his favour with Henry, and in 1541 was again sent to Scotland, to detach the king from the pope and the. popish clergy, and to press upon him the propriety of a personal meeting with Henry. This however the king of Scotland appears to have evaded with considerable address, and died the following year of a broken heart, in consequence of hearing of the fatal battle of Solway. The crown was now left to James V.'s infant daughter Mary; and sir Ralph Sadler’s next employment was to lend his aid to the match, projected by Henry VIII. between his son Edward and the young queen. But this ended so unsuccessfully, that Sadler was obliged to return to England in Dee 1543, and Henry declared war against Scotland. In the mean time he was so satisfied with Sadler’s services, even in this last negociation, that he included him, by the title of sir Ralph Sad ley r, knight, among the twelve persons whom he named as a privy-council to the sixteen nobles to whom, in his will, he bequeathed the care of his son, and of the kingdom. When this will was set aside by the protector duke of Somerset, and it became necessary to reconcile the king’s executors and privy-counsellors, by wealth and honours, sir Ralph Sadler received a confirmation of all the church-lands formerly assigned to him by Henry, with splendid additions.

, the first of a family of distinguished engravers, the son of a founder and chaser, was born at Brussels in 1550. He applied early in life to drawing and engraving, and published some prints at Antwerp, which did him great honour. Encouraged by this success, he travelled over Holland that he might work under the inspection of the best masters, and found a generous benefactor in the duke of Bavaria. He went afterwards into Italy, and presented some of his prints to pope Clement VIII. but receiving only empty compliments fram that pontiff, retired to Venice, where he died 1600, in his fiftieth year, leaving a son named Juste or Justin, by whom also we have some good prints. Raphael Sadeler, John’s brother, and pupil, was born in 1555, and distinguished himself as an engraver, by the correctness of his drawings and the natural expression of his figures. He accompanied John to Rome and to Venice, and died in the latter city. Raphael engraved some plates for a work entitled “de opificio mundi,” 1617, 8vo, which is seldom found perfect. The works executed by him and John in conjunction, are, “Solitudo, sive vitas patrum eremicolarum,” 4to “Sylvse sacrae,,” “Trophaeum vitae solitaries” “ Oraculum anacboreticum,” “Solitude sive vitae feminarura anachoreticarum;” “Recueil d‘Estampes, d’apres Raphael, Titien, Carrache,” &c. amounting to more than 500 prints, in 2 vols. fol. Giles Sadeler was nephew and pupil of John and Raphael, but excelled them in correct drawing, and in the taste and neatness of his engraving. After having remained some time in Italy, he was invited into Germany by the emperor Rodolphus II. who settled a pension upon him; and Matthias and Ferdinand, this emperor’s successors, continued also to esteem and honour him. He died at Prague in 1629, aged fifty-nine, being born at Antwerp in 1570, leaving “Vestigi dell' antichita di Roma,” Rome, 1660, fol. obi. These engravers employed their talents chiefly on scripture subjects. Mark Sadeler, related to the three above mentioned, seems to have been merely the editor of th^ir works.

, a polite and learned Italian, was born at Modena in 1477, and was the son of an eminent civilian, who, afterwards becoming a professor at Ferrara, took him along with him, and educated him with great care. He acquired a masterly knowledge in the Latin and Greek early, and then applied himself to philosophy and eloquence; taking Aristotle and Cicero for his guides, whom he considered as the first masters in these branches. He also cultivated Latin poetry, in which he displayed a very high degree of classical purity. Going to Rome under the pontificate of Alexander VI. when he was about twentytwo, he was taken into the family of cardinal Caraffa, who loved men of letters; and, upon the death of this cardinal in 1511, passed into that of Frederic Fregosa, archbishop of Salerno, where he found Peter Bembus, and contracted an intimacy with him. When Leo X. ascended the papal throne in 1513, he chose Bembus and Sadolet for his secretaries men extremely qualified for the office, as both of them wrote with great elegance and facility and soon after made Sadolet bishop of Carpentras, near Avignon. Upon the death of Leo, in 1521, he went to his diocese, and resided there during the pontificate of Adrian VI.; but Clement VII. was no sooner seated in the chair, in 1523, than he recalled him to Rome. Sadolet submitted to his boliness, but oh condition that he should return to his diocese at the end of three years. Paul III. who succeeded Clement VII. in 1534, called him to Rome again; made him a cardinal in 1536, and employed him in many important embassies and negotiations. Sadolet, at length, grown too old to perform the duties of his bishopric, went no more from Rome; but spent the remainder of his days there in repose and study. He died in 1547, not without poison, as some have imagined; because he corresponded too familiarly with the Protestants, and testified much regard for some of their doctors. It is true, he had written in 1539 a Latin letter to the senate and people of Geneva, with a view of reducing them to an obedience to the pope; and had addressed himself to the Calvinists, with the affectionate appellation of “Charissimi in Christo Fratres;” but this proceeded entirely from his moderate and peaceable temper and courteous disposition. He was a sincere adherent to the Romish church, but without bigotry. The liberality of sentiment he displayed in his commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans incurred the censure of the Roman court.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and one of the greatest ornaments of Christianity which appeared in the Romish communion in the thirteenth century, had his name from St. Amour in Franche Compte, where he was born about the commencement of that century. The zeal which he showed against the new institution of mendicant friars, both in his sermons, and as theological professor, induced the university of Paris to make choice of him to defend their interests against the Dominicans and Franciscans, who wished to engross the power and influence of the university to themselves. In 1255, the debate was brought before the pope Alexander IV. who, with intolerable arrogance, ordered the university not only to restore the Dominicans to their former station, but also to grant them as many professorships as they should require. The magistrates of Paris, at first, were disposed to protect the university; but the terror of the papal edicts reduced them at length to silence; and not only the Dominicans, but also the Franciscans, assumed whatever power they pleased in that famous seminary, and knew no other restrictions than what the pope imposed upon them. St. Amour, however, wrote several treatises against the mendicant orders, and particularly, in 1255, or 1256, his famous book, “Perils des derniers temps,” concerning the “perils of the latter days,” in which he maintained that St. Paul’s prophecy of the latter times (2 Tim. iii. 1.) was fulfilling in the abominations of the* friars, and laid down thirty-nine marks of false teachers.

Some years before the pope had decided in favour of the mendicants, a fanatical book under the title of an “Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel” was published by a Franciscan, who exalted St. Francis above Jesus Christ, and arrogated to his order the glory of reforming mankind by a new gospel. The universal ferment, excited by this impious book, obliged Alexander IV. to suppress it, but he ordered it to be burnt in secret, being willing to spare the reputation of the mendicants. The university of Paris, however, insisted upon a public condemnation of the book; and Alexander, great as he was in power, was obliged to submit. He then took revenge by condemning St. Amour’s work to be burnt, and the author to be banished from France. St. Amour retired to his native place, and was not permitted to return to Paris until the pontificate of Clement IV. He died at Paris in 1272. His works were published there in 1632, 4to. He was a man of learning and correct manners, of great zeal, and, in the opinion of a late writer, wanted only a more favourable soil, in which he might bring to maturity the fruits of those protestant principles, the seeds of which he nourished in his breast.

His first lauy being dead, he espoused about this time, 1716, a second of great merit and accomplishments, niece to madam de Maintenon, and widow of the marquis de Villette; with whom he had a very large fortune, encumbered, however, with a long and troublesome law-suit. In. the company and conversation of this lady, be passed his time in France, sometimes in the country, and sometimes at the capital, till 1723; when the king was pleased to grant him a full and free pardon. Upon the first nonce of this favour, the expectation of which had been the governing principle of his political conduct for several years, he returned to his native country. It is observable, that bishop Atterbury was banished at this very juncture; and happening, on his being set ashore at Calais, to hear that lord Bolingbroke was there, he said, “Then I am exchanged” His lordship having obtained, about two years after his return, ao act of parliament to restore him to his family-intjeriiancr, and to enable him to possess any purchase he should make, chose a seat of lord Tankerville, at Dawley near L'xbriJge Hi Middlesex; where he settled with his lady, and gratified his taste by improving it into a most elegant villa. Here he amused himself with rural employ ments, and with corresponding and conversing with Pope, Swift, and other friends but was by no means satisfied within for he was yet no more than a mere titular lord, and stood excluded from a seat in the House of Peers. Inflamed with this taint that yet remained in his blood, he entered again, in 172^, upon the public sta^e; and, disavowing all obligations to the minister Walpole, to whose secret enmity he iiMpuied his not having received the full effects of the royal merty intended, he embarked in the opposition, and distinguished himself by a multitude of pieces, written during me short remainder of that reign, and for some years under the following, with great boldness against the measures that were then pursued. Besides his papers in the “Craftsman,” which were the most popular in that celebrated collection, he published several pamphlets, which were afterwards reprinted in the second edition of his “Political Tracts,” and in the authorized edition of his works.

Having carried on his part of the siege against the minister with inimitable spirit for ten years, he laid down his pen, owing to a disagreement with his principal coadjutors; and, in 1735, retired to France, with a full resolution never to engage more in public business. Swift, who knew that this retreat was the effect of disdain, vexation, and disappointment, that his lordship’s passions ran high, and that his attainder' unreversed still tingled in his veins, concluded him certainly gone once more to the Pretender, as his enemies gave out; but he was rebuked for this by Pope, who assured him, that it was absolutely untrue in every circumstance, that he had fixed in a very agreeable retirement near Fontainbleau, and made it his whole business vacare liter is. He had now passed the 60th year of his age; and through a greater variety of scenes, both of pleasure and business, than any of his contemporaries. He had gone as far towards reinstating himself in the full possession of his former honours as great parts and great application could go; and seemed at last to think, that the door was finally shut against him. He had not been long in his retreat, when he began p a course of “Letters on the study and use of History,” for the use of lord Cornbury, to whom they are addressed. They were published in 1752; and, though they are drawn up, as all his works are, in an elegant and masterly style, and abound with just reflections, yet, on account of some freedoms taken with ecclesiastical history, they exposed him to much censure. Subjoined to these letters are, his piece “upon Exile,” and a letter to lord Bathurst “on the true use of study and Retirement.”

Upon the death of his father, who lived to be extremely old, he settled at Battersea, the ancient seat of the family, where he passed the remainder of his life. His age, his genius, perfected by long experience and much reflection, gave him a superiority over most of his contemporaries, which his works have not altogether preserved. Pope and Swift, however, were among his most ardent admirers; and it is well known, that the former received from him the materials for his “Essay on Man.” Yet, even in this retirement, he did not neglect the consideration of public affairs; for, after the conclusion of the war in 1747, upon measures being taken which did not agree with his notions of political prudence, he began “Some Reflections on the present state of the nation, principally with regard to her taxes and debts, and on the causes and consequences of them:” but he did not finish them. In 1749, came out his “Letters on the spirit of Patriotism, on the idea of a Patriot King, and on the state of parties at the accession of king George I:” with a preface in which Pope’s conduct, with regard to that piece, is represented as an inexcusable act of treachery to him. Of this subject we have already taken sufficient notice in our accounts of Mallet and Pope, Bolingbroke was now approaching his end. For some time a cancerous humour in his face had made considerable progress, and he was persuaded to apply an empirical remedy, which exposed him to the most excruciating tortures. Lord Chesterfield saw him, for the last time, the day before these tortures be^an. Bolingbroke, when they parted, embraced his old friend with tenderness, and said “God, who placed me here, will do what he pleases with me hereafter, and he knows best what to do. May he bless you” About a fortnight after he died, at his house at Battersea, Nov. 15, 1751, nearU eighty years old, if the date usually assigned to his birth be correct. His corpse was interred with tiiose of his ancestors in that church, where there is a marble monument erected to his memory.

His lordship’s estate and honours descended to his nephew; the care and profits of his manuscripts he left to Mallet, who published them, together with his works already printed, in 1754, 5 vls. 4to. They may be divided into, political anil philosophical w-jrks: the former of which have been mentioned already, and consist of “Letters upon History,” “Letter to Wyndham,” “Letters on Patriotism,” and papers in the “Craiisman;” which had been separately printed in 3 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Dissertation upon Parties,” “Remarks on the History of England,” and “Political Tracts.” His philosophical works consist of, “The substance of some letters written originally in French about 1720 to Mr. de Pouilly letter occasioned by one of abp. Tillotson’s sermons and letters or essays addressed to Alexander Pope, esq.” As Mallet had published an 8vo edition of the “Letters on History,” and the “Letter to Wyndham,” before the 4to edition of the works came out, he afterwards published separately the philosophical writings, 5 vols. 8vo. These essays, addressed to Pope, on philosophy and religion, contain many things which deny or ridicule the great truths of revelation; and, on this account, not only exposed the deceased author to the just animadversions of several writers, but occasioned also a presentment of his works by the grand jury of Westminster; but the saie of them was very slow, and of late years they are perhaps still less consulted. An edition, however, was published in 1809, in 8 vols. 8vo, with many additions, from subsequent authorities, to the life of Bolingbroke, which was written by Dr. Goldsmith. Some time before this, a valuable collection of lord Bolingbroke’s political correspondence was published in 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo, by the rev. Gilbert Parke, which contains much information respecting the memorable peace of Utrecht. His character has been drawn by various able pens, by Chesterfield, Mrs. Cot.kburn, Ruffhead (under the guidance of Warburton), lord Walpole, Horace Walpole, lord Orrery, &c. c. and although they differ in some points, coincide in proving that lord Bolingbroke was considered by all as a politician of an important class; that those who have been at most pains to dt fame him as an enemy, would have been very desirous to secure him as a friend, and that they uiay be credited in every thing sooner than in their affecting to undervalue his talents. Ambition and immorality constitute the great objections to his public and private character. His infidt- 1 principles were not much known before his death, except to his friends. Like Chesterfield and Hume, he left something behind him worse than he had produced in his life-time, and subjected himself to accusations to which he could no longer reply. In his character since, he has suffered equally by the just resentment of piety, and by the unforgiving prejudices of party; and an impartial history of his Conduct and opinions is perhaps yet a desideratum.

At his return into England, after his first visit to Paris, he studied the civil law under Vacarius, who taught with, great applause at Oxford in 1149. Embracing the monastic life at Canterbury, he became the chief confidant of two successive archbishops of that see, Theobald and Thomas a Becket. To the last of these he dedicated his celebrated work “Polycraticon, or De nugis curialium, et vestigiis philosophorum,” a very curious and valuable monument of the literature of his times. Although he did not approve some part of the conduct of Becket, he submitted to Henry the Second’s sentence of banishment, and remained in exile for seven years, rather than give up the party of the archbishop, which was the condition on which he might have been permitted to return. In negotiating Becket' s affairs, he performed no less than ten journeys into Italy. In one of these journeys, he obtained familiar intercourse with pope Adrian IV. his countryman, who having asked him what the world said of him and of the Roman church, John returned such an answer as might have been expected from the boldest of the reformers in the sixteenth century, telling his holiness, among other things, that the world said, “the pope himself was a burthen to Christendom which is scarcely to be borne.” The whole of this curious dialogue may be seen in the work above mentioned.

, a Welsh antiquary, was born of an ancient family in Denbighshire, and studied for some time at Oxford, whence he removed to Thaives-lnn, London. Here he applied to the law, but does not appear to have risen to any eminence, as Wood speaks of him as living, in his latter days in the house of a bookseller in St. Paul’s church-yard. His principal object appears to have been the cultivation of the Welsh Janguage, and the translation into it of the Bible, &c. It would appear that queen Elizabeth gave him a patent, for seven years, for printing in Welsh the Bible, CommonPrayer, and “Administration of tjie Sacraments.” “He compiled” A Dictionary in English and Welsh,“Lond. 1547, 4to.” A Little Treatise of the English pronunciation of the Letters.“” A plain and familiar introduction“to the same, Lond. 1550, 4to.” 'Battery of the Pope’s Bottereulx, commonly called the High-Altar,“ibid. 1550, 8vo.” The Laws of Howell Dha.“” A Welsh Rhetorick," revised, enlarged, &c. by Henry Perry, B. D. The period of his death is uncertain, but he was living in 1567.

With an insatiable thirst for knowledge, Salmasius had an early and stro'ng passion for fame. He commenced author when between sixteen and seventeen years of age, by publishing an edition of “Nili, archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis, de primatu papae llomani, libri duo, item Barlaam monachus, cum interpretatione Latina: Cl. Salmasii opera et studio, cum ejusdemin utrumque notis,” Hanover, 1608, and Heidelberg, 1608 and 1612, 8vo. By this publication against the authority of the pope, he seemed determined to make a more publit avowal of his sentiments than he had yet done, and to shew his zeal for the protestants, by consecrating his first labours as an author to their service. In 1609 appeared his edition of “Florus,” printed at Paris, 8vo, and dedicated to Gruter, whose notes are given along with those of Sahnasius. This was reprinted in 1636, and in 1638, to which last he added “Lucii Ampelii libellus inemorialis ad Macrinum,” which had never before appeared. In 1610, he returned home and was admitted an advocate, but had no intention to follow that profession, and preferred literature an 1 criticism as the sole employment of his life, and derived the highest reputation that erudition can confer. Such was his reputation, that he began to be courted by foreign princes and universities. The Venetians thought his residence among them would be such an honour, that they offered him a prodigious stipend; and with this condition, that he should not be obliged to read lectures above three times a year. We are told, that our university of Oxford made some attempts to get him over into England; and it is certain, that the pope made similar overtures, though Salmasius had not only deserted his religion, and renounced his authority, but had actually written against the papacy itself. He withstood, however, all these solicitations; but at last, in 1632, complied with an invitation from Holland, 'and went with his wife, whom he had married in 1621, to Leyden. He did not go there to be professor, or honorary professor; but, as Vorstius in his “Funeral Oration” expresses it, tc to honour the university by his name, his writings, and his presence."

, a Spanish prelate, admired for his writings in the fifteenth century, was born at Santa Maria de Nieva, in the diocese of Segovia, in 1404. After being instructed in classical learning, and having studied the canon law for ten years at Salamanca, he was honoured with the degree of doctor in that faculty; but afterwards embraced the eqclesiasUca! profession, received priest’s orders, and was made successively archdeacon of Trevino in the diocese of largos, dean of Leon and dean of Seville. The first preferment he held twenty years, the second seven, and the third two years. Ahout 1440, John II. king of Castille, appointed him envoy to the emperor Frederick III. and he was also afterwards employed in similar commissions or embassies to other crowned heads. When Calixtus III. became pope, Henry IV. king of Castille, sent him to congratulate his holiness, which occasioned him to take up his residence at Rome. In all his embassies, he made harangues to the different princes to whom he was sent, which are still preserved in ms. in the Vatican library. On the accession of pope Paul II. he made Sanchez governor of the castle of St. Angelo, and keeper of the jewels and treasures of the Roman church, and afterwards promoted him to the bishoprics of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. These last appointments, however, were little more than sinecures, as he never quitted Rome, and employed what time he could spare from his official duties in that city in composing a great many works, of which a list of twenty-nine may be seen in our authorities. He died at Rome Oct. 4, 1470$ and was interred in the church of St. James of Spain. Although so voluminous a writer, by far the greater part of his works remain in ms. in the Vatican and other libraries ) we know of three only which were published, 1. his history of Spain, “Historiae Hispanise partes quatuor.” This Marchand seems to think was published separately, but it was added to the “Hispania Illustrata” of Bel and Schott, published at Francfort in 1579, and again in 1603. 2. “Speculum vitse humaoce, in quo de omnibus omnium vitte ordinum ac conditionum commodis ac incommodis tractatur,' r Rome, 1468, folio, which, with three subsequent editions, is accurately described in the” Bibliotheca Speuceriana.“This work contains so many severe reflections on the clergy of the author’s time, that some protestant writers have been disposed to consider him as a brother in disguise. It is certainly singular that he could hazard so much pointed censure in such an age. 3.” Epistola de expugnatione Nigroponti>,“folio, without date, but probably before the author’s death. A copy of this likewise occurs in the” Bibl. Spenceriana." Those who are desirous of farther information respecting Sanchez or his works may be amply gratified in Marchand, who has a prolix article on the subject.

Some years after, having received an invitation from the pope, he took a journey to Rome, whence he was sent as nuncio to the popish bishops and clergy in Ireland, and landed there in 1579. At this time Gerald Fitzgerald, earl of Desmond, was in arms, as he pretended, in defence of the liberties and religion of his country; but in 1583 his party was routed and himself killed. The part Sanders took in this rebellion is variously represented. Camden says that he was sent over purposely to encourage Desmond, and that several companies of Spanish soldiers went over with him, and that when their army was routed, he fled to the woods, and died of hunger. All that the catholics deuy in this account, is, that Sanders was sent purposely i but this they deny very feebly. With regard to the manner of Sanders’s death, Dodd seems inclined to prefer Wood’s account, who says that he died of a dysentery, and Dodd likewise adopts the report of Rushton and Pits, who say that he died at the latter end of 1580, or the beginning of 1581, because this was long before Desmond’s defeat, and consequently dissolves in some measure the supposed connection between him and Sanders. Dodd, however, who is generally impartial, allows that several catholics, his contemporaries, were of opinion that he was engaged in the Spanish interest against queen Elizabeth; and his writings prove that he maintained a deposing power both in the church and people, where religion was in danger. He was, according to all accounts, a man of abilities, and was considered as the most acute adversary for the re-establishment of popery in England, which his party could boast of. He had, however, to contend with men of equal ability, who exposed his want of veracity as well as of argument, and few of his works have survived the times in which they were written. Among them are, 1. “The Supper of our Lord, &c.” a defence of the real presence, being what he calls “A confutation of Jewel’s Apology, as also of Alexander Newel’s challenge,” Louvain, in 1566, 1567, 4to. 2. “Treatise of the Images of Christ and his Saints; being a confutation of Mr. Jewel’s reply upon that subject,” ibid. 1567, 8vo.- 3. “The Rock of the Church/ 1 eoncerning the primacy of St. Peter, ibid. 1566, 1567, St. Omer’s, 1624, 8vo.' 4.” A brief treatise on Usury,“ibid. 1566. 5.” De Visibili monarchia Ecclesia,“ibid. 1571, folio, Antwerp, 1581, Wiceburg, 1592. 6.” De origine et progressu Schismatis Anglicani,“Colon. 1585, 8vo, reprinted at other places in 1586, 1588, and 1590, and translated into French in 1673, with some tracts on the tenets of his church, which seem not of the controversial kind. Mo’st of the former were answered by English divines of eminence, particularly his large volume” De visibili monarchia ecclesise," by Dering, Clerk, and others, of whose answers an account may J>e seen in Strype’s Life of Parker. That on the English schism is refuted, as to his more important assertions, in the appendix to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. II.

, an Italian ecclesiastical historian, was born June 31, 1692, and became, by the interest of his bishop, cardinal Rezzonico, who was afterwards pope Clement XIII. librarian and professor of ecclesiastical history at Padua, where he died, Feb. 23, 1751, in the fiftynrnth year of his age. He is known principally by his “Vitae Pontificum Romanorum,” Ferrara, 174-8, reprinted under the title of “Basis Historic Ecclesiasticae.” He also wrote “Historic Familiae Sacne;”. “HistoriaS. S. Apostolorum;” “Disputationes XX ex Historia Ecclesiastica ad Vitas Pontificum Romanorum,” and “Dissertations,” in defence of the “Historic Familiie Sacrae,” which father Serry had attacked.

Sandys distinguished himself also as a poet; and his productions in that way were greatly admired in the times they were written. In 1632 he published “Ovid’s Metamorphoses Englished, mythologized, and represented in figures,” Oxford, in folio. Francis Cleyn was the inventor of the figures, and Solomon Savary the engraver. He had before published part of this translation; and, in the preface to this second edition, he tells us, that he has attempted to collect out of sundry authors the philosophical sense of the fables of Ovid. To this work, which is dedicated to Charles I. is subjoined “An Essay to the translation of the jEneis.” It was reprinted in 1640. In 1636, he published, in 8vo, “A Paraphrase on the Psalms of David, and upon the Hymns dispersed throughout the Old and New Testament,” 1636, 8vo, reprinted in 1638, folio; with a title somewhat varied, This was a book which, Wood tells us, Charles I. delighted to read, when a prisoner in Carisbrooke castle. There was an edition of J 640, with the Psalms set to music, by Lawes. In this last year he published, in 12rno, a sacred drama, written originally by Grotius, under the title of “Christus Patiens,” and which Mr. Sandys, in his translation, has called “Christ’s Passion,” on which, and “Adamus Exul,” and Masenius, is founded Lauder’s impudent charge of plagiarism against Milton. This translation was reprinted, with cuts, in 1688, $vo. The subject of it was treated before in Greek by Apollinarius bishop of Hierapolis, and after him by Gregory Nazianzen; but, according to Sandys, Grotius excelled all others. Langbaine tells us, with regard to Sandys’ translation, that “he will be allowed an excellent artist in it by learned judges; and he has followed Horace’s advice of avoiding a servile translation, * nee verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres’ so he comes so near the sense of his author, that nothing is lost; no spirits evaporate in the decanting of it into English; and, if there be any sediment, it is left behind.” He published also a metrical paraphrase of “The Song of Solomon,” London, 1641, 4to, dedicated to the King, and reprinted in 1648 with his “Psalms.” There are but few incidents known concerning our author. All who mention him agree in bestowing on him the character, not only of a man of genius, but of singular worth and piety. For the most part of his latter days he lived with sir Francis Wenman, of Caswell, near Witney in Oxfordshire, to whom his sister was married; probably chusing that situation in some measure on account of its proximity to Burford, the retirement of his intimate acquaintance and valuable friend Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who addressed some elegant poems to him, preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” with several by Mr. Sandys, who diejl at the house of his nephew, sir Francis Wyat, at Boxley in Kent, in 1643; and was interred in the* chancel of that parish-church, without any inscription but in the parish register is this entry “Georgius Sandys poetarum Anglorum sui sseculi facile princeps, sepultus fuit Martii 7, Stilo Angliae, ann. Dom. 164$.” His memory has also been handed down by various writers, with the respect thought due to his great worth and abilities. Mr. Dryden pronounced him the best versifier of the age, but objects to his “Ovid,” as too close and literal; and Mr. Pope declared, in his notes to the Iliad, that English poetry owed much of its present beauty to his translations. Dr. Warton thinks that Sandys did more to polish and tune the English versification than Den ham or Waller, who are usually applauded on this subject; yet his poems are not now much read. The late biographer of his father observes, that “the expressive energy of his prose will entitle him to a place among English classics, when his verses, some of which arebeautiful, shall be forgotten. Of the excellence of his style, the dedication of his travels to prince Henry, will afford a short and very conspicuous example.”

, a learned Italian prelate, was born at Polignano in 1649, and studied principally at Naples. He commenced his career as an author about 1668, and published some pieces connected with grammar and polite literature. In 1675, after he had been admitted to priest’s orders, pope Clement X. made him honorary prothonotary; and in 1679, he was appointed grand vicar to cardinal Orsini, and obtained other preferment in the church. He died in 1724. He was the author of above thirty works, enumerated by Niceron and Moreri, of which we may mention, “Lettere ecclesiastiche,” in 9 vols. 4to “II Clero secolare nel suo Splendore, overo della vita commune clericale” “Bestiarum Schola ad Homines erudiendos ab ipsa rerum natura provide instituta, &c. decem et centum Lectionibus explicata;” “Memorie Cronologiche de* Vescovi et Arcivescovi di Benevento, con la serie de Duchi e Principi Longobardi nella stessa citta;” and the lives of Baptista Porta, Boldoni, &c. He sometimes wrote under assumed names, as Solomon Lipper, Esopus Primnellius, &c.

At this time he was in his twentieth year, and defended in a public assembly at Mantua, several difficult propositions in natural philosophy and divinity, with such uncommon genius and learning, that the duke of Mantua, a great patron of letters, appointed him his chaplain, at the same time that the bishop of that city made him reader of canon law and divinity in his cathedral. These employments animated him to improve himself in Hebrew; and he applied also with much vigour to the study of history, in which he was afterwards to shine. During his stay at Mantua he became acquainted with many eminent persons; and his patron, the duke, obliged him to dispute with persons of all professions, and on all subjects. Paul had a profound knowledge in the mathematics, but the utmost contempt for judicial astrology: “We cannot, 17 he used to say,” either find out, or we cannot avoid, what will happen hereafter." Fulgentio, his biographer, relates a ludicrous story, in which his patron appears to have been a chief actor. The duke, who loved to soften the cares of government with sallies of humour, having a mare ready to foal a mule, engaged Paul to take the horoscope of the animal’s nativity. This being done, and the scheme settled, the duke sent it to all the famous astrologers in Europe, informing them, that under such an aspect a bastard was born in the duke’s palace. The astrologers returned very different judgments; some asserting that this bastard would be a cardinal, others a great warrior, others a bishop, and others a pope, and these wise conjectures tended not a little to abate the credulity of the times.

Father Paul’s great fame would not suffer him any longer to enjoy his retreat: for he was now appointed procuratorgeneral of his order; and during three years at Rome, where he was on that account obliged to reside, he discovered such extraordinary talents, that he was called by the pope’s command to assist in congregations where matters of the highest importance were debated. He was very much esteemed by Sixtus V. by cardinal Beliarmine, and by cardinal Castegna, afterwards Urban VII. Upon his return to Venice, he resumed his studies, beginning them before sun-rise, and continuing them all the morning. The afternoons he spent in philosophical experiments, or in conversation with his learned friends. He was now obliged to remit a little from his usual application: for, by too intense study, he had already contracted infirmities, with which he was troubled till old age. These made it necessary for him to drink a little wine, from which he had abstained till he was thirty years old; and he used to say, that one of the things of which he most repented was, that he had been persuaded to drink wine. He ate scarce any thing but bread and fruits, and used a very small quantity of food, because the least fulness rendered him liable to violent pains of the head.

His tranquillity was now interrupted by other causes. Upon leaving Venice to go to Rome, he had left his friends under the direction of Gabriel Collissoni, with whom he had formerly joined in redressing certain grievances. But this man did not answer Paul’s expectation, being guilty of great exactions: and, when Paul intended to return to Venice, dissuaded him from it, well knowing that his return would put an end to his impositions. He therefore artfully represented, that, by staying at Rome, he would be sure to make his fortune: to which Paul, with more honesty than policy, returned an answer in cypher, that “there was no advancing himself at the court of Rome, but by scandalous means; and that, far from valuing the dignities there, he held them in the utmost abomination.” After this he returned to Venice; and, coming to an irreconcileable rupture with Collissoni, on account of his corrupt practices, the latter shewed his letter in cypher to cardinal Santa Severina, who was then at the head of the inquisition. The cardinal did not think it convenient to attack Paul himself, although he shewed his disaffection to him by persecuting his friends; but when Paul opposed Collissoni’s being elected general of the order, the latter accused him to the inquisition at Rome of holding a correspondence with the Jews; and, to aggravate the charge, produced the letter in cypher just mentioned. The inquisitors still did not think proper to institute a prosecution, yet Paul was ever after considered as an inveterate enemy to the court of Rome. He was charged also with shewing too great respect to heretics, who, on account of his reputation, came to see him from all parts; and this prevented pope Clement VIII. from nominating him, when he was solicited, to the see of Noia. He was also accused of being an intimate friend of Mornay, of Diodati, and several eminent Protestants; and, that when a motion was*made at Rome to bestow on him a cardinal’s hat, what appeared the chief obstacle to his advancement was, his having more correspondence with heretics than with Catholics. “Diodati informed me,” says Ancillon, in his “Melange de Literature,” that, “observing in his conversations with Paul, how in many opinions he agreed with the Protestants, he said, he was extremely rejoiced to find him not far from the kingdom of heaven; and therefore strongly exhorted him to profess the Protestant religion publicly. But the father answered, that it was better for him, like St. Paul, to be anathema for his brethren; and that he did more service to the Protestant religion in wearing that habit, than he could do by laying it aside. The elder Daille told me, that in going to and coming from Rome with de Villarnoud, grandson to Mornay, whose preceptor he was, he had passed by Venice, and visited Paul, to whom Mornay had recommended him by letters; that, having delivered them to the father, he discovered the highest esteem for the illustrious Mr. Da Plessis Mornay; that he gave the kindest reception to Mr. de Villarnoud his grandson, and even to Mr. Daille; that afterwards Mr. Daille” became very intimate with father Paul," &c. All this is confirmed by father Paul’s letters, which on every occasion express the highest regard for the Protestants.

About 1602, he was diverted from his private studies, which he had now indulged, though amidst numerous vexations, for many years, by the state of public affairs. A dispute arose between the republic of Venice and the court of Rome, relating to ecclesiastical immunities; and, as both divinity and Taw were concerned in it, father Paul was appointed divine and canonist for the republic of Venice, to act in concert with the iaw-consultors. The dispute had commenced, and been carried on, under ClementVIII.; but when Paul V. came to the popedom, he required absolute obedience without disputes. At length, when he found his commands slighted, the pope excommunicated the duke, the whole senate, and all their dominions, in April 1606, and the Venetians in return recalled their ambassador at Rome, suspended the inquisition by order of state, and published by sound of trumpet a proclamation to this eilect, viz. “That whosoever hath received from Rome any copy of a papal edict, published there, as well against the law of God, as against the honour of this nation, shall immediately bring it to the council of ten upon pain of death.” But as the minds, not only of the common burghers, but also of some noble personages belonging to the state, were alarmed at this papal interdict, Paul endeavoured to relieve their fears, by a piece entitled “Consolation of mind, to quiet the consciences of those who live well, against the terrors of the interdict by Paul V.” As this was written for the sole use of the government under which he was born, it was deposited in the archives of Venice; till at length, from a copy clandestinely taken, it was first published at the Hague, both in the Italian and French languages, and the same year in English, under this title, “The Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, argued from the civil, canon, and common law, under the several heads of Excommunications, Interdicts, Persecution, Councils, Appeals, Infallibility, describing the boundaries of that power which is claimed throughout Christendom by the Crown and the Mitre; and of the privileges which appertain to the subjects, both clergy and laity, according to the laws of God and Man.” Paul wrote, or assisted in writing and publishing, several other pieces in this controversy between the two states; and had the Inquisition, cardinal Bellarmine, and other great personages, for his antagonists. Paul and his brother writers, whatever might be the abilities of their adversaries, were at least superior to them in the justice of their cause. The propositions maintained on the side of Rome were these; that the pope is invested with all the authority of heaven and earth that all princes are his vassals, and that he may annul their laws at pleasure that kings may appeal to him, as he is temporal monarch of the whole earth; that he can discharge subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and make it their duty to take up arms against their sovereign that he may depose kings without any fault committed by them, if the good of the church requires it that the clergy are exempt from all tribute to kings, and are not accountable to them even in cases of high treason; that the pope cannot err; that his decisions are to be received and obeyed on pain of sin, though all the world should judge them to be false; that the pope is God upon earth, and that to call his power in question, is to call in question the power of God; maxims equally shocking, weak, pernicious, and absurd, which did not require the abilities or learning of father Paul, to demonstrate their falsehood, and destructive tendency. The court of Rome, however, was now so exasperated against him, as to cite him by a decree, Oct. 30, 1606, under pain of absolute excommunication, to appear in person at Rome, to answer the charges of heresies against him. Instead cf appearing, he published a manifesto, shewing the invalidity of the summons; yet offered to dispute with any of the pope’s advocates, in a place of safety, on the articles laid to his charge.

In April 1607, the division between Rome and the republic was healed by the interposition of France; and Fulgentio relates, that the affair was transacted at Rome by cardinal Perron, according to the order of the king his master. But some English writers are of opinion, that this accommodation between the Venetians and the pope was owing to the misconduct of king James I., who, if he had heartily supported the Venetians, would certainly have disunited them from the see of Rome. Isaac Walton observes, that during the dispute it was reported abroad, “that the Venetians were all turned Protestants, which was believed by many: for it was observed, that the English ambassador (Wotton) was often in conference with the senate and his chaplain, Mr. Bedel, more often with father Paul, whom the people did not take to be his friend and also, for that the republic of Venice was known to give commission to Gregory Justiniano, then their ambassador in England, to make all these proceedings known to the king of England, and to crave a promise of his assistance, if need should require,” c. Burnet tells us, “That the breach between the pope and the republic was brought very wear a crisis, so that it was expected a total separation not only from the court, but the church of Rome, was like td follow upon it. It was set on by father Paul and the seven divines with much zeal, and was very prudently conducted by them. In order to the advancing of it, king James ordered his ambassador to offer all possible assistance to them, and to accuse the pope and the papacy as the chief authors of all the mischiefs of Christendom. Father Paul and the seven divines pressed Mr. Bedel to move the ambassador to present king James’s premonition to all Christian princes and states, then put in Latin, to the senate; and they were confident it would produce a great effect. But the ambassador could not be prevailed on to do it at that time; and pretended, that since St. James’s day was not far off, it would be more proper to do it on that day. Before St. James’s day came, the difference was made up, and that happy opportunity was lost; so that when he had his audience on that day in which he presented the book, all the answer he got was, that they thanked the king of England for his good will, but they were now reconciled to the pope; and that therefore they were resolved not to admit any change in their religion, according to their agreement with the court of Rome.” Welwood relates the same story, and imputes the miscarriage of that important affair to “the conceit of presenting king James’s book on St. James’s day.” But JDr. Hickes attempts to confute this account, by observing, that the pope and the Venetians were reconciled in 1607, and that the king’s premonition came not out till 1609, which indeed appears to be true; so that, if the premonition was really presented, it must have been only in manu* Script.

The defenders of the Venetian rights were, though comprehended in the treaty of April 1607, excluded by the Romans from the benefit of it; some, upon different pretences, were imprisoned, some sent to the gallies, and all debarred from preferment. But then their malice was chiefly aimed against father Paul, who soon found the effects of it; for, on Oct. 5, 1607, he was attacked, on his return 19 his convent, by five assassins, who gave him fifteen wounds, and left him for dead. Three of these wounds only did execution: he received two in the necki^ the third was made by the stiletto’s entering his right ear* a,)d coming out between the nose and right cheek; and so violent was the stab, that the assassin was obliged to leave his weapon in the wound. Being come to himself, and having had his wounds dressed, he told those about him, that the first two he had received seemed like two flashes of fire, which shot upon him at the same instant; and that at the third he thought himself loaded as it were with a prodigious weight, which stunned and quite confounded his senses. The assassins retired to the palace of the pope’s nuncio at Venice, whence they escaped that evening either to Ravenna or Ferrara. These circumstances discovered who were at the bottom of the attempt; and Paul himself once, when his friend Aquapendente was dressing his wounds, could not forbear saying pleasantly, that “they were made Stilo Romans Curia.” The person who drew the stiletto out of his head, was desirous of having it; but, as father’s Paul’s escape seemed somewhat miraculous, it was thought right to preserve the bloody instrument as a public monument: and^therefore it was hung at the feet of a crucifix in the church of the Servites, with the inscription, “Deo Filio Liberatori,” “To God the Son the Deliverer.” The senate of Venice, to shew the high regard they had for Paul, and their detestation of this horrid attempt, broke up immediately on the news; came to the monastery of the Servites that night in great numbers; ordered the physicians to bring constant accounts of him to the senate; and afterwards knighted and richly rewarded Aquapendente for his great care of him.

When the news of his death reached Rome, the courtiers rejoiced; nor could the pope himself forbear saying, that the hand of God was visible in taking him out of the world, as if it had been a miracle surely that a man of seventy-two should die! His funeral was distinguished by the public magnificence of it, and the vast concourse of nobility and persons of all ranks attending it: and the senate, out of gratitude to his memory, erected a monument to him, the inscription upon which was written by John Anthony Venerio, a noble Venetian. He was of middle stature; his head very large in proportion to his body, which was extremely lean. He had a wide forehead, in the middle of which was a very large vein. His eye-brows were well arched, his eyes large, black, and sprightly his nose long and large his beard but thin. His aspect, though grave, was extremely soft and inviting and he had a very fine hand. Fulgentio relates, that though several kings and princes had desired him to sit for his picture, yet he never would suffer it to be drawn but sir Henry Wotton, in his letter to Dr. Collins, writes thus “And now, sir, having a fit messenger, and not long after the time when lovetokens use to pass between friends, let me be bold to send you for a new-year’s gift a certain memorial, not altogether unworthy of some entertainment under your roof; namely, a true picture of father Paul the Servite, which was first taken by a painter whom I sent unto him, my house then neighbouring his monastery. I have newly added thereunto a tide of my own conception,” Concilii Tridentini E viscera tor, &c. You will find a scar in his face, that was from the Roman assassinate, that would have killed him as he was turned to a wall near his convent."

Father Fulgentio, his friend and companion, who was a man of great abilities and integrity, and is allowed on all hands to have drawn up Paul’s life with great judgment and impartiality, observes, that, notwithstanding the animosity of the court of Rome against him, the most eminent prelates of it always expressed the highest regard for him; and Protestants of all communities have justly supposed him one of the wisest and best men that ever lived. ther Paul,“says sir Henry Wotton,” was one of the humblest things that could be seen within the bounds of humanity; the very pattern of that precept, quanta doctior, tanto submissior, and enough alone to demonstrate, that knowledge well digested non wflat. Excellent in positive, excellent in scholastical and polemical, divinity: a rare mathematician, even in the most abstruse parts thereof, as in algebra and the theoriques; and yet withal so expert in the history of plants, as if he had never perused any book but nature. Lastly, a great canonist, which was the title of his ordinary service with the state; and certainly, in the time of the pope’s interdict, they had their principal light from him. When he was either reading or writing alone, his manner was to sit fenced with a castle of paper about his chair and over his head; for he was of our lord St. Alban’s opinion, that all air is predatory, and especially hurtful, when the spirits are most employed. He was of a quiet and settled temper, which made him prompt in his counsels and answers; and the same in consultation which Themistocles was in action, ayro-xE&aÆiv ivavoTarogj as will appear unto you in a passage between him and the prince of Conde. The said prince, in a voluntary journey to Home, came by Venice, where, to give some vent to his own humours, he would often divest himself of his greatness; and after other less laudable curiosities, not long before his departure, a desire took him to visit the famous obscure Servite. To whose cloyster coming twice, he was the first time denied to be within; and at the second it was intimated, that, by reason of his daily admission to their deliberations in the palace, he could not receive the visit of so illustrious a personage, without leave from the senate, which he would seek to procure. This set a greater edge upon the prince, when he saw he should confer with one participant of more than monkish speculations. So, after Jeave gotten, he came the third time; and then, besides other voluntary discourse, desired to be told by him, who was the true unmasked author of the late Tridentine History? To whom father Paul said, that he understood he was going to Rome, where he might learn at ease, who was the author of that book."

the only clergyman belonging to it. In lain, and a well-stored wine-cellar clergyman ever admitted into it, was a member of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, and was D. D. of both universities. He was rector, first of Bygrave, then of Clottiall, Herts, and lecturer of St. George, Hanover-square, London. In his younger days he had travelled with James, fifth earl of Salisbury, who gave him the great living of Clothall, where Dr. Savage rebuilt the rectory-house. In his more advanced years he was so lively, pleasant, and facetious, that he was called the “Aristippus” of the age. One day, at the levee, George I. asked him, “How long he had stayed at Rome with lord Salisbury” Upon his answering how long, “Why,” said the king, “you stayed long enough, why did you not convert the Pope” “Because, sir,” replied he, “I had nothing better to offer him.” Having been bred at Westminster, he had always Jl great fondness for the school, attended at all their plays and elections, assisted in all their public exercises, grew young again, and, among boys, was a great boy himself. He used to attend the schools, to furnish the lads with extempore epigrams at the elections. He died March 24, 1747, by a fall down the stairs belonging to the scaffolding for lord Lovat’s trial; and the king’s scholars had so great a regard for him, that, after his decease, they made a collection among themselves, and, at their own charge, erected a small tablet of white marble to his memory in the East cloister, with a Latin inscription. Besides a visitation and an assize sermon, Mr. Cole attributes the following works to him: 1. “The Turkish History by Mr. Knolles and sir Paul Rycaut abridged,” 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. This was shewn to sir Paul, who approved of it so much, that he designed to have written a preface to it, had not death prevented him. 2. “A Collection of Letters of the Ancients, whereby is discovered the morality, gallantry, wit, humour, manner of arguing, and in a word the genius of the Greeks and Romans,” 1703, 8vo.

He now recovered his liberty, but had no means of subsistence; and a scheme struck him, by which he might compel his mother to do something for him, and extort that from her by satire, which she had denied to natural affection. The expedient proved successful; and lord Tyrconnel, on his promise to lay aside his design, received him into his family, treated him as his equal, and engaged to allow him a pension of 200/, a-year. In this gay period of life, when he was surrounded by affluence and pleasure, he published “The Wanderer, a moral Poem,” 1729, which was approved by Pope, and which the author himself considered as his master-piece. It was addressed to the earl of Tyrconnel, with the highest strains of panegyric. These praises, however, in a short time, he found himself inclined to retract, being discarded by that nobleman on account of his imprudent and licentious behaviour. He now thought himself again at liberty to expose the cruelty of his mother, and accordingly published “The Bastard, a Poem.” This had an extraordinary sale: and, its appearance happening at a time when the countess was at Bath, many persons there in her hearing took frequent opportunities of repeating passages from it, until shame obliged her to quit the place.

This offer he seemed to accept with great joy, and set out on his journey with fifteen guineas in his purse. His friends and benefactors, the principal of whom was Pope, expected now to hear of his arrival in Wales; but, on the 14th day after his departure, they were surprised with a letter from him, acquainting them that he was yet upon the road and without money, and could not proceed withfcut a remittance. The money was sent, by which he was enabled to reach Bristol; whence he was to go to Swansea by water. He could not immediately obtain a passage, and therefore was obliged to stay some time at Bristol; where, with his usual facility, he made an acquaintance with the principal people, and was treated with all kinds of civility. At last he reached the place proposed for his residence; where he stayed a year, and completed a tragedy, which he had begun in London. He was now desirous of coming to town to bring it on the stage: but his friends, and particularly Pope, who was his chief benefactor, opposed the design very strongly; and advised him to put it into the hands of Thomson and Mallet, to fit it for the stage, and to allow his friends to receive the profits, out of which an annual pension should be paid him. The proposal he rejected, quitted Swansea, and set off for London; but, at Bristol, a repetition of the kindness he had formerly found, invited him to stay. He stayed so long, that by his imprudence and misconduct he weaned out all his. friends. His wit had lost its novelty; and his irregular behaviour, and late hours, grew very troublesome to men of business. His money was spent, his cloaths worn out, and his shabby appearance made it difficult for him to obtain a dinner. Here, however, he stayed, in the midst of poverty, hunger, and contempt, till the mistress of a coffeehouse, to whom he owed about Si. arrested him for the debt. He could find no bail, and was therefore lodged in prison. During his confinement, he began, and almost finished, a satire, entitled “London and Bristol delineated;” in order to be revenged on those who had no more generosity than to suffer a man, for whom they professed a regard, to languish in a gaol for so small a sum.

When he had been six months in prison, he received a letter from Pope, on whom his chief dependance now rested, containing a charge of very atrocious ingratitude. Savage returned a very solemn protestation of his innocence; and he appeared much disturbed at the accusation. In a few days after, he was seized with a disorder, which at first was not suspected to be dangerous; but, growing daily more languid and dejected, at last, a fever seizing him, he expired, August 1, 1743, in his forty-sixth year, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Peter, at the expence of the gaoler. Thus lived, and thus died, Richard Savage, leaving behind him a character strangely chequered with vices and good qualities. He was, however, undoubtedly a man of excellent parts; and, had he received the full benefits of a liberal education, and had his natural talents been cultivated to the best advantage, he might have made a respectable figure in. life. He was happy in. an agreeable temper, and a lively flow of wit, which made his company much coveted nor was his judgment, both of writings and of men, inferior to his wit but he was too much a slave to his passions, and his passions were too easily excited. He was warm in his friendships, but implacable in his enmity; and his greatest fault, which is indeed the greatest of all faults, was ingratitude. He seemed to think every thing due to his merit, and that he was little obliged to any one for those favours which he thought it their duty to confer on him: it is therefore the less to be wondered at, that he never rightly estimated the kindness of his many friends and benefactors, or preserved a grateful and due sense of their generosity towards him.